The Court of Appeal have given a judgment in three linked cases where a mother wished to arranged for her child to be adopted and the Court had to decide whether or not to inform the father/relatives
The facts and details about the 3 cases are at paragraph 90 onwards of the judgment. In the first, the Judge had decided not to tell the father and the Court of Appeal overturned that, in the second the Court decided in care proceedings not to tell the grandparents of the child’s existence and the Court of Appeal upheld that, and in the third the Judge decided that the father should be told and the Court of Appeal upheld that. Three very different sets of facts and three different outcomes, but helpfully the Court of Appeal analyse all of the relevant law and distil from it the principles and good practice to be applied in such cases.
A, B And C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers And Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41 (29 January 2020)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/41.html
The new bit of law in this case is the Court of Appeal decision that when DECIDING whether or not a father or relative should be notified, the child’s welfare IS NOT the Court’s paramount consideration (or the Local Authority’s when they are making the decision). The Court is not deciding whether the child should be adopted (when welfare IS paramount) but who should or should not be told.
82.As noted above, there is uncertainty about whether what I have described as the core principles (welfare paramountcy, the prejudicial effect of delay and the welfare checklists) apply directly to a decision about notifying a father or relatives about the existence of a child or of proceedings. In a sense, not much turns on this: child welfare, prompt decision-making and a comprehensive review of all relevant factors are central to the notification decision, regardless of whether they are directly mandated by statute. Nevertheless, decision-makers are entitled to know whether their decision should place child welfare above everything else or not, and a correct formulation of the principles reduces the risk of error in decisions at the margins.
83.In the light of the observations in Re C v XYZ County Council, it is not surprising that a number of the later first instance decisions recite that the core provisions are engaged, or that a number of the parties before us so submitted. However, after closer examination, I am satisfied that the decision about notification does not directly engage these provisions. My reasons are these:
- So far as the CA 1989 is concerned, the decision is not one “relating to the upbringing of a child”. It is a decision about who should be consulted about such a decision.
- The same applies to the ACA 2002. The decision for the local authority and the court is not one “relating to the adoption of a child”, but a decision about who should be consulted about such a decision.
- The terms of s.1(7) ACA 2002, which apply only to decisions by the court, do not lead to a different conclusion. The subsection is not without difficulty – see Re P (Adoption: Leave Provisions) [2007] EWCA Civ 616; [2007] 2 FLR 1069 at [19-24] – and I cite it again for convenience:
“In this section, “coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child”, in relation to a court, includes—
(a) coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include an adoption order (or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 26 or 51A (or the revocation or variation of such an order),
(b) coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an adoption agency or individual under this Act,
but does not include coming to a decision about granting leave in any other circumstances.”
Although widely drafted, sub. (a) does not cover the paradigm situation where a Part 19 application has been made, nor is that an application for any form of leave as mentioned in sub. (b). And even if there are proceedings of the kind mentioned in sub. (a), it cannot properly be said that every case-management decision within those proceedings is one to which welfare paramountcy applies. Such decisions are more apt for the application of the over-riding objective in Part 1 of the FPR 2010, which requires the court to deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved. In my view the correct interpretation of the expression “coming to a decision” in s.1(7) ACA 2002 means coming to a decision about the substance of the application, whether it be an adoption order, a placement order, or a contact order. It does not include coming to a decision about who should and should not be informed of the existence of the child or of the proceedings themselves.
- This conclusion is consistent with the established distinction between decisions that are welfare-paramount and those that are not. This is made explicit in the cases reviewed at paras. 48-50 above and the corresponding silence in the entire line of authority preceding Re C v XYZ County Council is equally significant. To take one example, the decision of the House of Lords in Re D [1996] about withholding material in confidential reports did not refer at all to the equivalent provision to s.1 ACA 2002 in the Adoption Act 1976 (which by s.6 placed a duty on the court and the local authority to give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child). Likewise, in Re X [2002] this court determined the issue of whether the parents should be told that the foster parents were adopting the children by striking a balance between the competing interests, not by prioritising child welfare. This approach continued after the enactment of the ACA 2002, as can be seen in the comprehensive survey of the law conducted by Munby J in Re L [2007], which makes no reference to s.1 of the Act, to welfare-paramountcy or to the welfare checklist.
- Re C v XYZ County Council, while plainly correctly decided, is not binding authority on this issue, for the reasons I have given above.
- The later decision of this court in Re A [2011] does not support a welfare-paramountcy test.
- Lastly, there is no reported decision of which I am aware in which the outcome has been dictated by the court finding that the welfare of the child trumps all other considerations; instead, there is an unbroken body of case law in which the outcome has been determined by a balancing of the rights and interests of all the individuals concerned.
84.For these reasons I conclude that while child welfare, prompt decision-making and a comprehensive review of every relevant factor, including those mentioned in the checklists, are all central to the notification decision, the decision is not one that is formally governed by the provisions of s.1 of the CA 1989 or of the ACA 2002 and the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration of the local authority and the court in this context.
The Court of Appeal quote with approval the joint ACDS /CAFCASS procedure in relation to relinquished children. You can find that in a drop down menu here, https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/about-cafcass/policies/ but thankfully the Court of Appeal set out the key aspects
Urgency and thoroughness of procedure
86.A local authority, faced with a baby that may require adoption, either because a mother wishes to relinquish the baby for adoption or because there are proceedings with a plan for adoption, will be acutely aware of the need for a speedy decision. Where the mother requests confidentiality, it will need to decide at a very early stage whether an application to court should be made to determine whether or not the putative father or relatives should be informed and consulted. There will be cases where, applying the principles summarised in this judgment, the local authority can be very clear that no application is required and planning for placement on the basis of the mother’s consent can proceed. But in any case that is less clear-cut, an application should be issued so that problems concerning the lack of notification do not arise when adoption proceedings are later issued. In relation to a putative father, that application will be under Part 19 unless issues of significant harm have made it necessary to issue proceedings for a care or placement order; I would suggest that an equivalent application under the inherent jurisdiction can be made where a local authority has doubts about notification of a close relative.
87.I have referred already to the Cafcass/ADCS protocol, which has been taken up by a number of local authorities. In the proceedings before us, which involved three local authorities, the parties collectively filed an agreed statement of the steps that will need to be taken by the local authority in cases such as these. It is not for this court to determine local authority procedures but I record the parties’ agreement for the help that it may give to those facing these situations.
“1. A local authority should take these steps as soon as it is notified that a mother, or mother and father, are expressing a wish that an infant is placed for adoption without notification to either the child’s father or extended family:
(i) The local authority files should be checked for background information about the mother and extended family and for contacts with other relevant agencies, such as health and police.
(ii) The allocated social worker, ideally accompanied by an adoption worker, should undertake at least one visit but preferably a series of visits to the mother, or mother and father, if she/they are willing, to discuss:-
◦The decision to place the child for adoption.
◦The reasons for not notifying the child’s father, or extended family, where possible gathering details about the father’s background and that of the family.
