The NSCFC challenges Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman and Lord Falconer to come clean over Family Courts!

http://www.politics.co.uk/campaignsite/national-society-children-and-family-contact-$366324$3.htm

The National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) challenges
the new deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman to prove them wrong and reinvent
herself as a champion for family life as apposed to the out and outright
feminist she has revealed herself to be since 1990 in the social policy paper
"The Family Way". Last year Ms Harman said that because of public disquiet,
family courts should be open to reporting, Lord Falconer however last week
disagreed and ruled this out on so many pretences we who work tirelessly to
secure the continuation of traditional family life were appalled but not
surprised.

This is what Jack Frost author of the "The Gulag of the Family Courts" had
to say. The picture of a smiling Lord Falconer, introducing his reasons for not
giving the media the automatic right to attend Family Courts. He states that he
arrived at his decision not to allow the media access as of right, "after
receiving formal responses from individuals and organisations including the
views of over 200 children, half of whom had experience of care proceedings." to
'Confidence & Confidentiality: Openness in Family Court - new approach'..June
2007. Presented by Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) Secretary of State for
Justice. http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/consult-family-courts.pdf

Confidence & Confidentiality: Openness in Family Court. FASSIT'S response

Is this another 'dodgy dossier Jack asks?

So we waited from October 2005 and have had two supposed 'public
consultations', which each deferred a decision to bring in openness &
transparency into a court of law, which has been forcibly taking children away
from parents, in secret and casting them into the sink industry of care and
adoption.

This after Harriet Harman MP. QC, the Minister of State for the Department
of Constitutional Affairs (the minister with overall responsibility for the
Family Courts) announced in a number of articles she personally had published in
national newspapers that, "It is impossible to defend the system from
accusations of bias and discrimination, if it operates behind closed
doors ..something has to be seen, to be believed and justice has to be seen to
be done..the Family Courts are more secret than prisons." (Mail on Sunday 4 June
2006)

And Justice Munby, High Court Judge, Family Division, in a debate with
members of Parliament, chaired by the Hon. Sir Mark Potter (President. Family
Division of High Court Judges), on 3 May 2006, in which he stated " I have to
say that it seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media
and no access by the public to what is going on in courts where judges are
day-by- day taking peoples children away."

Lord Falconer, The Lord Chancellor (overall charge of all the judicial
systems in the UK) announced on 20 June 2007, that as a result of the 'public
consultation', there was to be no openness & transparency in the Family Courts.
Indeed, they are to stay hermetically sealed and get even more secretive.

Let us look at the reasons given by Lord Falconer, for his decision to ban
the media and the public from access to Family Court cases. Bearing in mind,
reporting of cases with an exact equivalence, with perhaps even more personal
detail and including serious sexual and physical violence and debauchery, has
been routine in all other courts in the UK, with the caveat that the identities
of the victimised children and the perpetrators, if also under the age of 16,
have always been protected from disclosure and only certain specific segments of
the case, have been held in camera (in the absence of the press and the public).

The picture of a smiling Lord Falconer, introduced his reasons for not
giving the media the automatic right to attend Family Courts. He states that he
arrived at his decision not to allow the media access as of right, "after
receiving formal responses from individuals and organisations including the
views of over 200 children, half of whom had experience of care proceedings."

On a closer examination it appears that Lord Falconer might have been
economical with the truth. We know that the 'organisations' are the social
workers, lawyers, judges, adoption and fostering agencies and charities. All
these are nose down and elbows flaying at the trough of limitless public
funding, without an iota of independent scrutiny. The presence of the media
would put a stop to this financial jamboree and many believe is also likely to
result in prosecutions for fraud. One can therefore accept without any fear of
disagreement, that those within the secret industry; those I refer to as 'the
Guligans' in my book, " The Gulag Of The Family Courts", would find the presence
of the media, intolerable and would have informed Lord Falconer in those terms.

There are suspicions that 'the organisations' referred to, is the secret
industry and it has made it known that if the media were allowed access, they
would down tools and withdraw their participation. One wonders if this has any
merit!

