Download
1 / 72
720 likes | 911 Vues
CAFCASS and the Judiciary -Unhealthy alliances-. "Blackstones" Constitutional law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial functions states The principal functions of the judiciary may be described, in part as follows:
E N D
CAFCASS and the Judiciary-Unhealthy alliances- "Blackstones" Constitutional law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial functions states The principal functions of the judiciary may be described, in part as follows: • To provide for the orderly resolution of disputes, whether between private individuals or bodies, or involving public bodies or the exercise of public or governmental functions by public or private bodies; • To uphold the principle of legality or the rule of law; • To protect the individual against unlawful state activity;
Guardian Unlimited (Sunday, January 16, 2005) Families Denied Justice The iron law of all bureaucracies is 'first we protect ourselves'. In an ideal world they would look to free themselves from scrutiny by operating under the cover of secrecy. They would strive to deflect criticism by maintaining the pretence that it was in the public interest to operate in absolute privacy. If they could go further they would then make a breach of their secrecy a crime punishable with all penalties up to and including imprisonment. In an ideal world all bureaucracies would want to achieve the state of perfect irresponsibility achieved by the Family Division of the High Court
Legal “rape” of families in the best interest of whom? –Answer: Feminist’s and the Government!Weak families make strong Government. “Unfortunately, evidence is steadily and increasingly surfacing of widespread corruption in the Courts in many parts of the World” (UNODCCP)
Children’s wishes and feelings The first question is how is this assessed? Social services, CAFCASS and NYAS have no training, guidance, procedure or policies on how to question children.
Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council • In Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council, a libel case heard in open Court at paragraph 405 it is stated: • Young children are suggestible. • Great care is required in analyzing and assessing the weight to be given to statements from young children. • It is important to take into account the context of any such statement and how it was elicited (for example, whether any pressures, rewards or leading questions were used). • It is necessary to focus also on the wider circumstances of the child’s life in the period leading up to any such "disclosure" that might explain or colour what the child is saying. • It is vital to take into account delay between any event recounted and the statement itself. • One should take into account carefully any bias or pre-conceived ideas in the mind of an interviewer. • It is desirable to have in mind throughout any scope for contamination by statements from others, whether children or adults. • Similarities between what one child is saying and the statements of another may be two-edged, in the sense that they might tend to corroborate one another’s accuracy or merely reflect a common source. • One should be wary of interpreting childish references to behaviour, or parts of the body, through the distorting gauze of adult learning or reading
In paragraph 408; At the risk of over-simplification, it is possible to highlight some of the propositions thrown up by the research that need to be addressed. ...It is important, first, to recognise that, although such obvious factors as leading questions, repetition, pressure, threats, rewards and negative stereotyping can fundamentally undermine the evidential worth of a child’s account, it may well be that a child will tailor his or her account in response to more subtle and less easily detected influences. In particular, there is (or may be) a tendency to say what the child perceives the questioner would like to hear. Moreover, it may not be as easy to spot that a child is adopting such an approach, as it would be to identify a leading question. What had, I believe, not been generally appreciated prior to the recent research was that children do not merely parrot what has been suggested to them but will embellish or overlay a particular general theme with apparently convincing detail. This can be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children.
ECtHR guidance In Sommerfeld v Germany 2003 it states: 42. ‘‘it must determine whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the applicant has been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests. 43. ..Correct and complete information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as the parent seeking access to the child is an indispensable prerequisite for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a fair balance between the interests at stake. 44. In the Court’s opinion, the German courts’ failure to order a psychological report on the possibilities of establishing contacts between the child and the applicant reveals an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process. ’’ In the case of CASE OF GÖRGÜLÜ v. GERMANY (Application no. 74969/01) 26 February 2004 it is stated that ‘‘Although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for family life. Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited
And in the UK? In Re N Ward L.J. expressed agreement with a passage in the judgment of Wall J in Re and B ( Minors) (No.1) (Investigation of Alleged Abuse) [1995] 3 F.C.R. 389,409: "From a forensic view point para. 12.35 of the [Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland (1987) (Cm 412) the unsuitability of having a parent present at an interview] remains a correct statement of the proper practice, particularly in a case where the only evidence of abuse up to the date of the first interview was what the mother has said the child has said to her. Quite apart from any pressure which the mother’s presence may place on the child, the golden rule is that each interview is to be approached with an open mind: such a rule is in my view immediately broken if the mother is present at the interview".