◦The mother’s background and information about her family.
◦Any cultural issues and how they have affected the decision made by the mother, or mother and father.
◦The implications of adoption for the child
◦The legal process required to achieve adoption
◦Other possible options for the care of the child
◦The adoption counselling service and how to access it
◦Whether the mother, or mother and father, require any other form of support and how that might be achieved
No assurance should be offered to a parent during the social work visit/s that notice of the birth of the child will be withheld from the father and/or extended family members.
(iii) The mother, or mother and father, must be provided with written information, where available, about the process and adoption counselling services.
(iv) Where the father is identified, the local authority should check its records for any background information known about him.
(v) The placement team must be informed immediately and it should begin the process of finding a suitable placement, preferably with ‘foster for adoption’ / early permanence carers.
(vi) CAFCASS must be informed as soon as the local authority is notified so that it can allocate a worker to the case for the purpose of meeting with the mother, or mother and father, to discuss and where appropriate take consent for adoption.
- The local authority should critically examine all information that it receives and, in circumstances where the mother states the identity of the father is unknown to her, the local authority should carefully consider her statement and her explanation to consider whether there is any basis for considering that the statement might be false. If the local authority does form that view, it should consider if there is any reasonable way by which the identity of the birth father could be established.
- The social worker should, as a matter of urgency, seek legal advice to ascertain whether the matter should be placed before the court in all cases where:
(i) the mother opposes notification to the father, if identified;
(ii) the mother knows the identity of the father but is unwilling to disclose this information;
(iii) the local authority has reason to doubt the reliability of the mother’s claim that the identity of the father is unknown, or
(iv) the mother is opposed to any notification to her family or the father’s family.
- The legal advisors will need to consider and advise as a matter of urgency whether a Part 19 application or other proceedings should be issued.
- If a decision is made that a Part 19 application is not required, the local authority should immediately notify CAFCASS, and provide detailed reasons for that decision, to allow CAFCASS to consider this information prior to meeting with the mother, or mother and father, when discussing consent under section 19 or for any later adoption application.
- As non-means/non-merits tested public funding is unavailable to parents for a Part 19 application (and emergency funding may be difficult to access on an emergency basis even if merits and means tests are met), a local authority should provide the mother, or mother an father, with advice concerning access to independent legal advice and how that might be obtained and funded (including by the local authority considering the funding of such advice). A list of specialist solicitors available in the area should be provided.
- Where an application is to be made, the social worker should prepare a detailed statement setting out the information gathered and providing the local authority’s position regarding the wish of the mother, or mother and father, to relinquish the child without notifying the father and/or extended family members.”
88.In cases where an application to the court is issued, the court should be equally alert to the need for urgency, bearing in mind that time has already passed in preparation for the application and the hearing. The following matters will require attention:
- Identity of judge: If the application is under Part 19, it must be heard in the High Court and appropriate listing arrangements must be made. Upon issue, the application should immediately be referred to the DFJ for consultation with the FDLJ as to whether the application should be allocated to a High Court Judge or a section 9 Deputy High Court judge.
- Identity of parties: (a) It is not mandatory for a respondent to be named in the application, although it will usually be appropriate for the mother to be identified as a respondent; (b) directions should be given on issue joining the child as a party and appointing a CAFCASS officer to act as Children’s Guardian in the application; (c) neither a father (with or without parental responsibility) nor members of the wider maternal/paternal family are to be served with or notified of the application or provided with any of the evidence filed in support of an application.
- Case management: The application should be listed for an urgent CMH, ideally attended by the CAFCASS officer. At the hearing, consideration should be given to the need for any further evidence, the filing of the Guardian’s analysis and recommendations, the filing of written submissions and the fixing of an early date for the court to make a decision.
- Receiving the mother’s account: It is a matter for the court as to whether it should require written or oral evidence from the mother. Given the importance of the issue, the court will normally be assisted by a statement from the mother, whether or not she gives oral evidence, rather than relying entirely upon evidence from the local authority at second hand.
- The listing of the hearing of the application should allow time for whatever evidence and argument may be necessary, and for a reasoned judgment to be given. Even allowing for the pressure on court lists, these decisions require prioritisation.
The Court of Appeal then helpfully summarised the law as derived from their very careful analysis of the relevant authorities
89.The principles governing decisions (by local authorities as adoption agencies or by the court) as to whether a putative father or a relative should be informed of the existence of a child who might be adopted can be summarised in this way.
- The law allows for ‘fast-track’ adoption with the consent of all those with parental responsibility, so in some cases the mother alone. Where she opposes notification being given to the child’s father or relatives her right to respect for her private life is engaged and can only be infringed where it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of others.
- The profound importance of the adoption decision for the child and potentially for other family members is clearly capable of supplying a justification for overriding the mother’s request. Whether it does so will depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.
- The decision should be prioritised and the process characterised by urgency and thoroughness.
- The decision-maker’s first task is to establish the facts as clearly as possible, mindful of the often limited and one-sided nature of the information available. The confidential relinquishment of a child for adoption is an unusual event and the reasons for it must be respectfully scrutinised so that the interests of others are protected. In fairness to those other individuals, the account that is given by the person seeking confidentiality cannot be taken at face value. All information that can be discovered without compromising confidentiality should therefore be gathered and a first-hand account from the person seeking confidentiality will normally be sought. The investigation should enable broad conclusions to be drawn about the relative weight to be given to the factors that must inform the decision.
- Once the facts have been investigated the task is to strike a fair balance between the various interests involved. The welfare of the child is an important factor but it is not the paramount consideration.
- There is no single test for distinguishing between cases in which notification should and should not be given but the case law shows that these factors will be relevant when reaching a decision:
(1) Parental responsibility. The fact that a father has parental responsibility by marriage or otherwise entitles him to give or withhold consent to adoption and gives him automatic party status in any proceedings that might lead to adoption. Compelling reasons are therefore required before the withholding of notification can be justified.
(2) Article 8 rights. Whether the father, married or unmarried, or the relative have an established or potential family life with the mother or the child, the right to a fair hearing is engaged and strong reasons are required before the withholding of notification can be justified.
(3) The substance of the relationships. Aside from the presence or absence of parental responsibility and of family life rights, an assessment must be made of the substance of the relationship between the parents, the circumstances of the conception, and the significance of relatives. The purpose is to ensure that those who are necessarily silent are given a notional voice so as to identify the possible strengths and weaknesses of any argument that they might make. Put another way, with what degree of objective justification might such a person complain if they later discovered they had been excluded from the decision? The answer will differ as between a father with whom the mother has had a fleeting encounter and one with whom she has had a substantial relationship, and as between members of the extended family who are close to the parents and those who are more distant.
(4) The likelihood of a family placement being a realistic alternative to adoption. This is of particular importance to the child’s lifelong welfare as it may determine whether or not adoption is necessary. An objective view, going beyond the say-so of the person seeking confidentiality, should be taken about whether a family member may or may not be a potential carer. Where a family placement is unlikely to be worth investigating or where notification may cause significant harm to those notified, this factor will speak in favour of maintaining confidentiality; anything less than that and it will point the other way.