What is very concerning is his statement "after receiving formal responses
from individuals and organisations including the views of over 200 children,
half of whom had experience of care proceedings."

How did Lord Falconer learn about the views of the "over 200 children,
half of whom had experience of care proceedings?"

1....During the 'public consultation process', the Department of
Constitutional Affairs, when questioned about the facilities that were to be
utilised to get the opinion of children, stated that the views of the children
would be ascertained by the children telephoning/e-mailing the DCA to register
their opinions and views, concerning admitting the press, media and the public.

(a)....The DCA then stated that to carry out this proposal in 1 above, the
DCA was going to install a dedicated telephone line and a dedicated e-mail
address, for the sole purpose of receiving views and opinions from the children.

( b) ..The DCA was reminded, that those at the receiving end of the
children's opinions, in the DCA, would need to be cleared by the Family Courts
to receive information about their cases, before they could invite disclosure of
information about their cases.

( c)...The DCA was reminded, that there would have to be a system and
protocols to ensure that those using the dedicated lines of communication to the
DCA were in fact genuine identifiable children, and not adults posing as
children. They would have also to be checked out that they had the experience of
Family Court proceedings that has been claimed for them.

(d)..How did Lord Falconer know that 'half of them had experience of care
proceedings'? How could this be ascertained in a 'phone call and/or an e-mail?
What proof can Lord Falconer refer to, to justify the statement?

(e)..Two days before the 'public consultation process' expired, I
contacted the DCA and requested information that would confirm that ( a ) ( b) &
( c) had been addressed. I was informed that there had been no protocols put in
place to ensure the integrity of the responses of the children. There was doubt
about ( a) and it was confirmed to me , that ( b) and ( c) had not been
addressed.

So how did Lord Falconer come to make the statement concerning the
children's responses? If I am correct, this is a very serious issue and this
needs to be raised in Parliament. Unless Lord Falconer can answer (a), (b) and
(c) and support the answers with proof, this would indicate he has either been
deliberately misled or he is involved in misleading the public and Parliament.
Is this another 'doggy dossier'?

If the DCA left the survey of the children's opinions to the social
workers, their lawyers, the adoption and fostering agencies, the agencies with
their labyrinthine connections to local government and the industry dependant on
the present system of unscrutinised and unaccountable public funding; the result
could have been predicted, without the charade of a 'public consultation'.

So where is the supporting documentation that would give credence to the
claim that over 200 children were consulted?

"And why were the parents voices so obviously ignored? Was the 'public
consultation' intended solely for the 'organisations' involved with the Family
Courts and the 'mysterious' children, only?"

And if the opinions of children and babies counted for so much, why has
Lord Falconer now embarked on another 'public consultation'? Wouldn't it save a
lot of time and just go and ask the babies and children. Why all this 'spin' and
subterfuge?, He could avoid the charade and admit that those dependant on this
secret industry are petrified of the media beholding just what has been taking
place in the Gulag of the Family Courts.

And what you might ask has been taking place in the Family Courts?

1...False evidence has been routinely provided by social workers and other
'public officials ', in order to take children into care and have them adopted,
thus meeting government targets, and providing rewards, including financial
rewards, for the local authority and its employees.

In a number of these cases, the 'public officials' have been paid
staggeringly huge fees from the public pot, for documents that could easily be
shown to be incorrect and/or fraudulent, but there has been no way for those
involved to be identified, for this to be publicised and for prosecutions to
follow.

2...The secrecy has allowed the identity of some of the 'public officials'
giving false evidence in the Family Courts, their criminal past or their
professional misdemeanours, to remain hidden and contribute to serious
miscarriages of justice.

3....The secrecy has allowed the rampant 'conflicts of interest' involving
local government officials (social workers come within the group of local
government officials) to run riot. Unlike members of Parliament and elected
councillors, local government officials are not required by law to complete a
'register of interests'. This has allowed social workers and senior officials in
the child care departments of local authorities, to have documented interests in
the foster care agencies and adoption agencies with whom they deal. These same
senior local authority officials are then able to set policy, decide on
procedures and agree the purchase of goods and services from the very
agencies/charities they are officially linked with. This also feeds into meeting
government targets and even surpassing the targets, whilst not revealing this
serious 'conflict of interests'. If a commercial company were to be guilty of
such conduct, they would be prosecuted for fraud and probably jailed.

