Tag Archives: trust

Information about the Family Justice System: Who can you trust?

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore

I have been asked to provide a synopsis of information about those organisations and people that I think should be treated with caution when it comes to information about the Family Justice System.  What follows is my personal opinion – but, as ever, my opinion is based upon evidence from a variety of sources, including criminal convictions and criticism from the civil courts.

The people I list range from serious criminals to those who genuinely and passionately believe what they say and may have some grounds to support it. I do not suggest that people on this list – save for the obviously criminal – have nothing of value or interest to say about the state of our family justice system.

I do however think that, given the nature of their sources and associates, whatever they say needs to be treated with caution and checked against independent sources, wherever possible.

I believe we all have a moral duty to make decisions with the best possible information and take conscious efforts to be aware when bias and prejudice might lead us astray.



Self identifying ‘investigative journalist’, arrested at court in support of Samantha Baldwin. Also believes in organised satanic ritual abuse and accusing those who report accurately about family law cases of ‘defamation’.

The Freeman on the Land

Be very wary of anyone who identifies as a Freeman.  In essence, they believe that they can escape being subject to the law by refusing to recognise it. This causes immediate and obvious problems in care proceedings and is almost inevitably an entirely doomed strategy.  For further detail see this post. 

GERRISH Brian and UK Column

Part of UK Column, which describes itself as ‘an independent multi media news website’ long standing associate of Hemming et al. Was one of the first people McNeil approached with videos of the children in the Hampstead Hoax case – but looks like he had the sense to turn her down. 

See also the Richie Allen Show.

HAIGH Victoria

Supported by Hemming; unusual for being named in family court judgments after she was found to have caused serious emotional harm to her child by pushing a false narrative that the child’s father had sexually abused her. Was given a custodial sentence for her breach of a non molestation order and worked with Elizabeth Watson, who was also given a custodial sentence for contempt of court in revealing details about Haigh’s case. Believes that the family court sanctions the deliberate ‘breeding ‘of babies to be handed over to paedophiles.

For further information see this post. 

And ‘The danger of crusades’ from The Transparency Project.

HAINES Tim and Julie

Close associates with Hemming and his organisation Justice for Families, which no longer appears to have a web presence. Following Tim Haines arrest in 2014 for leaving his daughter alone in a car, the couple developed a keen interest in the child protection system and appear to operate from a starting point that any social work intervention with a family can rarely be justified. They offer their services as paid McKenzie friends and appear to encourage people to make appeals to the Court of Appeal that they know to be hopeless, simply to send a message about how strongly people feel. I advise that you do not give either money or documents to either of the Haines, without having a clear idea about what they are proposing to do to help your case.


Hemming has been a dedicated campaigner against the FJS since 2007 after some social work involvement with his then pregnant partner. He has over the years made some reasonable and sensible points. However what good he has done is significantly eclipsed by the bad.  He was patron of Sabine Mc Neil and Belinda McKenzies’ Association of McKenzie friends along with MP Austin Mitchell until early 2015. Has repeatedly urged parents to leave the jurisdiction as they won’t get a fair hearing in the UK.  Has worked closely with Ian Josephs and Christopher Booker. He was seriously criticised by Lord Justice Wall. I have no doubt he caused a lot of damage while a serving MP as his position gave him credibility. However his influence appears to have diminished since he lost his seat in 2015.

I made a formal complaint about the activities of JFF in January 2017. I am still waiting for a response.

Further information is here.


A long standing critic of the FJS and author of the infamous ‘Golden Rules’ which includes advice to mothers to think very carefully before even reporting fears about sexual abuse of their children. He is a wealthy man and has given large sums of money over the years to parents who wish to leave the jursidction to escape care proceedings. He carries out no risk assessments of the parents to whom he gives money; his finest hour so far was providing money to Marie Black to travel to France – she was later convicted of over 20 serious sexual offences against children.