(5) The physical, psychological or social impact on the mother or on others of notification being given. Where this would be severe, for example because of fear arising from rape or violence, or because of possible consequences such as ostracism or family breakdown, or because of significant mental health vulnerability, these must weigh heavily in the balancing exercise. On the other hand, excessive weight should not be given to short term difficulties and to less serious situations involving embarrassment or social unpleasantness, otherwise the mother’s wish would always prevail at the expense of other interests.
(6) Cultural and religious factors. The conception and concealed pregnancy may give rise to particular difficulties in some cultural and religious contexts. These may enhance the risks of notification, but they may also mean that the possibility of maintaining the birth tie through a family placement is of particular importance for the child.
(7) The availability and durability of the confidential information. Notification can only take place if there is someone to notify. In cases where a mother declines to identify a father she may face persuasion, if that is thought appropriate, but she cannot be coerced. In some cases the available information may mean that the father is identifiable, and maternal relatives may also be identifiable. The extent to which identifying information is pursued is a matter of judgement. Conversely, there will be cases where it is necessary to consider whether any confidentiality is likely to endure. In the modern world secrets are increasingly difficult to keep and the consequences, particularly for the child and any prospective adopters, of the child’s existence being concealed but becoming known to family members later on, sometimes as a result of disclosure by the person seeking confidentiality, should be borne in mind.
(8) The impact of delay. A decision to apply to court and thereafter any decision to notify will inevitably postpone to some extent the time when the child’s permanent placement can be confirmed. In most cases, the importance of the issues means that the delay cannot be a predominant factor. There may however be circumstances where delay would have particularly damaging consequences for the mother or for the child; for example, it would undoubtedly need to be taken into account if it would lead to the withdrawal of the child’s established carers or to the loss of an especially suitable adoptive placement.
(9) Any other relevant matters. The list of relevant factors is not closed. Mothers may have many reasons for wishing to maintain confidentiality and there may be a wide range of implications for the child, the father and for other relatives. All relevant matters must be considered.
- It has rightly been said that the maintenance of confidentiality is exceptional, and highly exceptional where a father has parental responsibility or where there is family life under Article 8. However exceptionality is not in itself a test or a short cut; rather it is a reflection of the fact that the profound significance of adoption for the child and considerations of fairness to others means that the balance will often fall in favour of notification. But the decision on whether confidentiality should be maintained can only be made by striking a fair balance between the factors that are present in the individual case.
suesspiciousminds 
“Never state the obvious when you can wrap the wrong conclusion round a dreary load of meaningless jargon” ! That seems to be the mantra of our family courts !
Of course court secrecy is wicked and wrong in every case .Of course known relatives should not only be notified when possible if a child is being put up for adoption but should be given a clear opportunity to dispute the adoption if they wish to do so.
What about Rapists? Well the judges seem to favour them and not only arrange to have them notified but even favour them sometimes over the victim mother !
I,myself don’t say such beasts should have rights but they too should in some cases be notified.
This happens all the time which my MP refuses to deal with.
Reading this has made me very very angry, because its a very common problem that for instance the non-custodial (a meaningless badge on a parent) is never informed by police, social service etc if there has been a serious problem where their child or children live. Be it a serious police drug raid at the childrens home, sexual abuse of the childre etc ,
THEY NEVER INFORM THE OTHER PARENT.
This is a fact I am still trying to get information from Hampshire police where I know there was serious trouble at my daughters home concerning her mother using drugs nearly dying from a drug overdose that left her with brain damage for the rest of her life,
Police CPS covered everything up and will not inform me of what happened.
Have you made a SAR?
SS are doing the same to my son
My problem is long gone my children are not children any longer, but the mystery in what happens still remains .
Sorry to hear your son is having problems lucky he got you to help.
I have just made an experimental website its rather outlandish but it exposes the corruption that is going on since 2001 and names the names and there is a live complaint happening too.
Its in draft form and the story is not yet completed, I have not pushed it on Facebook yet but the government, solicitors involved and Hampshire police are aware of it and they cant do anything about it because I have the evidence.
Its about corrupt courts and proves it——
You can catch it on https://www.smoking-caterpillar.com
Cases such as these do give a glimmer of hope that the fossils in the CA are shifting, albeit at a glacial pace, towards greater involvement of fathers and more recognition of the child’s right to have a relationship with them. Contrast this to Butler-Sloss deciding on entirely partial and one-sided evidence, that LAs did not have to inform the fathers about pending adoptions as, in one case, the social worker had promised the mother that he wouldn’t be informed, and in the other, the father had played no part in the child’s life previously – this, of course, only because he had been excluded by the mother who had failed to inform him.
@ Paul Summerfield – best wishes.
Is that the barrister Mike Cox who went to prison for his beliefs?
If it is they gave me three weeks prison for my beliefs
regards
Paul
Aye 🙂
Now if a father had been found to be doing something like that at his children’s home me thinks the court would not allow contact with the children.
It was the boyfriend of the mother who was arrested by the police and he was imprisoned for 7 years
The Moral of the Story is this:
She stupidly took him to court to stop contact in a panic to what had happened to her.
If she did not do this and just pretended nothing had happened she would still have custody of the children because Social Service would have not told the father what he really needed to know
Lets face it all of this happens simply because the court pays no respect to parents.
When parents enter the family court their children are not their own but now are the children of the government.
This is why all common sense is thrown out the window and reason why nobody needs to contact the other parent.
Then they send they send the children to unregulated government homes miles away from where they once lived where they are taught how to become a prostitute and the joys of drug addiction.
This one has really got me going
Then there is me I am not allowed by solicitors MP’s a judge, two Justice’s Clerk of Hampshire and South Devon to put in application of contempt of court concerning Hampshire Police and Portsmouth CPS using as evidence my family court document a CWR as evidence without permission of the court or revealing me the evidence so as to convict me of harassment for writing a lawful letter.
They do this to me because in law as a parent I am nothing more then a Zoo Ape no laws apply to me only to them.
Two years ago my MP Sarah Woolaston attempted three time to the police to have a harassment warning put on me in an attempt to intimidate me to stop me from writing about it.
Police and CPS had to refuse my MP three times because they know I have the evidence against them.
This is how MP’s police, cps are treating parents now, it has all got to stop
How I got three weeks in prison
I have all the evidence of the public authorities acting unlawfully to me and my family
Problem is all application to the court have been stopped to cover up.
Legal Solutions using any court hearing I can take over the hearing using HR law with my case because I can prove the public authorities have acted unlawfully to me and my family
Did this when I got caught speeding in Devon at the magistrates hearing I used the HR law, legal adviser and CPS agreed I could do this so Magistrates sent a date for me to send the evidence to CPS and court on this matter.
Justices Clerk attempted to stop it happening
To cut the long story short it ended with me refusing to pay the speeding fine because the court did not respect the HR act.