This serious 'conflict of interests' is then utilised away from the court
in ensuring that legitimate questions from members of the public are not
answered and could even result in the questioner being falsely accused of
harassing the local authority, for persisting with the questions. For example,
Essex County Council has refused to answer the following questions:

(a) ..In how many of the cases of children adopted from out of the council's
own care- pool since 1997, have the adopters been local government officials or
ex- local government officials?

( b)..Since 2000, what are the names and addresses of those local
government officials and/or their close relatives who whilst still employed by
the council, or since leaving, have been awarded contracts by the council in
relation to providing foster care and/or adoption agency services to the
council?

( c)...What is the analysis of payments made to those referred to in (b)
above ?

(d)....On how many occasions since 1997 have injunctions been used by the
council against members of the public and elected councillors, to silence and
intimidate them, in relation to child care issues.? How many of these cases
resulted in imprisonment? How many were mothers and how many were juveniles aged
under 17?

Further questions yet to be asked but which judging on past performance
would not be answered is the following:

(e) ..In how many of the cases of adoption from the council's own care-
pool, have the children been adopted into another faith, to meet adoption
targets? In other words; how many Catholics have been adopted by couples of
other faiths or no faith, and how many Muslims have been adopted by Hindus, for
example?

(f) ...In how many of the cases of those imprisoned for breaching the
secrecy of the Family Court proceedings, did the mothers who were imprisoned,
attempt or commit suicide, whilst in prison or within a few years after being
released from prison?

4...Contrary to what some judges have been informing Parliament and the
press, there is ample evidence of a number of 'secret trials' at which members
of the public have been losing their freedom, Yes! They have been tried in
secret and jailed. In these cases, the judges avoid the word 'prosecution' and
substitute the word 'application'. So the respondent (not the defendant) faces a
'committal hearing', as a result of 'an application' made to the court'..Very
Clever!

( This after Harriet Harman MP QC admitted in a Parliamentary reply to
Sally Keeble MP ( Northampton North) on 13 June 2006, that 200 persons were sent
to prison after 'secret trials', in the previous year. Though in a democracy, we
are not supposed to lose our freedoms without a trial in an open court, in which
the press have access. This is indeed a strange democracy. Perhaps the learned
Lord Chancellor will explain how this is achieved by this Labour Government)

And how you might wonder do they get away with 'a secret court'. The
judges when questioned in court. Reply: "This is not a 'secret court', it's in
chambers!" Mmmh!

5....If the media were present, they would learn that in a number of
cases, the solicitor representing the parent/s and who was paid out of the Legal
Aid Fund, was simultaneously also acting for the local authority in their
case...But the parent/s had not been informed. Quite obviously, they didn't want
to distress the parent/s! It is another of those 'secrets'!

6....The media might also see what I witnessed in a Family Court. The
parent's female solicitor, funded from Legal Aid, went over to the local
authorities' barrister and gave him her whole clients file, in court. Included
in the parents file, was a letter from the police to the parents, asking the
parents not to make the social workers aware of the police involvement.

7...They might even witness that which I and 7 other persons witnessed a
few weeks ago, during a 'committal proceedings in secret', but which we were
'ORDERED' not to reveal. The 'committal proceedings' injunction, was brought
ostensibly by a mother against another person (the respondent) , for disclosing
information about the case. The respondent, who faced immediate imprisonment in
this 'secret court', had no representation but a McKenzie Friend (a lay member
of the public without any legal training). The mother had a barrister (paid by
Legal Aid), a solicitor (paid by Legal Aid), and a trainee solicitor taking
notes (paid by Legal Aid). In truth, the case had been brought by the local
authority, who were using the public's Legal Aid funding to intimidate a member
of the public in secret, rather than use their own funding. This way they are
able to claim the mother brought the action, when all along, it was the local
authority pushing and organising the prosecution. Oops! The 'application'!