MCNEIL Sabine and the Hampstead Hoax

McNeil is currently serving a 9 year sentence for her harassment of families involved in the ‘Hampstead Hoax’ case. This case has proved a useful short cut to identifying the most dangerous of the FJS Conspiracy Theorists. Hoaxstead Research has done sterling work in unmasking the hoaxers and is a good point of reference. It recently reported that McNeil’s appeal against her sentence was refused.

Sabine McNeil has been associated with almost every person or organisation that causes me serious concern with regard to misinformation about the family justice system. See also Belinda McKenzie and the damage done by her and McNeil in the Melissa Laird Case, as just one example out of many.

The Ministry of Justice

It is a tribute to just how odd 2019 has been that I include a Government Department in this list. But the MoJ easily make the cut following their bizarre decision to launch an Inquiry over 3 months into how issues of violence are dealt with in the family courts; that Inquiry apparently proceeding on the basis that men are perpetrators of violence and that law and policy are best discussed in the context of a raft of subjective and unchecked submissions from the public.  It maybe that the outcome of the Inquiry is sensible and I can remove them from the list. But I am not holding my breath and will treat information disseminated by this Department with caution from now on.  Further further details see this post.


Runs Freedom Talk Radio which he asserts ‘has become the very platform for people with an alternative view point to come onto the show and to announce their findings, ideas and suggestions and allows them to open up to the citizens by revealing their true beliefs on just exactly what is taking place in our World from their view point, which does on so many occasions, conflict and call into question with what is being broadcasted by the mainstream media, which they dare not report the truth’. Associated with and friendly to a great many of the most pernicious influencers on the FJS Conspiracy circuit. 


Runs the Researching Reform Website. Has connections with Hemming and at one point made Sabine McNeil her ‘star commentator’. As the comments on her web posts shows, she continues to interact largely with those who are identified ‘players’ on the conspiracy scene.


Further reading

Are you sitting comfortably? The art of Story Telling. 

The Particular Dangers of Conspiracy Theories for Parents 

Who should I trust? Advice from a family law barrister.

This is a guest post by family law barrister Lucy Read, who writes the Pink Tape blog.

Read a review of her book ‘Family Courts without a Lawyer’ here.


The importance of good advice

If social services are involved with your family or wanting to remove your children one thing you need is sound advice. There is lots of information out there on the internet, but not all advice is good advice, and general guidance does not always translate into a plan for what you should do in your own individual circumstances. Some things are universal but your family and your exact situation is unique.


The most important thing is to get information and advice before taking any rash actions. You don’t have to follow the advice you get, the decisions are up to you – but first listen to what people who know the system tell you.


If you are a parent and social services are talking about going to court or about removing your children you will be able to get free legal advice, and representation in court through legal aid – it doesn’t matter what your income is or how difficult your case is. If you are a family member such as a grandparent caring for a child you may also get free legal advice and representation – but this is generally not automatic and will depend on your finances and how strong your case is.


Most legal aid lawyers act for parents and children in these kinds of cases as their specialty. So they know a thing or two about what works and what doesn’t. If they advise you on a course of action think very carefully about what they are saying before disregarding it. If you don’t understand why they are advising you to do something – ask them. A good lawyer should explain why they are advising you to do or not to do something.


 Your lawyer acts for YOU and takes your instructions

Your lawyer is just that – your lawyer. They are independent of social services and will fight for you. But a part of their job is to advise you if something is hopeless or very unlikely to succeed, and to explain why pressing for a particular thing might make things worse. You need to know what your chances are before you go into court. So don’t be upset if they tell you something you don’t really want to hear – think seriously about what they say.


Your lawyer must act on your instructions though – so even if you decide not to accept their advice they will still argue your case for you. Do not worry that just because they have given you advice you don’t particularly like, or that you hope is overly pessimistic, that your lawyer is not on your side. They should be frank in private about your chances, but when in court or in negotiations will present your case and your arguments in the best light, putting forward the best points and challenging the evidence for you. They are used to having clients disagree with their advice, and will not be offended if you say you’d like to take a different course of action.


