The UKIP contribution to the debate.
This is a post by Sarah Phillimore
On Monday 26th October the Guardian published an article by Douglas Carswell the UKIP MP. This called for the family courts to ‘open up’ in order to avoid ‘outrageous injustices’. UKIP had previously discussed the child protection system in their manifesto, calling for a ‘far reaching child care review’:
A misplaced sensitivity to issues of race and religion, combined with fear, has been
shown to have stopped many investigations into the abuse of children. There is also
concern among the public at rising levels of ‘forced’ adoptions. Some of those charged
with protecting children in care are letting serious cases of abuse and maltreatment slip
through the net. Our children’s wellbeing lags behind many of our European neighbours
and we are seeing alarming rates of self-harm and poor mental health. UKIP is committed to bringing forward a full, open review of all childcare and child protection services in Britain, with a view to initiating wholesale reform of a system that is clearly failing. Our children deserve better and UKIP will investigate failings without fear or favour to deliver a safer, brighter, fairer future for our children.
In the Guardian article, Douglas Carswell was publicising a policy paper on opening up the family courts, written with Duncan Simpson, the deputy director of UKIP’s ‘parliamentary research unit’. I haven’t yet had time to read this policy paper in full, but note the Guardian’s precis of its main conclusions:
- More use of special guardianship orders to allow grandparents to take over the care of a child.
- The opening up of placement and adoption order proceedings to the media on the same basis as other family law proceedings.
- A requirement that all judgments be published, except where the presiding judge seeks and obtains a contrary order from the president of the high court family division.
- The media to be allowed access to expert reports on an anonymised basis with restrictions enforced only in the most exceptional cases.
The first suggested reform indicates that UKIP have a pretty shaky grasp on what is actually happening on the ground; particularly the disquiet expressed from many about the significant increase in the use of SGOs and how these don’t necessarily represent what is in the best interests of an individual child.
I have no problem with the second third or fourth; I think they are sensible and should be implemented.
However, the devil as always is in the detail. Douglas Carswell is quoted:
Ukip’s only MP suggested that his reforms would have prevented the heartache suffered by Karissa Cox and Peter Butler, who lost custody of their child after being wrongly accused of abuse. The child was put up for adoption after the couple took their baby to hospital after the six-week-old started bleeding from its mouth. Staff at the hospital noticed bruising on the baby, prompting the authorities to take the child into care and to charge the parents with child cruelty.
The parents were cleared this month, by which time the child had been adopted. “If our reforms had been in place that case could not have happened,” Carswell said.
The obvious question is – how on earth could the reforms as set out above have had any impact whatsoever on a case where the medical evidence was incomplete or incorrect – which was the fundamental problem for Karissa Cox and Peter Butler:
Defence experts discovered the child was suffering from Von Willebrand disease, a blood disorder that causes a person to bruise easily, as well as a vitamin D deficiency, which causes infantile rickets. An independent radiologist, commissioned by the prosecution, concluded that he doubted there were any fractures at all.
But its the next bit that really leapt out at me:
The Ukip MP said he accepted that in many disputed cases children need to be taken into care or adopted against the wishes of the parents. “I am not saying it is wrong for the state to forcefully break up a family. There are times when it has to do that.
“But at least the evidence should be tested in an open court. At least there should be some opportunity for people to know what it is they are being accused of ... and at least the people who are preparing the evidence ought to have met the people they are giving evidence about.”
First problem: to say that parents in care proceedings don’t have an opportunity to know the case against them is utterly and bizarrely wrong. Not only do parents know the case against them but the state will pay for their lawyers to challenge the case against them. It is baffling why lawyers are continually air brushed out of the narrative about the Evil and Secret Family Courts; maybe its because we are just so utterly ineffective, ‘legal aid losers’ in the pockets of the local authorities, etc, etc, etc.
Its an extremely irresponsible untruth to keep bandying about. Because no doubt it terrifies vulnerable people who are facing these kinds of proceedings. Is UKIP simply ignorant of how the court process works? Of the rule of law? Of the opportunities to challenge evidence? To cross examine witnesses, professional or otherwise?
Second problem: what does he mean about ‘people preparing the evidence ought to have met the people they are giving evidence about”? Is this an accusation that expert evidence about parents’ mental or physical health is routinely provided by experts who don’t meet the parents? If he is saying this that, in my view it simply isn’t true – I accept there have been some worrying examples of bad practice but these are rare – in my own experience spanning 15 years I have never had to deal with a psychiatrist or psychologist who reported without meeting my parent client (although I did make a complaint about a psychologist who was prepared to make an updating report 2 years after she met the parents, without seeing them again) .