At my non payment trial the court had removed all the evidence, but I had the evidence in my case. I used the HR law at the hearing and said to the Judge the court has removed the evidence, but I have it in my case for you to see. Judge refused to look at the evidence and said I was in this court to pay the speeding fine. I told him I will pay the fine if you pay respect the HR law in this matter, Judge refused to look at evidence and sent me down for three weeks. He did not ask me to seek advice from any court solicitor in the court before he sent me down
Here is the twist in this made a complaint to Strasbourg about it and Strasbourg turned the case down gave me no reason why and told me I cannot complain about it
One of my treads about this has been pulled off the site, I understand why because I have been writing about a family court case although I did not name any names but yes I do understand why it was taken down because my name could lead to who it is.
But it was a relevant point I was trying to make and I understand why it was taken down, it was the right thing to do
Sorry Paul, the level of detail combined with you using your real name was just too much. If you want to make the broad point again without giving details about the mother or your children ( I can see thats not easy) I would put that comment through
You were so right to do that because I did the wrong thing there thank you. But it is interesting about the real reason why she stupidly took court action to stop contact so as the children would not tell dad what had happened and how the SS supported her and lucky enough he found the information he needed not from the SS Cafcass but in a newspaper clipping about what her and her boyfriend had been up too.
I mean how lucky can you get.
In one sense I do think family courts should be secret, so as to protect the children, but it does violate human rights especially in the UK because our complaints system in the UK does not work it is designed not to work which makes family courts a very dangerous place to go I personally found the whole experience like Malice in Blunderland I have even got a letter from the Court Welfare Officer informing me that they did not question my children about emotional abuse which the court ordered them to do because they were untrained to do so.
At least the probation officer was telling the truth for once in that letter to me
If a mother has her baby snatched at birth how can it be to the benefit of her baby if she is jailed for revealing to the public what happened to her in the court and what actually went on?
Surely everyone in a democratic country has the right to protest if they feel they have been unjustly treated without being jailed if they reveal their name on TV or on line???
I agree everybody has a right to protest as long as it does not hurt anybody, I’ve done it I painted the Portsmouth Cafcass door purple.
But I know a protester who decided on his daughters birthday to have a protest outside her school with balloons. That is wrong because doing that will screw up the child and cause the child great embarrassment to all friends at school. The father also screwed up his position in any hope of getting contact.
Thats the different s in the two protests one protest is going to the source of the problem Cafcass the other is wrong because the fathers child was not the problem.
Your first point I agree with secret courts breaches human rights because nobody knows what’s going on in there so it should be an open court but nobody is allowed to be named at the hearings.
There are cases where certain people have found themselves in an odd position to be able publish their secret family court cases even without permission of the court. Mark Harris who was imprisoned twice for waving to his children is one of them and he wrote a book called Family Court Hell which has a happy ending.
That book changed Judged Mumby because Mumby found him in Comtempt at his appeal the second time he was imprisoned. Judge Mumby apologised to Mark and said he was ashamed of himself and the family court.
So being able to publish can change people but you have got to have the proof that the laws were broken in someway and they knew about it at the time.
Agreed the balloon demonstrations at his childâsschool were probably wrong unless of course his daughter actually requested it and was âin on the demoâ ! Not wrong enough to be jailed anyway.
Once proceedings are over and children are âno longer involved in them â (clayton v clayton) names etc can be published as long as there is not a specific judgeâs order forbidding it.
In my view parents should ALWAYS be able to go to the media with their cases if they feel unjustly treated. That is democracy and the converse is âpolice stateâ
Also your view of the father that had a demo outside his daughters school you take rather lightly. I think the reason is that you do not understand the pain children go though when their parents end up in family court fighting over contact. I think the father who did this was an inexperienced father doing this because he himself did not take on board the confusion pain and embarrassment his child must have felt which he put onto their shoulders.
So it is serious what he did Ian and it does borderline on imprisonment
How do you know Paul that it was not the child who begged his father to do something spectacular to try and get him home?
I don’t say it was but you cannot say it was not !
Maybe it made the child the hero of the day at school for defying authority .A more likely outcome than ashamed or embarrassed I would have thought !
If a child is snatched from law abiding parents they should be able to protest openly and not suppressed by the “thought police” !
No Ian your wrong
After a family court case even though it is found you have done nothing wrong you can be imprisoned on comtempt of court charges such as waving to your children, putting a picture up of your children on a website.
You should read family court hell by mark harris because its one of the few books that tells you the truth and it reveals alienation of children from their parents
You cannot name your children or talk to anybody about your court case.
For example John Hemmings MP named a mother Vicky Haines in Parliament and clamed the family court had given custody of her daughter to the father who sexually abused her.
John Hemmings could not be imprisoned for that because he named her in Parliament.
But ALL HELL BROKE LOSE
Vicky had a set of follows on facebook, the father was in fear of his life.
The family Court were then forced to reveal the first alienation I read about.
One of the leaders of the facebook campaign was imprisoned for comtempt and poor Vicky fled the country crying I am innocent I am.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028908/Vicky-Haigh-coached-daughter-claim-father-paedophile-custody-battle.html
Same thing but worse was the Hampstead satanic family court case
https://www.spiked-online.com/2015/03/23/the-hampstead-cult-that-wasnt-the-satanic-panic-revisited/
This is the mother of all Alienation Cases where again the family court were forced to reveal
Even after these case Alienation is still not recognised child abuse
So it not so easy as you think publishing your case
IF A SEPARATE ORDER FROM A JUDGE FORBIDS CONTACT OR DISCUSSION YOU MUST OBEY BUT THAT IS RARE;
CAN YOU TELL OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN BEING SNATCHED??
Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they say that you are not allowed by law to show your documents to anybody else tell them they are years out of date!Section 62 ,(para 251 explanatory notes), of the children Act 2004 allows you to show your documents and discuss your case in detail including names with as many individuals as you like! You are however still forbidden to reveal to the press,the public or sections of the public any information that might help identify the children concerned.Tell family ,friends,advisers, and any other individuals anything you like no matter what bossy social workers and expensive lawyers might tell you !!
You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-
Statutory Instruments
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12g
See also Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings
The Children Act 2004 para 251. Section 62(1) amends section 97 of the Children Act 1989 to make clear that the publication of material from family proceedings which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings (or the address or school of such a child) is only prohibited in relation to publication of information to the public or any section of the public. This section will make the effect of section 97 less prohibitive by allowing disclosure of such information in certain circumstances. In effect, this means that passing on information identifying, or likely to identify, a child (his school or his address) as being involved in court proceedings to an individual or a number of individuals would not generally be a criminal offence
So you still cant publish your court case, but you can talk to anyone you like about your childs court case., what about if that person is lying to someone about his or her court case, untrue rumours about the other parent fly around. Does not seem right to me No Family Court Security!