Do you still wonder why the 'secrecy' is so prized by the Guligans!

Now, why you might wonder, is this so important, besides the obvious
implications?

You might recall that The British Government sent 4 Scotland Yard Police
officers to Moscow, about 3 months ago, to seek the extradition of the alleged
murderer of the Russian, Oliver Litvenyenko. Litvenyenko was killed in
mysterious circumstances, in London and the Russian secret service has been
suspected of involvement. Whilst simultaneously, Mr. Putin, the Russian
President, had requested the extradition of the ex-KGB spy, Boris Bereshovsky,
who was granted asylum in the UK, some years ago. In early June 2007, the BBC
interviewed Lord Falconer, about the Russian request and wondered if the British
Government would send back Bereshovsky, to Russia, as Mr Putin has been
repeatedly requesting. "We can't do that", replied Lord Falconer, sternly, "they
don't have an open system of justice..Justice must be seen to be done" really
Lord Falconer. Now is that so!

Such is the concern about the documented victimisation of children and
their parents in the secretive Family Courts, the complete and utter disregard
for the principles of rule of law and justice in a democracy, that John Hemming
MP ( Birmingham Yardley) has submitted papers to the United Nations, in which he
has drawn the attention of the UN to this scandal and asked the UN to
investigate and publicise the conduct of UK 'public officials' and a judicial
system that is afraid of independent scrutiny and accountability and its
victimising of its own innocent and vulnerable citizens. All credit to Jack
Frost for having the courage and moral conviction to let the truth be known so
that no longer do we the general public have to remain in the dark as to just
what is going on behind closed Family Court doors to dismantle family life.
Please read "The Gulag of the Family Courts", by Jack Frost. ISBN 9 781430
316350 Website: www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com

Finally the NSCFC must make mention about the following revelation in
London Evening Standard "Lord Falconer also took into account the views of those
who "protect, support and represent children" such as the NSPCC, sure sounds
good on the surface but lets look at the hard facts. That the NSPCC was
consulted is a scandal in itself and must be exposed as such, hence let their
supporters and the public be aware, the NSPCC apposes not only your rights as
parents but that of your children as well and here is the proof for rather than
working to keep the traditional family unit in existence the NSPCC have
consistently apposed the United Convention for the Rights of the Child by
admitting their breach of Article 18 which clearly states "Parents have joint
primary responsibility for raising their child and the State should support them
in this".

Again Article 12 clearly states "The right of the child to express an
opinion and to have that opinion taken into account, in any matter or procedure
affecting the child. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of
forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all
matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in
accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the
opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting
the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body,
in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law". This yet
again the NSPCC vehemently and actively appose and begs the question does the
NSPCC really work in the best interest of children or are they part and parcel
of an establishment hell bent on destroying the nuclear family albeit in the
guise of common good?

National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered
charity which believes that continuing contact with a child's parents or
extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child's balanced
development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family
contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need.
Helpline at National rate also available 24/7 this to include support and
domestic violence helpline for men on 0870 794 0075 or www.nscfc.com not because
we are partial but because there is little in the way of backup for male victims
in the UK.




First the Prisons, now the Family Courts and the Media what Next Lord
Falconer?