Is he saying that doctors examining X-rays or the bruises on a child’s body ought to meet the parents first? If so, why?
Either UKIP just don’t know how the court system works, or they don’t care and would rather a sexy soundbite for a national newspaper than a contribution to responsible debate. This article doesn’t fill me with optimism that their ‘parliamentary research unit’ is going to make an helpful contribution to the debate about how we make our child protection system better.
What a pity. Because as UKIP set out in their manifesto they recognise that many things are going very badly wrong for our children. The last thing we need is just more ill-informed noise to distract us from the realities.
I will now add the UKIP policy paper to my reading list. Maybe I will find some answers to my questions there. But I hope you will forgive me if I am less than optimistic.
They are asking Academics be involved in question 9. I am already working on this with Academics. John Hemming is fully aware of this but refuses to deal with me in a professional manner.
Where are UKIP deriving their information about family law from? I rest my case.
The Lib Dem’s tragic loss will be UKIP’s most helpful gain, I am sure.
Guess who… They are issue & reform is needed but fact & research crucial. Point 9 on the list is already being worked on as I am involved.
I do hope JH defects as he has no principles. [I have been asked to remove the rest of this comment by Tim Haines on the grounds that it is libelous. I can make no comment about that but I am removing the comment at his request].
LibDems have some excellent current&new candidates with morals.
I am not going to run out and vote for UKIP but I do not discount their spokeperson’s concerns so easily ,certainly not.
I agree that evidence should be tested in an open court. I don’t believe they are currently but correct me if I am wrong.Perhaps there is a bizaare misunderstanding!
QUOTE: At least there should be some opportunity for people to know what it is they are being accused of:UNQUOTE
As I have tried to point out before,in a family court, respondents are not actually accused of anything concrete.The court is presented with a series of ‘concerns’ which SW’s claim justifies a protection order on their fears that a child may be at significant risk of future harm were an order not issued.
Do academics think respondents are accused of cruelty and/or neglect in Family Courts and have the opportunity to refute the accusations?If they do, that is quite a bizaare misunderstanding.In FACT , although the CS are supposed to be open and honest,transparent etc. and give parents an opportunity to present agreements and disagreements and have them circulated to all the professionals involved they are not.Quite often SW’s fail completely even to meet with parents and discuss issues at all. Bizaare,I know but this is what happens.
If barristers think the CS always investigate ‘concerns’ fairly following the correct legal procedures,they have been misled as are Judges.Quite often the CS will explain away their failures by saying the parents will not acknowledge concerns and cooperate without first investigating the validity of concerns.
Parents are not accused of anything and aren’t actually fully aware that they are engaged in a contest or that they are defending themselves against anything.They are told that they are to cooperate with proceedings which are being taken to help and support the family. Many have no idea and do not know until the final care-plan emerges late in proceedings that permanent removal is on the cards.Why have they no idea? Because they have not been consulted or involved in the creation of the care-plans.More particularly,they haven’t been asked whether or not they acknowledge concerns.
QUOTE:Second problem: what does he mean about ‘people preparing the evidence ought to have met the people they are giving evidence about”? Is this an accusation that expert evidence about parents’ mental or physical health is routinely provided by experts who don’t meet the parents?:UNQUOTE
On the evidence of many,many parents it is true that so-called expert evidence is given without meeting them. There is more bad practice than barristers and academics think!
In my own experience,as an ordinary parent spanning 27 years I have seen evidence prepared by social work professionals who have not met either parents OR children.
Here is a list of examples:-
1. Much evidence from Social Work teams is prepared by team-managers and sw’s other than the key social worker without meeting parents.If lawyers think that does not happen,they are wrong.
2.Very often,Guardians present evidence to Courts before meeting parents and wrong inferences are taken as a result.They will present interim opinions and reports before examining the circumstances fully. They rarely fail to contact the CS for its contribution.
3. Paediatricians routinely prepare reports about children and the parent’s care of children without meeting the respondents.One commented when questioned,that he did not find it helpful to meet parents and ask for their accounts of the family history.Quite bizaare! Like the Guardians, they never fail to consult with both other (professional) parties.No wonder parents often question the paediatricians evidence.