Can anyone else confirm this
I helped Vicky Haigh escape with her unborn daughter to France where she is now a successful racehorse trainer at Maison Lafitte and in factI I had lunch with her last week when she brought horses to Cagnes sur mer near where I live.She lost her older daughter who reported at school that her father had abused her . Vicky was accused of coaching her and was sentenced to 3 years prison (reduced on appeal) for meeting her at a petrol service station when her father came to fill up !
Now of course the father who is an athletics coach has recently been banned for LIFE by the athletics board from coaching children under 18 because of sexually interfering with under age kids. Seems she never persuaded her daughter to accuse her father after all !
So is there must be a court case happening cant kick someone out on allegations such as this are police involved ?.
The athletic board banned Vicky’s ex for life but the girl concerned did not want to press criminal charges as she did not want to have to face him in court. No police are now involved.Vicky is happy with her younger daughter Saphire living in France and will never return to live in UK .Nobody kicked her out .She fled to avoid the”SS” snatching her then unborn baby Saphire !
Sorry don,t go for it, and what other her other daughter that is living with her dad has she made a complaint about him
Mark Harris has been on my website with photo and story for many years.It was disgraceful that he was imprisoned for waving to his children as they drove by but he was imprisoned for breaking a court order not for breaching court secrecy.His kids came back to him in the end much to the anger of the horrible and disgusting social workers !
Mark did not break a court order there was no court order that he was not allowed to see his children he was found in comtempt of court for waving his children he was set up because he was organising protests outside judges houses, I went to Mumbys home with others to protest about it
Book by Mark Harris :: UK Family Court Hell – Jailed for …
Jun 26, 2007 – Mark Harris went to prison for his girls. He was jailed for waving at them after a court order demanded he sever all contact. It was the most
Paul as you see there WAS a court order demanding he sever all contact just as I already stated on this blog. Otherwise he would have been free to establish real contact with them once the proceedings were concluded (Clayton v Clayton)
This info is available in many newspaper reports that you can see if you google “Mark Harris jailed for waving”
I am sorry we are going to have to disagree on that one, Mark imprisonment was easter 2001 Mark attended a court hearing no one expected Mark to be imprisoned, then the Judge announced that the session was now open court and he sent him down on contempt of court charges for the second time.for waving to his kids
That was the charge waving to his children, there were others like he gave them a mobile secretly at a meeting with the SS
But he did not breach any court order because there was no order made that he could not see his kids.
As I said before he was not liked because he was arranging all the demos and Mumby gave Family need Fathers a bollocking over it as well while Parton who was the leader of FNF told everone as well as the papers that he deserved to be imprisoned and so we all called him a Judus on FnF because. before this Parton wrote he was bursting his guts to get Marks story out.
When Mark got out of prison I arranged via the FNF forum for Mark to have a chat with Parton about it
There is another strange story about Mark and that concerns when at the time of when he was about to publish the book, Matt O’Connor of F4J arranged to publicise the book by sending Harris dressed as batman and Jolly as Robin and he put them up on Harriet Harmans roof.
Well they got the publicity for that one and arrested at the same time.
Then after this they could not contact Matt it was like he had left the country.
Harris was furious at Matt because now was the time to push the book
When they showed up at court there was no F4J it was just the two of them. Jolly was sent down but they did not imprison Mark because that would publicise the book.
But they must have been worried about the book and about Jolly being imprisoned over this because in Prison Jolly had a strange visit from a man from the Government and he told Jolly dont worry about anything its going to be alright their is going to be another court case and you will get contact with your children and it happened when he was released from jail
How about that
Mark Harris told me that story himself, he called Matt O’Connor Fat Boy, you see the reason why Mark told me this is because he knew that Matt had done the same to me
see the video of a television interview with Mark. he was DEFINITELY JAILED FOR BREAKING A WICKED COURT ORDER THAT COMPELLED HIM TO SEVER ALL CONTACT WITH HIS KIDS.Without that order in place he would not have been committing any offence
Vicky has had no contact with her other daughter since coming out of prison for speaking to her contrary to a specific court order. You may not “go for it” but her Dad has been banned for life from coaching kids by the athletics board .End of story.
About Featured Snippets
Web results
fkce.wordpress.com › 2007/06/26
Book by Mark Harris :: UK Family Court Hell – Jailed for …
Jun 26, 2007 – Mark Harris went to prison for his girls. He was jailed for waving at them after a court order demanded he sever all contact. … ‘It took ten years, 133 court appearances before 33 different judges, two prison sentences and a hunger strike before I was given permission to be with my daughters again,’ he says quietly.
Dear Ian, Paul, could you please take this conversation elsewhere, I know Ian has his own website. I never feel very comfortable when people get into discussing the nuts and bolts of Vicky’s case. Firstly she’s one of the few people whose name is out in the public domain so discussing her case is much more personal than discussing anonymous cases, and secondly I know that she has visited this site before and obviously the details of her case are sensitive and painful for her. Happy for both of you to comment on pieces and I think you both add perspective to the pieces and the blog generally. Thank you.
OK by me Andrew !
Yes I agree it is hurtful to Vicky if all this turns out to be true. In fact it is very disturbing, now I have just found out family court documents can be given to anybody, I find that disturbing too. This has all been done because legal aid has been taken away. You cannot have a half way house in secret court all of it needs to in an open court now as documents and secret court cases can be discussed to anyone
When there is domestic violence alleged in a couple the family courts tend to give fathers a rough time and side with the mothers. On the other hand if the mother accuses the father of child abuse the courts tend to believe the father’s denials and it is the mothers who have a rough time.
It is important for outsiders who commentate to show no prejudice in favour of fathers against mother or vice versa !
Look we end it here, if Vicky is innocent she would not be hurt by our conversation, but it is disturbing for everybody else here, all I am asking you is get Marks case right read the book not what someone else has written because you are innocently misleading important facts about Marks case.
No it is wrong and misleading.
It was a two day trial
On the first day Mumby gave the order that Mark could not see his kids again
On the second day Mumby imprisoned Mark for comtemt of court for waving to his children in the past ,gave money to mum, handing presents to his children without council approval all of this happened a year previously, .
So Mark never breached the no contact order that Mumby gave to him on the first day.
Thats why when the book was published Mumby said he was ashamed of himself and the family courts
I just written to my MP about all of this, its all so highly disturbing, at least Mark Harris was just a meat and veg father who was just treated like a zoo ape in the secret courts and in the end by F4J.
DAILY MAIL
Every morning, while he waited for a court date to argue against this judgment, Mark saw his children being driven past his house to school by their mother. He’d wave – angry that he couldn’t say hello, but grateful for their smiles.
Then his former wife was granted an injunction stopping him even gesturing to his children as they passed. ‘It was incredible. She said it was harassment, and the court believed her. But I carried on waving. I was looking for a job and I’d walk to the Jobcentre every morning – knowing how to time it so they would come past.
‘I was damned if I was going to be prevented from waving at my own children. Naively, maybe, I assumed the whole business would be cleared up at the next court hearing.’
It wasn’t. Instead, Mark left that courtroom in handcuffs, sentenced to four months, having been told that waving was tantamount to stalking his ex. He couldn’t believe what was happening.