Psychiatrists? • In the words of Morritt L.J. In Re F.S. (Minors) (Care Proceedings) [1996] 1 F.C.R. 667, 676-677: • "The use of child psychiatrists is obviously of the greatest assistance to the court in many cases. In some instances that will extend to pointing out features of the child’s evidence which tend either to support or undermine its credibility.’’ Yet a well-known Child Psychiatrist has been permitted to use untested theory called ‘opposition to contact’ which he was asked to invent by a High Court Judge which GMC refuse to address to-date. This makes Professor Meadows statistical errors minor in comparison.
Criminal proceedings? • In T. v U.K. (16 December 1999) and V. v U.K. (16 December 1999), cases concerning murder charges against very young children, the Court noted that Article 6 , read as a whole guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in the trial. The Court noted • “The formality and ritual of the Crown Court must at times have seemed incomprehensible and intimidating for a child of eleven … the applicant states that he was unable to follow the trial or take decisions in his own best interests.” (para. 86, T. v U.K.) • Importantly the Court added “… the Court does not consider that it was sufficient for the purpose of Article 6(1) that the applicant was represented by skilled and experienced lawyers.” (para.88, T. v U.K.).
Parenthood? Yet in many cases known of children’s wishes and feelings are ignored even to the extent when a child has to run away or suffers harm. There are also cases where when it goes against the wishes of the Court or it’s agencies the children’s wishes and feelings are totally ignored.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (Excerpt taken from Kilgore v. Boyd, Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Hillsborough County, Family Law Division. Case no. 94-7573, Div. D) THE COURT: ... If I do have to apply a Frye test he has passed the Frye test. And I find that parental alienation syndrome has passed the Frye test in my courtroom, which is a Circuit Court Courtroom in the Family Law division, based on the evidence and the argument before me. The evidence and the argument before me, the testimony and the CV of Dr. Gardner, together with an excerpt of his writings. There was also proffered an article from the Florida Bar Journal which, quite frankly, I read when it came out and at the time I read it I placed some credibility in it.
Dr. Gardner • Richard A. Gardner, M.D. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) • "This condition arises as a distinctive form of psychological injury to children in high conflict divorce. It occurs when the child becomes aligned with one parent as a result of the unjustified and/or exaggerated denigration of the other parent. This leads to an impaired relationship with the alienated (target) parent and an absolute loss of parenting as a result of the hostility of the parent producing the alienation. In most cases of high conflict divorce, there are degrees of alienation. In severe cases, the child's once love-bonded relationship with the target/rejected parent is destroyed."
Some would say the State is Stealing The Minds Of Our Children. Gillick competence is being abused. No child is competent until at least 14/15 and the Courts have ruled a child of five can be questioned if they wish to see their parents. GPs have now been asked to see children alone. GPs get paid a bonus for prescribing contraceptives under the teenage pregnancy strategy. Prozac, Ritalin and other harmful drugs are prescribed in the absence of holistic assessment as to the effects of food additives on behaviour such as Aspartame and Mono-sodium glutamate, Fluoride, and food colourings. Psychiatry has not yet found one single cause or cure for mental disorders and their methodology is unscientific. Ritlain is over-prescribed for children of divorce. Denial of PAS – Parental Alienation Syndrome is harming the nation’s children;
PAS criteria PAS is characterised by a cluster of symptoms that usually appear together in the child, especially in the moderate and severe types. These include: 1. A campaign of denigration 2. Weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the deprecation 3. Lack of ambivalence 4. The independent-thinker phenomenon 5. Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict 6. Absence of guilt over cruelty to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent 7. The presence of borrowed scenarios 8. Spread of the animosity to the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent.
