End the secrecy of the family court
- Thread starter Whistleblower
- Start date
Have you ever gone through a court proceedings regarding custody? The child's name is barely mentioned it is all about the adults and whatever shit they rake up (encouraged by the solicitor) I cannot imagine how or why the local papers would be interested in any of it unless anybody was a well known person.
Also there are conditions imposed by the court
Quoting from house of commons library Published Tuesday, 31 January, 2023
"While accredited media representatives may attend hearings under rule 27.11(2), subject to exceptions, there are strict limits on what they can report.
Under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 it may, for example, be a contempt of court to publish information about proceedings relating to children if a court sits in private. Additionally, under section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989, it’s an offence to publish information which could identify a child involved in certain proceedings."
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The purpose of the hearing - what it's all about - is to determine what's best for the child, not the parents.
Exactly. And that is what it should be about. However if it is done in secret how do we know justice is being administered
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Well it's not about administering justice is it? It's about administering the best interests of the child. (They're not the same thing) A child isn't a possession like a house where you get to squabble over what is a 'fair' share of the sale proceeds.
It's about the child's welfare from then up until the point of them becoming adults. If the best thing for them is completely ban one parent from ever seeing them again well that seems harsh on that parent and they might very well feel hard done by but the child's welfare is paramount. What the parent(s) think is ultimately neither hear nor there. I can well imagine a lot of parents especially fathers feel this is unfair but there are sound reasons why these things are ultimately decided on by judges who have no emotional involvement in the case.
I will agree that the parents opinions thoughts and actions become subservient to the judges decision and the childs welfare is paramount. This judge has incredible powers. He can dictate that a child belongs to a couple who did not biologically create it whilst the real mother has medical, drug , or mental health problems. This is great power. Surely with such power should come scrutiny
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
Well yes by other judges but certainly not by the general public who let's face it are going to take 'sides' in these disputes.
The problem with these sort of things when emotions get involved people start thinking in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' and not the welfare of the children. These usually are the sort of things where the wisdom of Solomon is needed and no matter what decisions get made some (probably a lot of) people are going to be unhappy about it.
As for the scenario you've just mentioned, well the kid doesn't 'belong' to anyone he/she is not a possession. I own my car and I own the computer I am typing on but I don't own' my children (despite the fact they have cost me several kings ransoms). The child's welfare is the only thing that counts, if they are better off with the unrelated (presumably adopted) parents than with the biological one(s) then so be it. Children aren't biologically created (that sounds like they whipped up in a lab) they're born, they're people and someone needs to look out for their rights often trampling on the parents rights in the process. And that is of course the job of the family courts.
The more I engage with you the more I think that we agree. Why then are you so against scrutiny / publicity regarding the ultimate decisions, why would this have an adverse affect on child or proceedings .Why are these important processes held in secret. Many court cases are very very emotive yet reported widely. Many people wont remember results names or proceedings a few days after it has been in the local paper
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
I have had experience of family courts and they do not follow rules of natural justice.
Too simplistic to say biased vs men, women too can be denied justice.
Particularly questionable is the poor quality both of many ‘expert’ witnesses and indeed much legal representation.
Speaking of which legal aid is often denied poor parents: in ine hearing I had to represent the mother myself. The judge enjoyed I think the spectacle of me wiping the floor with the county solicitor…
Any reference to Nazi Germany as in the OP is way off the mark though
One judge that impressed me was Lord Justice McFarlane. In my experience of 5 hearings we had two good judges (he was one). Sadly,three were bad including the last one. Had he taken that hearing (couldnt due to other business) the outcome would I think have beenndifferent…C’est la vie
Too simplistic to say biased vs men, women too can be denied justice.
Particularly questionable is the poor quality both of many ‘expert’ witnesses and indeed much legal representation.
Speaking of which legal aid is often denied poor parents: in ine hearing I had to represent the mother myself. The judge enjoyed I think the spectacle of me wiping the floor with the county solicitor…
Any reference to Nazi Germany as in the OP is way off the mark though
One judge that impressed me was Lord Justice McFarlane. In my experience of 5 hearings we had two good judges (he was one). Sadly,three were bad including the last one. Had he taken that hearing (couldnt due to other business) the outcome would I think have beenndifferent…C’est la vie
Last edited:
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
It will be online forever.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Have you tipped over into virtue signalling now?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
ohh feck off. I'll give you 10-1 on that the OP is a nasty piece of entitled shit, just like the vast majority of those Fathers4Justice arsewanks.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
The lack of accountability and transparency in the family courts for decisions made is the main problem. Allegations of bias against men obscure this. The power wielded by the CAFCASS officers and social workers is immense, without limits. They regularly support ripping screaming children from their mothers for good with few routes for challenge.
I would not support making proceedings public but would support introducing mechanisms and pathways for challenging evidence and challenging decisions and would make legal aid for all parties automatic.
I would not support making proceedings public but would support introducing mechanisms and pathways for challenging evidence and challenging decisions and would make legal aid for all parties automatic.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I reckon you would be onto a winner. But one arse does not undermine some real criticism of the family courts, it's worth discussing.
They also rip children from their dads
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sure, but not with wankers who like to blame everything on women.I reckon you would be onto a winner. But one arse does not undermine some real criticism of the family courts, it's worth discussing.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
We can wait till not henry gets bored and resurrect the thread?
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
I am glad to hear it, clearly some are good people. However in the case I was involved in the guardian ad litem both lied to the mother in the presence of (another) witness but also invented a completely fictitious phone conversation with myself, right down to a detailed transcript. Clearly not all are like her but precisely because I did not take it personally it occurred to me that she must have done this a few times previously, and it evidently hadnt hindered her career prospects. That I found worrying
Oh please, I don't think that I have taken a male versus female stand on this thread whatsoever. If you think that I have then please inform me where and when.
I am simply concerned with why such important social and legal issues are conducted in secret. Why are they?
Children need privacy because of "Wut" and or "Fuck sake" Sorry I do not understand
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
They're not. Now fuck off.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I think Whistleblower has tarnished and shat on the thing from the start with the nazi stuff and that. Makes me think of a batman twat with a paunch who climbed onto a bit of Buckingham Palace long ago.
I thought that this was a board for open discussion and that even if my opinions did not chime with yours, then you could choose to answer or ignore me. The post That I have quoted "now fuck off" Is a mildly threatening post and adds nothing to the discussion.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's not a board for misogynists or those who prefer to make up fictions and ignoring those who point out their fallacies.
Are you calling me out as a misogynist? I hope you have robust proof of such.
Similar threads