All this began when when the children told the court welfare officer they wanted to live with Mark, The court got rid of the welfare officer and the SS took over and they began take away his contact time with the children,
It ended with Judge Mumby and the court reporter now was a dr cameron had to admit to Judge Mumby that he had been found lying in the last court session about Mark and it was his report that said the children did not want to see him anymore. But inspite of all this Judge Mumby made the court order that now Mark cannot see his children.
Then the next day the session was an open court Mark told everyone to expect the worst and he was sent down on comtempt of court for waving to his children.
Parton leader of FNF told the papers he deserved it, so we all called him a Judus
It was not just what happened about his case Mark changed everything he created the whole protest movement. He even made Judge Mumby the president of the family court to admit the whole family court system is a mess.
Matt O’Connor could never achieve that which is why I am angry at Matt O’Connor in the way he treated Mark Harris when Mark could finally write a book on EVERYTHING he screwed him over he could not be even bothered to attend the court trial that sent Jolly down and Mark only agreed to lower himself as Batman to climb up onto Harriet Harman roof to promote the book.
Dr Camron found lying to the court is still allowed to write the report claiming the children did not want to see Mark anymore. Dr Camron when found lying in court should of been put in the dock to face imprisonment. But no Mark instead gets imprisoned for the second time for waving to his children. There is a section in the book on the mental damage done to his children because they had always been lead to believe that he had done something seriously bad to go to prison again and again they were ashamed of their father just think how they must have felt when they discovered it was because he had waved to them
Everything that has been written is relevant to the original a court should not informing the dad in voluntary adoption cases.
Its all because parents and their children are treated like zoo apes in the family court they have no laws protecting them which is with they are never listen too,
And some people who want change are prepared to go to prison with this belief, there is even a Barrister here that has done just that
The reason why I am writing all about this is because I am in a dilemma as to the real reason why Matt pulled out of the painting purple of the Portsmouth Cafcass Door Portsmouth when we had all the evidence of contempt of court using family court documents as evidence without permission of the court coaching police coaching mother and children to write not one but two different false histories about me so as I could be convicted of harrasment for writing a lawful letter.
The question is why did Matt pull out and leave me cold and dry on my own like he did to Mark Harris. Shaun O’Connell is another one he knew what the evidence behind the painting of the purple door contained but he walk out on me with Connor.
I tried again and again to contact them and they will not answer.
My MP Sarah Woolaston attempted three times when I put a complaint back to the IOPC to get a harassment warning on me by the police so as to intimidate me , The police could not give me a harassment warning because they know I have the evidence against them.
Could it be that Matt O’Connor has done a dirty, like Jim Parton who claimed about Mark that he was bursting his guts to get Marks story out , then when Mark is imprisoned again he tells the papers and the forum that Mark deserved all he was given, he certainly did burst his guts because he has not got any doing that to Mark
Let me explain how Powerful Mark Harris Family Court Hell magic book is……..
No complaint has ever been upheld with Cafcass except one Cafcass Office and that just happens to be Portsmouth Cafcass the door I painted purple.
A portsmouth Cafcass officer was found to be lying in court.
She was senteced for it at Guilford Court and luckily escaped imprisonment
Now look to Mark Harris book where he proves in court Dr Camron is lying to the court.
NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT IT
He should have been taken off the case, but the Dr Camron report goes to Mumby at the trial, Dr Camron admits to Judge Mumby that he did lie in court and Judge Mumby does nothing except follow what is in the report that the children do not want to see dad anymore and gives the court order stopping Mark ever again seeing his children.
Oh no but it does not stop there Mark and his demonstrators must be taught a harsh lesson IMPRISONMENT. for you sonny.
So an open court session was arrange the very next day and Mark was imprisoned the next day for waving to his children and other such nonsense.
Funny enough there is not only a book that records the truth of all of this but also a secret film was made here at the trial it is on the link
I am always a bit wary of cases like these; hard cases make bad law, and what is the alternative?
If we are talking about a woman who did not appreciate the fact that she was pregnant until it was too late to terminate (usually either very young, or menopausal) then total confidentiality should be available; and in the case of middle class teenagers their families very often want the infant gone, and adopted as far away from their daughter as possible. Some will even move to shake off a possible trace.
They have balanced the interests of two children themselves and prioritise the interests of the older to the total exclusion of the younger.
Therefore, I think the French procedure described as a “private birth” should be available; administratively going this route is quite onerous for a woman. Other jurisdictions provide safe havens where infants can be abandoned with no questions asked and again that is a fail safe. The life of an unwanted child isn’t necessarily happy and I would have thought in five-ten years time a family placement might cause family fracture as the adult severs ties.
No its in the best interests for mother and baby that relatives are informed before the court can make a decision, bugger confidentiality.
It should be a no brainer in the secret courts but it is not.
I have just learned on this that now any tom dick and harry can view family court documents because of the cuts in legal aid, .
No bugger confidentiality this must be a call for an open court system to stop all of this happening
Tear down the wall
I’m afraid not. In a relinquishment or abandonment case their interests are very often opposed, and those with the necessary resources available probably still do make private arrangements for an unwanted child. Once upon a time fostering/adoption within extended families was common but it went without saying that it was at the expense of the infant’s identity; if they ever found out that their sister was really their mother it was usually from another child they’d fallen out with.
Having said that, if you read the Eastern European cases they sought to relinquish to give the child a chance of a better life.
They perceived adoption by a middle class British family as being an opportunity for the child and if you read the decisions once they realised it was seriously going to be an extended family or culturally appropriate placement, without that element of “betterment”, they took the children back.
The cases in which there is relinquishment as a direct result of failure to appreciate the position in time for an abortion are very often “consensual”. The middle aged couple who have failed to terminate a menopausal pregnancy often are in agreement that it is in the best interests of their existing teenage children that this infant doesn’t come home with them. They weigh the interests of all of them and give the interests of the teenagers a 100% weight and those of the infant nil weight. The same applies to the parents of a teenager whose pregnancy wasn’t identified in time.
Sometimes they do have recourse to self help.
You see the cases reported as news at a local level; a small paragraph in a local paper, a well dressed, well nourished infant of less than seven days of age found abandoned in a safe place police or fire station, or A&E Dept, with no identification information. The articles request the mother to come forward,etc, but apparently they very rarely do. The majority of them are probably not local to the area of the abandonment, anyway- if you want to secure your daughter’s anonymity from a trace you’ll do whatever you have to. These families choose to prioritise the older child[ren] in whom there is a psychological investment over an infant they would have aborted if they could. Those with resources, financial, social and psychological, don’t come before the family courts.
Forced adoption is in my opinion a crime and those involved should be punished. Voluntary adoption in the case of abandonment is a wonderful thing but only provided that all family members known to the authorities have been notified and given the chance to adopt the child themselves rather than have it given away to strangers .