LEGAL CITATIONS Coursey v. Superior (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987. The Court finds that the mother, Loretta Coursey, has induced such animosity of their daughter toward their father, Eugene Coursey, that the child now suffers with parental alienation syndrome, and refuses to visit her father. The Court, therefore, fines the mother $500 and sentences her to five (5) days in jail. The order, however, is stayed as long as the mother successfully completes scheduled visitations of their daughter with the father. The Court also orders Loretta Coursey to pay Eugene Coursey $1,000 for attorney fees. (COURSEY V. COURSEY Sutter County Superior Court (California) No. 33254 August 18,1987)1988
Poisoning children Schultz v. Schultz, 522 So.2d 874, 13 Fla L. Weekly 387 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., Feb 09, 1988). Reference is made here to the parental alienation syndrome and the inculcation of the children's alienation by the mother. The Court threatened "the severest penalties this Court can impose, including contempt, imprisonment, loss of residential custody, or any combination thereof if the mother did not comply with this Court's order to cease and desist from her "slowly dripping poison into the minds of the children" rather than to instill love and respect for the father.On appeal the Florida Third District Appeals Court ruled that the Judge had acted properly and that there were no grounds for the mother's appeal. (SCHUTZ V. SCHUTZ, 467 So. 2nd 407 Fla. 4th DCA 1985)1989
Parental fitness • Krebsbach v. Gallagher, Supreme Court, App. Div., 181 A.D.2d 363; 587 N.Y.S. 2d 346, (1992). “Interference with the relationship between a child and a non-custodial parent by the custodial parent is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Leistner v Leistner, 137 A.D.2d 499, 524 N.Y.S.2d 243; see also, Matter of Krebsbach v Gallagher, 181 A.D.2d 363, 366, 587 N.Y.S.2d 346) 1993 1994
Best interests “Best interests of child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both natural parents. TWERSKY V. TWERSKY, (2 Dept 1984) 103 A.D. 2d 775, 477 N.Y.S. 2d 409 “Visitation is not only a joint right of a parent and child, but it is also in the best interests of child to have a meaningful relationship with his or her father.LYNG V. LYNG, (4 Dept 1985) 112 A.D. 2d 29, 490 N.Y.S. 2d 940. In the Uk the best interests of a child is simply whatever the State and it’s agencies does and the Judge rules on.
Change of residence? “Change of child custody is appropriate if the custodial parent’s conduct deliberately frustrates, denies, or interferes with the other parents visitation rights.” VICTOR L. V. DARLENE L. (1 Dept 1998) ___ A.D. 2d ___, 674 N.Y.S. 2d 371 (emphasis added).
MMPi 2 testing FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, Volume 16, Number 4, 1998, p. 5-14MMPI-2 VALIDITY SCALES AND SUSPECTED PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME MMPI-2 validity scales of two groups of parents going through child custody evaluations, parents who engage in parental alienation syndrome (PAS) behaviors and parents who do not, were compared. It was hypothesized that PAS parents would have significantly higher L and K scales and a significantly lower F scale than parents who do not engage in these behaviors. The hypothesis was confirmed for K and F scales, indicating that PAS parents are more likely to complete MMPI-2 questions in a defensive manner, striving to appear as flawless as possible. It was concluded that parents who engage in alienating behaviors are more likely than other parents to use the psychological defenses of denial and projection, which are associated with this validity scale pattern. Implications of this finding regarding possible personality disorders in PAS parents are discussed.
Judicial view of fathers? Hon. Richard HunterFormer chief judge of the King's County (Brooklyn) Family Court Prominent member of the New York State Commission on Child SupportJudge Hunter on fathers: "You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved; he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o'clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological." Quoted in "The Fathers Also Rise," New York Magazine, November, 18, 1985.
Judicial disbelief Judge Turner in reply to a parent who sought to question a court welfare officer’s report: ‘That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that it is totally wrong that members of the public can challenge judges and court welfare officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.’ HHJ Milligan told another parent that if he came back in the right frame of mind anything might be possible.
Why worry? Parental Alienation Syndrome or PAS will give rise to mental health and psychological disorders and dysfunction. PAS is recognised in Germany, Holland, Israel, Spain, Canada having passed the Mohan Test and in the United States having passed two Frye tests. Yet in the UK the main case law on it is re L,V,M and H, stating that PAS is a misnomer after a report by Sturge and Glaser two feminist psychiatrists on the issue of Domestic violence not on the psychology behind PAS as admitted by LJ Wall.
Current UK situation Parental alienation Syndrome exists even if the Court denies it exists. Children’s welfare is being destroyed. Already in the UK we have the greatest amount of teenage pregnancies which is directly related to fatherlessness, the worst ever mental health of teenagers, increasing teenage delinquency, rape, drug and alcohol abuse, self harming, poor behaviour in schools and rapidly increasing violence. This is backed up by the BMA report in 2004 and the UNICEF report 2007.
Data on suicide.. There is a 70% increase in the rates of men (young fathers) committing suicide (Home Office). 64% boys and 36 % girls on special needs – total numbers 1.5 million as having Special Education Needs- single parents ? (Depart. of Education).
After the problem – what answer? Raja V Austin Gray (a firm), [2002] EWHC 1607 (QB) 31st July 2002 and in particular paragraph 12 where it states; It seems to me that it is reasonable and in the public interest to expect professionals, and indeed anyone else offering particular skills for reward, to exercise them with reasonable competence. This includes the Judiciary with their ample pensions, lawyers, barristers, Guardians, Social workers, CAFCASS officers.