4. Placement teams.Adoption officers and those who make permanence plans and permanence LAC medical reports NEVER meet parents before presenting their evidence and plans.How can they possibly know the true medical history of children?
I am sure other parents can think of more examples than I can,off the cuff. In one case I have direct experience of, in the instruction letter to a psychologist who was to report on children and parental care , the CS and Guardian actually directed him not to talk to parents for their outlooks or talk to them about their ability to parent children.He was instructed to make assessments on observations only.Bizarrely, the respondent’s lawyers agreed those instructions.Of course, the instructions did not stop him talking to the other parties.
QUOTE:Is he saying that doctors examining X-rays or the bruises on a child’s body ought to meet the parents first? If so, why?:UNQUOTE
Why do you think? Do you realise that minors are entitled by law to be examined in the presence of their parents? Just think how doctors can be misled if they present evidence to a court without knowing a child’s medical history and meeting parents for explanations.If Social Workers mistreat children and cause bruises etc,they are hardly likely to admit it ,are they?
I think lawyers give SW’s too much credit for their integrity.Sometimes I doubt whether THEY know how the system appears to work against the real truth coming out.
This post is intended to be a constructive one aimed at narrowing the gulf between parents and professionals as always.
This thread is not about JH.
Angelo, one of my pet hates is when these situations arise and parents are within the realms of Family Courts, it is then the parents set about “Disproving” the allegations or concerns made against them.
It is an unhealthy path to walk, it is not made clear outside legal circles that the onus is on the Applicant to prove their case, there is an little known section in law that a parent has the right to avoid self-incrimination.
That matter in 2013 expertly analysed in another place by Mr suesspiciousminds
http://suesspiciousminds.com/2013/09/13/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you/
It refers to section 98 CA 89
98 Self-incrimination.
(1)In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from—
(a)giving evidence on any matter; or
(b)answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence,on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.
(2)A statement or admission made in such proceedings shall not be admissible in evidence against the person making it or his spouse in proceedings for an offence other than perjury.
Yes Jerry Lonsdale,thanks for the contribution.If it helps,in this parents view, it is impossible to disprove allegations that are not made.Mainly parents are faced with concerns; we are meant to express agreements but if we do, the professionals say we will not acknowledge their concerns and hold it against us ( without checking whether we are right or wrong).,
Likewise,we are meant to be open and honest with the court and tell the truth;to volunteer to difficulties we might be having and to admit to faults.These are then piled onto the scales and used against us and it is claimed we do not fully understand the seriousness.
A rocky path to walk indeed! The sad thing is that if you read McFarlane and all the others,the CS are meant to be fair,impartial and to present all evidence including that against removal.If only they fully understood and complied with that duty,there would be little problem and the Children’s Act might work.
Of course I meant ‘agreements and disagreements’.Slip of the keyboard!
As I have tried to point out before,in a family court, respondents are not actually accused of anything concrete.The court is presented with a series of ‘concerns’ which SW’s claim justifies a protection order on their fears that a child may be at significant risk of future harm were an order not issued.
This is simply untrue. For e.g. in my cases over the past year they have involved threshold criteria which refer to acts of violence evidenced by criminal convictions and police reports. Injuries to a child evidenced by reports from hospitals. Neglect evidenced by photographs of the house in an appalling condition and reports from the children’s school. Just how much more concrete can you get??
Quite often SW’s fail completely even to meet with parents and discuss issues at all. Bizaare,I know but this is what happens. That is certainly not my experience. SW have only refused to talk to my parent clients when they have been threatened with serious harm. But even if SW do ‘refuse’ to discuss issues with parents, they will certainly have to prove their concerns in court and be cross examined by me or another lawyer.
I don’t see why a doctor who is reviewing X-rays or photographs of old bruises should have to meet the child’s parents. If Team Managers do prepare SW evidence that is a very foolish practice as it is the SW who have to give evidence and justify what they say. Paediatricians who are providing a diagnosis about a child do not necessarily have to meet the parents. I think you are conflating many issues here. The key issue is surely that if a medical or psychiatric report is prepared about a PARENT, then the expert must meet that parent. But there are many situations where expert evidence can be provided by review of papers or photographs, particularly when talking about injuries to a child.
Your example of a psychologist being instructed not to talk to the parents is indeed bizarre. That should not happen. If it did happen it would render that evidence virtually useless in court.