That’s simply not true, many wealthy, intelligent and successful parents find themselves in family courts, be it fighting off the la or arguing over contact/alienation/abuse etc.
Removed the libellous remark. Please stick to the comment rules Paul. And no, people can’t read the family court documents unless they are a party to the proceedings or have permission of the court. (Or are a therapist helping a parent)
As a lay adviser to literally thousands of parents over the last 20 years I have read thousands of court documents and will continue to do so in order to give the legal advice they are entitled to receive without breaking any UK laws.
A parent is entitled to share documents with one person whilst proceedings are ongoing for support, so you are covered.
Ian ‘s point is correct and that is also the reason why we have a secret court so the family can get together and sort it out in private and that is what the pubic think is happening, because its plain common sense what Ian says, but the fact is it is not happening in our secret courts. The other important point I made is that fathers are not also contacted about anything by the SS, Police when things go very bad at where their children are living, this is common not uncommon and it is not in the best interests of the children.
Unfortunately Secret Courts are not used as they should be Mark Harris’s Book Family Court Hell proves this by a natural justice happening to him and his children which Mark and his children in fact deserved.
Not only was Mark Harris given an order that he could not see his children again based on a report written by a man that admitted that he had lied to the court at the previous hearing. But then Mark was marched into court the next day to be imprisoned because he had waved to his children the year before. Put it to music Pink Floyd the Trial which was from the album The Wall which is about Alienation matches Marks case perfectly because that it how it really is and feels like for a father to be imprisoned for the second time for waving to his children, It was lucky for his children that Mark was a very strong man inside, a weaker man would have jumped off a bridge going though an ordeal like that .
Then Ian tells me the News about Vicky, does this mean that MP Hemmings did the right thing, Do we have a case of real dodgy court reporting by the SS, have all we been mislead then there are the imprisonments concerning this.
What a pickle
As for my libellous remark I do not know what you are referring too
There is a connection to my own family court case between Matt O,Connor, Shaun O’Connell as to why I painted the Cafcass Door which concerns Police coaching mother and children to write false histories about me and using family court documents to support one of the false histories to which I can prove.
Shaun O’Connell knows what evidence I have against the Portsmouth Authorities which lead me to the reason why I painted the door plus he taught at my daughters school!
Now I am writing this here for Vicky as this may help her.
The connection I found why this happened to me and my children and their mother is this:
Freemasons, we have always had a problem in our family in one way or another with the Freemasons of Portsmouth.
Thanks for the info about security of court documents and the line (Or are a therapist helping a parent)
In fact I am part owner of Southernhay Clinic in Southernhay Exeter.
I have a lot of therapists working there and as Shaun O’Connell knows that if I showed what the police coached my family to do, they would be shocked by the statements and what the police and CPS used as evidence CWR without permission of the court or revealing me so as to support one of the false histories so a harassment trial can go ahead not for waving to my children but for writing a lawful letter
In the link here is the proof that police since 2001 Police have been coaching children and in this case their mother to write false statements in this case two false histories so as a father can be convicted for writing a lawful letter. PCA claims no contempt of court for police and cps using family court document without permission of the court or revealing me the evidence last year the IOPC attempted to cover this up as well as my MP and it seems now my new MP
The reason I am putting this here is because I want to know from Matt O’Connor on why he pulled F4J out of the purple door Appeal and why he refuses to state the reasons why it was painted also Shaun O’Connell has some explaining to do as well in this matter.
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ai00qxH39leig6B1_QloU_PEmGkrzg?e=vuVZ3Q
It also shows the complaints system covering up the matter also writing about my family court case my ex is in comtempt of one count, police on two counts for handing the cwr to cps and to the pca without permission of the court also cps are lying in the report they must have used the cwr as evidence because it was the only evidence that surrported one of the false histories for the case to go ahead PACE
Police are also covering up drink and drugs going on at the home after this this is the reason why my ex did not want me to see the kids anymore and used the harrasment act on me. she is not to blame for this because Police and CPS and the Courts allowed her to do it
Also report claims there was an appeal and I lost not true appeal was refused to cover up because I found out Police and CPS were using a family court document without permission or revealing. People have not only lost children but have committed suicide not knowing what is going on with the harassment act
Breaching Family Court Security
Sarah Harman & Harriet Harman
As we all should know Judge Mumby this time quite rightly when Sarah pleaded guilty of comtempt of court for sharing family court document with her sister Harriet who passed the paper onto every tom dick and harry was given a right rollicking by Judge Mumby because she only needed to ask permission of the court, she was lucky she was not imprisoned like Mark Harris by Judge Mumby for that one.
A few years later when I found out about the drug usage and my daughters home and her mother’s near death from a drug overdose which left her with brain damage My MP in Portsmouth sent all this information along with the PCA report to Minister of Justice Harriet Harman who covered up by writing back to me claiming the PCA report is correct, to which I still have the letter.
This government and the past new Labour Government treats Family court security with contempt
Could you please just take that up with them directly?
I have since 2003 and they covered up, last year my MP Sarah Woolaston made three attempts with the police to hit me with harrasment over this in order to intimidate me, Devon Police refused my MP because of the comtempt. Sarah Wollaston and goverment should be reporting this back to head office of the family court but they refuse. Any application I make to the court has been stopped or covered up in proceedings what we do know is David Connor head of Portsmouth CPS and Dan Clacher head of Portsmouth Police (2001) are involved in this and Clacher gave the orders back in 2001 for the police to do what they did to my family, I have proof of that. But also Matt O’Connor and Shaun O’Connell going back to the start of F$J know the evidence proves and was covered up by the courts and Matt has covered everything up also
IOPC refused to comment, Chief Constable of Hampshire Police seems to be refusing to reply also my new MP will not act for me by reporting this back to the head of the family court
There is a hole in my bucket
I also reported it to the head officer of the family court and I got an unsigned letter back telling me that it is not that they are concerned by I need to put an application in abou
Abolish “punishment without crime “and bring back “unlimited free speech” (that does not incite crime or break official secrets) and all these problems would be solved !
IF A SEPARATE ORDER FROM A JUDGE FORBIDS CONTACT OR DISCUSSION YOU MUST OBEY BUT THAT IS RARE;
CAN YOU TELL OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN BEING SNATCHED??
Do not be bluffed by social workers or even your own useless solicitors! If they say that you are not allowed by law to show your documents to anybody else tell them they are years out of date!Section 62 ,(para 251 explanatory notes), of the children Act 2004 allows you to show your documents and discuss your case in detail including names with as many individuals as you like! You are however still forbidden to reveal to the press,the public or sections of the public any information that might help identify the children concerned.Tell family ,friends,advisers, and any other individuals anything you like no matter what bossy social workers and expensive lawyers might tell you !!