We at the NSCFC can only but echo comments made by the Equal Parenting
Alliance and conclude that Lord Falconer's latest dictate is yet another smack
in the face for democracy in this country the likes of which is further
indication that we the general public are a nation under dictatorship the like
of which our forefathers fought against in two world wars. At a time when 40% of
our children in schools are from 1 parent families, when 100 children per day
lose contact with their fathers and paternal side of the family, when the Social
Services have complete carte blanche to tear children away from loving parents
and family members at the behest of Government incentives the like of which is
scandalous and deplorable to say the least. Fact, approximately 3,300 children a
year are placed for adoption and the rate is steadily increasing. Tony Blair has
asked for a 40% increase in adoption and through public service agreements some
councils are fully meeting this and gaining massive financial rewards and
"stars" for doing so. (Local Authority Circular LAC(2001)33 ) Kent County
Council received £21 million for meeting 10 out of 12 of their public service
agreements for 2000 - 2003. Visit Ian Josephs site on Forced Adoption it is
appalling but true. (http://www.forced-adoption.com) A result of all this has
been to strongly motivate social workers to procure children suitable for
adoption even if it means splitting up the very families they are meant to
support and protect. They are not just trying to get children who are in care
adopted; they are deliberately unjustly taking children from good decent homes
on trumped up charges of abuse even to the point of accusing one mother of
infantilizing her two children by Home Educating (Educating Otherwise) which
itself is NOT unlawful! Then having them placed with foster parents for the past
2 years without any contact whatsoever with their mother. For sure it's like an
industry, but horrifically the commodities involved are innocent children.
CAFCASS for what its worth are no better, for as with Social Services they are
by no means Experts yet still they have the power beyond the scrutiny of public
gaze to make recommendations the like of which by the stroke of a nonchalant
Judges pen will determine the fate of child and parent, this with all the
ramifications displaced children will thereafter display throughout their live's.
Was it not the late esteemed Lord Denning perhaps the greatest law-making judge
of the century and the most controversial who once wrote "Justice is not a
cloistered virtue, but should be open to the scrutiny of the average man to err
there within". A fundamental principle of justice is that it must be seen to be
done. It is therefore established in the United Kingdom that with certain
exceptions court cases should be heard in public. This principle of open justice
is acclaimed on a number of grounds: as a safeguard against judicial error or
misbehaviour, as a deterrent to perjury (Non existent in Family Courts hence
untruth abounds!), to enhance public knowledge of the workings of the law, to
assist the deterrent function of criminal trials and to permit the revelation of
matters of genuine public interest, hence if the systematic destruction of
family life by the State is not of public interest, what is?. The principle of
open justice is also reflected in the European Convention of Human Rights and in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Surely therefore the press has a special role in this system of open
justice, as indicated by the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson of
Lymington: "It is not because of any special wisdom, interest or status enjoyed
by proprietors, editors or journalists. It is because the media are the eyes and
ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their
right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of
the general public. Indeed, it is that of the general public for whom they are
trustees". Also is it not the UN Convention on the Rights of the Children as
ratified by the UK in 1989 which clearly states in Article 12; "The right of the
child to express an opinion and to have that opinion taken into account in any
matter or procedure affecting the child. Parties shall assure to the child who
is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views
freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the
opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting
the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body,
in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of National Law". National Law
and a UN Right that even the NSPCC refuse to agree with and begs the question
why, if they are working in the best interest of children?

Who therefore is Lord Falconer to ask anyone, be they the National
Children's Bureau or One Parent Families to speak on a child's behalf and
thereafter rule against a Childs Right and indeed the Public's Right to see
National Law in family courts proven to be done, this was not about constructive
consultations at all but rather the selective use of invited comment to fit a
predetermined political objective and must for the good of all be seen as such.

About this the public should and must demand a reversal, for not to do so
is to fall prey to Government domination the like of which will destroy all that
is good about family life! Indeed we say this without fear or reservation, do
not trust the platitudes and blueprints of any political party, for in them, we
who have suffered by injustice cannot put our trust nor should we if we have the
best interest of our nation's children at heart. Suffice to say the future is in
our hands and with our voice let it be emphatically made known!

National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered
charity which believes that continuing contact with a child's parents or
extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child's balanced
development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family
contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need.
Helpline at National rate also available 24/7 this to include support and
domestic violence helpline for men on 0870 794 0075 or www.nscfc.com




--
"An Injustice To One Man, Woman or Child
Threatens Justice To All People Equally"
-Dean Tong


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Family courts open to media but not bloggers
    ... Family courts open to media but not bloggers ... Thousands of hearings that now take place behind closed doors will be ... open to the accredited media from April 27, Jack Straw, the Justice ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Now this WOULD be fun!
    ... Judge calls for family courts to admit press ... By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor ... A SENIOR judge called last night for the media to be admitted to family ...
    (soc.men)