I have seen many cases where the social worker does not ‘speak’ to the parents, there is nothing wrong with the home standards (and mine are really really high!), the psychologist doesn’t interview parents, school has no concerns, allocated ‘worker’ admits ‘I found nothing, but my manager is re-writing it to say there is something,’
Parents are presented with ‘evidence’ that is over 5/6 years old.
Whilst I have the greatest respect for you SP, not all solicitors or Barristers have your high level of professionalism, commitment and passion for the job as you do.
The lower courts (which is where most of the ‘action is’) do operate on a ‘guilty until innocent method.’
(quote)
I don’t see why a doctor who is reviewing X-rays or photographs of old bruises should have to meet the child’s parents. If Team Managers do prepare SW evidence that is a very foolish practice as it is the SW who have to give evidence and justify what they say. Paediatricians who are providing a diagnosis about a child do not necessarily have to meet the parents. I think you are conflating many issues here. The key issue is surely that if a medical or psychiatric report is prepared about a PARENT, then the expert must meet that parent. But there are many situations where expert evidence can be provided by review of papers or photographs, particularly when talking about injuries to a child. – (unbquote) I actually agree with you on this point.
TC
The key issue is that neither of you are medically qualified thus, whilst your opinions are not entirely worthless, they are not really valid. You cannot judge..
Might I suggest you ask the medical authorities the precise reasons why , in the normal course of events,paediatricians will refuse to assess children or conduct x-ray tests etc. in the absence of their parents who can tell them the full medical history and give answers to other crucial questions known only to the family. Ask them why there are strict medical laws and procedures which stipulate that a parent’s attendance is necessary before any assessment and why the fully-informed written consent of parents is essential before it is considered a valid one!
For a start,often the child lacks the capacity to give information and they must see those with parental responsibility.
In the context of court proceedings,let us not overlook the question of impartiality.If doctors receive information from one party to a case but not the other even a blind man can see assessments are likely to be biased.
Angelo, I am working with stakeholders on these issues. JH was invited to work with me & them but instead chooses to take a different approach. I am off to a meeting now about this. Thank you for you comments.
This explains why the family Courts operate not to give out justice but to ensure that nearly all the parents coming beforthem lose their precious children…………
[You have made this comment and quoted Michelle Freedman repeatedly on this site and on others for what seems like many years now. It adds nothing to the debate. It is simply scaremongering so I delete it]
QUOTE:Your example of a psychologist being instructed not to talk to the parents is indeed bizarre. That should not happen. If it did happen it would render that evidence virtually useless in court : UNQUOTE
Sarah, On this point ,thank you for your opinion.May I ask you to bear with me and enlarge on it and explain specific,legal reasons why the evidence would be rendered virtually useless in court?
We both agree the example is bizarre but I do not understand fully to what extent such an instruction letter would ‘ poison’ the expert evidence.
It’s not a question of the evidence being ‘poisoned’ its a question of the evidence being pretty useless. If a psychologist is asked to provide an opinion about the psychological state of a person they have never met, its like asking an estate agent to value a house on a few photographs. You might be able to give a broad over view but to value a house properly, you need to see it.
In the bizaare case I mentioned, the instruction letter also a direction that the psychologists should not proffer an opinion as to whether the parents were able to care for their children but to allow the court to come to its own conclusions.
Yet the expert assessment in question had been demanded by the respondents and ordered by the Judge for that precise reason.
This makes one think the instruction letter was deliberately( and maliciously ) penned to negate the expert assessment by rendering it virtually useless in court.
Is it any wonder that parents suspect their solicitors have a conflict of interest when they agree such a bizaare Lof E?
That may not be as bizarre as it sounds. It is always made clear to experts that they are not the ones deciding the case – that is only ever the role of the judge. The role of the expert is to provide expert evidence about their field of specialism. So for e.g., they are entitled to say ‘ in my view this parent has this disorder’ or ‘this parent has the following problems with parenting’ but they are NOT allowed to say ‘therefore this child should not be with this parent’. They can make recommendations, not try to determine outcomes.
so I don’t have a problem with that at all, but I will continue to have a problem with a purported assessment of a parent, if that parent isn’t actually spoken to by the expert doing the assessment.
Sarah.Check through some of the purported ‘in-depth’ core assessments in your past cases and see how SHALLOW they are.This is because the SW who has made them ( an expert?) hasn’t met the parents whenwriting them.
Also,check out the sw’s list of sources to see if any teachers or medics have been seen.Few if any.