You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-
Statutory Instruments
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12g
See also Section 62: Publication of material relating to legal proceedings
The Children Act 2004 para 251. Section 62(1) amends section 97 of the Children Act 1989 to make clear that the publication of material from family proceedings which is intended, or likely, to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings (or the address or school of such a child) is only prohibited in relation to publication of information to the public or any section of the public. This section will make the effect of section 97 less prohibitive by allowing disclosure of such information in certain circumstances. In effect, this means that passing on information identifying, or likely to identify, a child (his school or his address) as being involved in court proceedings to an individual or a number of individuals would not generally be a criminal offence
Let me explain this to you Ian because I would be interested in what you think
A court welfare report had a incorrect history about me in that I only lived at my daughers household for only 8 months. This was incorrect I had lived with my children for seven years and then after leaving the household had another seven years of weekly contact. The history is clean no social service no police involvement in the court welfare report.
When I believed that drugs were being used at the home my ex wanted me not to see the children so her friend who was supplying drugs knew David Connor head of Portsmouth CPS and so David Connor arranged with Dan Clacher head of Portsmouth police to hit me with harrasment for writing a lawful letter so as to stop me from seeing my children.
I did not accept the police warning that I was not allowed to see my daughter again as it was unlawful only a judge could do that, so it had to go to court because I broke the bent police harassment warning.
This created a big problem for the police and cps because statements had to be written and I had done nothing wrong. All the evidence they had was the court welfare report which claimed I only lived with my children at the household for eight months.
So made coached the mother to write a statement following the court welfare report that I only lived at the household for 8 months and since that time (now 13 years later) the children had never wished to have contact with me.
Then the police in their madness and gross child abuse coached my children tp write another false history that I had lived with them for 13 years I was a drunken madman and it all ended at me living at the household with a police arrest for DV.
Now we can prove from the court welfare report that the police and the cps knew the children were lying about DV and Police arrests at the time the children wrote the statements because police would have had a record of it and IT WOULD ALSO BE IN THE COURT WELFARE REPORT which they used as evidence to support their mothers false history that I had only lived at the household for 8 months.
Because all of this was bent twisted and unlawful police and cps could not ask permission of the court to use the family court document as evidence because they would have to explain to the Judge why they had two false histories about me instead of one false history that is in the court welfare report.
What do you actually think about this Ian I would be interested in your views of civil court documents being used in this way so that I can be convicted of harassment for writing a lawful letter and visiting my daughers home armed with flowers.
Do you think with the changes of the law now regarding using family court documents that this is now lawful?
Could you both take this conversation elsewhere? It is getting into more detail than I really like to have here.
Andrew I did stop but Paul made exactly 10 long consecutive contributions before I was provoked to reply .I apologise as you are the sitemaster and I respect that………..
Dear Ian, it’s fine. Not a problem.
I also respect you as a man of law if you abide by the law and uphold that law that is put their to protect children and parents.
Ask yourself one question about what I have written.
How could a mother write a false history about her ex partner and allow our children to write another false history and think she would get away with it.
The answer is this and it is even more twisted.
My two much older brothers John and Keith Summerfield were in on it from the beginning in front of my mother and myself they said it was disgusting and when they saw the children or their mother they would talk to them about the two false histories.
But what I did not know at the time was that my two brothers have been friends with David Connor head of portsmouth cps 2001 since childhood.
So they both thought it was a bit of a joke what their friend Connor had pullled on me and they told the rest of the family behind my back that my family court case was a domestic violence case which is was not.
The reason why I have written all of this is because I believe that every lawyer of the family court here has a duty to report the PCA report back to the head office of the family court because it is a serious breach of family court security, that is put in place to protect children and parents and all of this amounts to child abuse what the police and cps did to my family all because I wrote a letter to my daughter about the books we used to read which included the smoking caterpillar in it.
The Streets Of Laredo
Lament to the death of fatherhood
I was reading a couple of chapters from Mark Harris book ‘Family Court Hell’ and having been there at that time I know that this book is the most honest accurate book written about that time I was in from 2000 onwards.
So reading the book as I was there at the time, is like , a fine coloured photograph, frozen in time pictured on a Leica Camera.
Every time Mark Harris was shot down dead as a father, he just got up again and every time he got up again the movement around him just grew stronger and stronger and no one in power quite understood why.
When I put down the book down, I remembered for some odd reason being seven years old in a classroom at music lesson singing ‘Streets of Laredo’ and when I sang the lines
“I spied a poor cowboy all wrapped up in white linen
All wrapped in white linen as cold as the clay”
It made me cry then feel again
As in every Death, there will be Rebirth
Just like a Caterpillar to a Butterfly
Paul Summerfield
Paul I have deleted your last comment, which was in breach of the comment rules. This isnt, I’m afraid a forum for in depth discussion of an individual’s case or a launchpad for public campaigns. I can see that you are hurting and I’m sorry about that.
thats ok I have now come to an understanding about all of this and I am going to lobby for a change in the law that should help matters. And I thank you for allowing me to take things to the limits and past the limits for me to be able to come to this conclusion, at the end of the day we are all really on the same side if we care about children and parents..
Who agrees with this?
A word of advice to those who campaign for themselves or for others;no matter what the “cause”
Avoid words like lies,liars,fraud,malice malicious, and all terms of abuse at it makes your argument seem less convincing not more so to the casual reader.
The host of this site asked us to stop discussion between myself and Paul so I did so many contributions ago.However as my name is repeated so often I MUST SIMPLY REPLY THAT ALL MY INFORMATION CAME FROM NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS not a bookseller.Also I FIRMLY BELIEVE AS TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL THAT JUSTICE MUST NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE !
Just read good books and listen to good music to understand, not a newspaper clipping because Mark Harris’s book gives you the whole truthful history which would be of use to you same goes to reading court papers understand the whole trial then you get a better understanding,.also I found and taken on board what you told me about Vickys case and I now have a very open mind about the case and I find it disturbing.
Just understand this from me the non notification for fathers triggered me because of my past problems and you will find this is a very common problem in all other areas where the authorities do not inform parents about their children when they should. So I have come to the conclusion after all this lets all lobby for a law to protect parents and children
“A law needs to be made to protect children and parents which is that all authorities Family Courts Police, Cafcass, Social Service must report to the non-custodial any events that they have on their records of their children being abused or in trouble or an important decision is to made about their child or child to be in a family court.” and I am pushing ahead on that one.
Yes I agree with you that an open court system is the only way forward or the parents should be given a right to chose an open court or secret court (parent power)
But I do believe you should be very careful when writing about revealing family court documents or even talking about them because someone reading what you wrote and believing it does not matter any more could find themselves up in court on contempt of court charges and be imprisoned for it.and that’s a fact you can even find yourself with contempt of court charges because you put a picture of your child up on a website.
.
Oh forgot to add about words………
Ian I think you will find that Vicky is allowed to publish what happened in her family court cases as long as she is accurate and telling her truth of her reporting on the cases. The reason Mark Harris was able to publish about his family court case was because it was made public when Judge Mumby imprisoned him in open court and it hit the papers.
Same applies to Vicky I would have thought as her case was made public by a MP and it hit the papers and others were imprisoned.
Not saying do that now its all a bit like when to go to a family court you have got to get your timing right like Mark did