There are some restrictions on how far a lawyer can press a case for you – they can’t mislead the court by telling the judge something they know is not true, they can’t argue something that in their professional opinion is wrong in law or completely unarguable (they can still argue a weak case though), but it is ultimately up to them not you to decide how to run the case to give you the best chance of success – sometimes this means they won’t mention things that you think are important because they aren’t relevant or aren’t going to be as helpful as you think. But apart from those things your lawyer will run your case based on your instructions. If you think your lawyer is not doing this you can change your lawyer, but do think carefully about doing this because it can be difficult to get your legal aid transferred to a new lawyer’s firm and this can cause delay.


Most family lawyers are pretty good at what they do, but of course there are some that are not so good. It’s best to talk to your lawyer if you think they aren’t fighting your corner – they should be able to explain to you why they’ve adopted a particular approach in court, so it’s best to clear up any potential misunderstanding before rushing off to another lawyer.


Be wary of some sources of information

There is a lot of material out there on the internet about other people’s cases, some about cases which have gone wrong, or where social services have been criticized – some of it may be very frightening for you. You might feel like you should run away or that you shouldn’t trust social services. Don’t panic and take decisions based on what you read online – read it by all means, but ask your lawyer about it and how it applies to your case. And then, make your decisions.


Some information on the internet suggests that legal aid lawyers are “professional losers” who advise their clients not to oppose removal of their children, or who even agree to it without their clients instructions. It generally makes no difference to your lawyer financially whether you agree or don’t agree – there is no financial advantage in pressurising you to agree to settle something – a shorter hearing is usually paid less than a longer one. I’ve already explained that your representative must act on your instructions, even if they are foolish. It is your lawyers job to encourage you to make sensible decisions that are most likely to achieve your long term goal of keeping or getting back your children, but if you insist they must take the course of action you instruct. If they refuse to act on proper instructions your lawyer is committing professional misconduct and you can complain or change lawyer. I can’t say this never happens but in 11 years I have never been involved in a case where this has happened.


There is also some material on the internet and in the press that suggests or implies that there is a widespread corruption or conspiracy amongst social services or that social workers cook up allegations in order to snatch children from loving homes just so that they can be adopted, and that this is somehow for financial reward. I don’t think that is true, and the evidence for it is very weak : I think, based on my 11 years of experience of dealing with these cases and acting for parents, social services and children, that sometimes some social workers get things wrong, and sometimes some social workers make up lies or paint a misleading picture, and sometimes some social workers are too quick to suggest removal or adoption of children. Which is why you need a lawyer to guide you through the process. Ultimately you will have to make up your own mind about these sorts of things. Be sure to put yourself in a position where you have enough good quality information to assess those claims before jumping to conclusions or freaking out.


All family lawyers know that social services don’t always get things right, and they also know the best ways of demonstrating that to the court. But although you may not agree with everything social services say about you, usually there is some legitimate basis for their concern even if they have exaggerated or mixed things up or painted a misleading picture. You do need to address the points that they have got right rather than just deny everything.


Listen to what other people are worried about

Every case is different, but almost always your best chance of keeping your children or of getting them back is to listen to the concerns that are raised – really listen – think about whether the people raising those concerns might have a bit of a point, and think about what you can do to reassure people or to change things. It’s okay to say you’ve got things wrong in the past and that you haven’t been a perfect parent, but you do need to reassure people that things will be different in the future and show them why. It’s also okay to say that social services have got things wrong, but you’ll need to explain and show them where they’ve got it wrong. Burying your head in the sand, being angry or rude, or running away may make social services – and the court – more worried about how your children can be kept safe.


So. Listen to what social workers are saying even if you don’t agree with them. Get some legal advice and think about that advice before acting on it. Come to court and if you can, follow the advice of your lawyer about what you need to do at court and between court hearings, to give yourself the best possible chance. Base your actions on good information rather than on the advice of people who don’t know all the facts about your family or on your own emotions. And take responsibility for your own decisions.