Proper training In the CASE OF T.P. AND K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28945/95) The local authority, which is charged with the duty of protecting the child and is a party in the court proceedings, may reasonably not be regarded by a parent as being able to approach the issue with objectivity. The question whether crucial material should be disclosed should therefore not be decided by the local authority, or the health authority responsible for the medical professional who conducted the interview. The same principle applies to CAFCASS and other agencies of the State.
The Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland (1987). At para. 12.34, it is to • be noted that unanimity was recorded among the experts who had given evidence to • the inquiry in relation to a number of matters. Those were endorsed by the inquiry team: • All interviews should be undertaken only by those with some training, experience and aptitude for talking with children. • The need to approach each interview with an open mind. • The style of the interview should be open-ended questions to support and encourage the child in free recall. • The interview should go at the pace of the child and not of the adult. • The setting for the interview must be suitable and sympathetic. • There must be careful recording of the interview and what the child says, whether or not there is a video recording. • It must be recognised that the use of facilitative techniques may create difficulties in • subsequent court proceedings. • The great importance of adequate training for all those engaged in this work.
WHAT is the State DOING? Decisions in the Family Court are often made based on a bench memorandum which the Court refuses to disclose even though ECtHR rulings state advisory opinions must be disclosed. State bodies have failed to take even the most rudimentary steps to have complaints procedures e.g. NYAS, did not have archive policy until requested under FOI e.g. CAFCASS and NYAS, have no policies, procedure or guidance on questioning children – CAFCASS, NYAS, Local Authority social services. Judiciary have been known to provide defences for the State bodies or other litigants and thereby act as party to the case when convenient, ignore litigant’s argument and facts of the case when convenient, introduce ‘facts’ and Judgements rarely resemble the facts of the case. The collusive relationship between CAFCASS, Social sevices, Legal system is such that one has to question the lack of independence of the Judiciary especially when it is ruled that disclosure is unusual in family proceedings. Wrongdoing of the State bodies or represented litigant is usually ignored even when brought to the attention of the Judge. LJ Wall has admitted that on Appeal it does not matter if the ‘facts’ or the ‘evidence’ relied on by the Lower Court is untrue and LJ Potter has stated that perjury is rarely investigated and it is common for parties to be less than frank with the Court. Whilst the Judiciary state all is rosy, the DFES admitted to usin letter dated 9th July 2007 “we would like to see a reduction in a number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children...’’
Unmarried fathers Fathers are discriminated against in law if they are unmarried as they do not have automatic parental responsibility. This has been confirmed to be because of the issues of forced marriages and violence. Misleading research again; What of Jewish forced marriages or the independent research showing DV is not a gender issue or the statistical facts on child abuse? Whilst Women’s aid made a big issue of 29 children being killed by their fathers over ten year period – they ignored the 800 in the same time period killed by mothers or other carer! One Judge told us that 16% of violence is female on male and that any other research is flawed – better inform the Home Office, experts and those with proper knowledge their work is flawed!
Independent data on forced marriages? Forced Marriages – No independent data; a figure of 200-400 gaining acceptance. Admitted by Forced Marriage Unit run by ex Essex HR Student – men are similarly forced into marriage but we do not have figures as they do not suffer! They are forbidden to collect figures for men!
Child abuse and empire building The questions here are two-fold – have the child protection authorities failed in their duties to reduce child abuse or does social work not work. There is a third question and that is are the bodies involved more interested in empire building than addressing their responsibilities?
Your typical child abuser profile? • Is it the man next door, surely not the woman. Women are nurturing and would never commit child abuse. • We must not discriminate against single parents, especially single mothers, cohabitating parents and the new boyfriend. • Neither must we differentiate gay people. This is exemplified where concerns for child abuse were ignored because of fear of being accused of discrimination. • Even better we do not collect the data upon which to base policies, procedures and guidance based on different family groupings. • We all know and are brainwashed to believe that biological fathers are the biggest risk to children. • Operation Ore named 6500 persons who viewed child pornography. Few to date have been prosecuted. One wonders why some have and not others. Those that have been prosecuted include social workers, GPs, Police, teachers and only one Judge. All these persons have responsibility over child welfare! Who are the others?
There is much hysteria about sexual abuse yet what about female sexual abusers? Don’t mention it –you’ll lose your job.
Social engineering? • Re K D [1998] 1 AC p.812 letter B Lord Templeman stated; ‘The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not endangered.Public authorities cannot improve on nature. Public authorities exercise a supervisory role and interfere to rescue a child when the parental tie is broken by abuse or separation. In terms of the English rule the Court decides whether and to what extent the welfare of the child requires that the child shall be protected against harm caused by the parent, including harm which could be caused by the resumption of parental care after separation had broken the parental tie. In terms of the Convention rule the Court decides whether and to what extent the child’s health or morals require protection from the parent, and whether and to what extent the family life of the parent and child has been supplanted by some other relationship which has become essential family life for the child.’ • Re K [a minor] [wardship; adoption] [1991] 1 FLR Lady Butler-Schloss p.62 letter E; ‘The mother must be shown to be entirely unsuitable before another family can be considered otherwise we are in danger of slipping into social engineering. The question is not would the child be better off with the plantiffs but is the natural family so unsuitable that, as Lord Justice Fox said, the welfare of the child positively demanded the displacement of the parental right.’
Adoption industry Prospective adopters whodo not believe homosexuals should be permitted to adopt are not allowed to adopt. BAAF states it as ‘An ability to promote an anti-racist and anti discriminatory approach to parenting in their adoption competences.Statistics from the last available year shows 60 children were taken into care for being on low income, 790 for disability, 1500 for parental illness or disability and 1300 for socially unacceptable behaviour (in all cases the decision was contested by the parents) and the pressure from adoption targets that may be causing the increase in under fives being kidnapped by the State - has the system not gone down the road of social engineering – a morally and ethically dangerous path to tread?
Domestic violence industry Ever loose wording of definition of domestic violence/ abuse, is making a mockery of the legal system, similarly with vague laws such as harassment. There is already protection under criminal law for violent acts. In-depth, independent and impartial research world wide shows domestic violence is not a gender issue, yet the Public are being brainwashed by the industry. Ignoring these matters insults genuine victims of domestic violence and promulgates inter-generational abuse. Professor Dominelli of Southampton University a well-known feminist and self-acclaimed expert on domestic violence stated ‘If a woman is violent it is a man’s fault.’ State ignores the prevalence of violence in gay and lesbian partnerships. Barnardos provide DV training for CAFCASS! No-one has bothered to base policy, procedure or guidance on causes because they do not know what they are.
Expert industry Whilst psychiatry has found no single cause or cure for mental disorders, diagnoses are made without any scientific foundation. MMPi2 should never be used as the stress of family proceedings makes the findings unreliable. Six months after proceedings end results vary enormously. No link between alleged disorder and parenting has been investigated. One expert we know of used an untested theory which he not only admitted under oath but then asked for fifty thousand pounds funding to test the theory and also that he had been asked to come up with the theory by a High Court Judge! One expert has two lucrative residential assessment centres. He makes a psychiatric diagnosis and then recommendation for parent(s) to attend his residential centre where people with less than NVQ3 training then monitor them. The Court has accepted that parenting assessments can be made without seeing parent and child together! Court approved experts have a conflict of interest – to give a diagnosis against the wishes of the Local Authority or CAFCASS will result in their not being chosen to report and they will lose their income. Honest independent experts have found it very difficult to give evidence in Court e.g. Dr. Lowenstein.
Experts in the care industry Bates and Brophy (1996) indicated 80% of cases involved some expert evidence, Hunt et al. (1999) indicated 87% of cases involved experts and Brophy et al. (2003) indicate 89% of cases. Research identifies that as the applicant for the order, the local authority has been responsible for most expert evidence filed. For example, in the national survey of cases involving expert evidence (Brophy, Wale and Bates 1999) local authorities filed expert evidence in 76% of cases (compared with 52% of cases by guardians and 27% of cases by parents). The vast majority of this evidence was commissioned during court proceedings. The key clinical reports commissioned remain: pediatric (filed in about 35% of cases); child and adolescent/family psychiatric (combining all types, filed in over 60% of cases); psychological (based on parents 24% of cases; based on children only, 14%); and psychiatric reports based on adults only (about 35% of cases). Cases also contain family centre assessments commissioned during proceedings (about 34% of cases).
Drug abuse industry In England and Wales alone, prescriptions for Ritalin, rocketed from just 4,000 in 1994 to 359,000 in 2004. and in 2006 to 2007 454,797 children were prescribed Ritalin and similar drugs as compared to only 86,247 in 1997/ 1998. Doctors in Britain wrote almost 7,500 prescriptions a week for Ritalin. The treatment costs about £200 a year per child and is likely to cost taxpayers £12.48 million this year. It has been estimated that the total annual cost of the therapy, including additional costs of assessment and follow-up, would escalate to £500 to £1,000 per child, according to figures from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
