Subject: Re: Contacts witheld.
I NEVER give to any of the big charities any more. When I applied for help (I have been raped and made pregnant as a result, I am a child abuse victim) I was snubbed by the NSPCC, Rape Crisis, Shelter and many more.
What's even worse, I have found out that the NSPCC has links with the forced adoption industry!
I would not give any of them a single penny. In this way, I am helping save children from abuse! If you give to "charities" who are involved in the forced adoption industry, you are actually helping child abusers. That's the way I see it. I am a Christian and strongly believe in giving, but these are wicked times and there are some very bad people who are pretending to do good, but they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Better to help people at grass roots level.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Cambridge News > Mum who branded child is jailed
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn%5Fnews%5Fhome/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=46968
Mum who branded child is jailed
A brutal mother who subjected six of her own children to an horrific
campaign of abuse has today been jailed for six years.
The 37-year-old woman beat the children, aged between four and 16, with
weapons including a belt, a broken coat hanger, and a meat tenderising
mallet.
She deliberately branded her 11-year-old daughter with a hot screwdriver
And scratched another with a knife and also left the two girls out on the
streets for three days.
The mother-of-eight's squalid home in Cambridge was never cleaned, the
children went unfed and the youngsters were exposed to harm from each
other.
She was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty to a person under 16 and two
counts of witness intimidation on following a five week trial in November
at Cambridge Crown Court.
All the children have now been taken into care and during the trial it
emerged that social services had been aware of the family since 1999.
Mum who branded child is jailed
A brutal mother who subjected six of her own children to an horrific
campaign of abuse has today been jailed for six years.
The 37-year-old woman beat the children, aged between four and 16, with
weapons including a belt, a broken coat hanger, and a meat tenderising
mallet.
She deliberately branded her 11-year-old daughter with a hot screwdriver
And scratched another with a knife and also left the two girls out on the
streets for three days.
The mother-of-eight's squalid home in Cambridge was never cleaned, the
children went unfed and the youngsters were exposed to harm from each
other.
She was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty to a person under 16 and two
counts of witness intimidation on following a five week trial in November
at Cambridge Crown Court.
All the children have now been taken into care and during the trial it
emerged that social services had been aware of the family since 1999.
Monday, December 7, 2009
First Presbyterian Church honors grandparents
http://www.timesleader.com/community/First_Presbyterian_Church_honors_grandparents_12-05-2009.html
December 5
A Grandparents Celebration was recently sponsored by the Deacons of First Presbyterian Church, Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre. Members of the congregation and their families and guests were treated to a buffet lunch, a special musical program by John Vaida, music director at the church, and a sharing of photographs of grandparents dating to the 1800s. Some of the participants, first row, are: Donna Sowcik and Trudy Olszewski. Second row: David Smith Jr., Jeanne Kravitz and Brianna Schraeder.
December 5
A Grandparents Celebration was recently sponsored by the Deacons of First Presbyterian Church, Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre. Members of the congregation and their families and guests were treated to a buffet lunch, a special musical program by John Vaida, music director at the church, and a sharing of photographs of grandparents dating to the 1800s. Some of the participants, first row, are: Donna Sowcik and Trudy Olszewski. Second row: David Smith Jr., Jeanne Kravitz and Brianna Schraeder.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Another family solution?
Contact anon.
Firstly; when a couple separates instead of making for the family lawyer, they should in fact sit in front of a mediator who will assess the situation and generally offer 'both' parties £500 legal aid and a single court appearance, putting the onus on a couple to find a resolution to their difficulty and to agree to a contact and financial contract which is binding in law until the youngest child leaves full time education. This should then make 'both' parents equally responsible for child welfare and maintenance! Should either parent wish to take the matter back to court beyond this, they have to fund this themselves and this should focus their minds on getting it right first time and stop 'fee earning' solicitors exacerbating matter so they can bankrupt Dad, whilst plundering the legal aid purse indefinitely for Mum!
Secondly; No intervention by CAFCASS or other social services at this stage and once a timetable (that may be allowed to vary as the child grows) and finances have been agreed with a judge (not a court reporter) if he still has a concern then the judge should be empowered to contact the family GP and schools for a report on the health and well being of a child who would have a better understanding then a 'snap shot' taken by a social worker. This will then release the social service from a duty they are ill informed to pursue and normally results in them generating future work for themselves, when they should be reformed and working harder to prevent cases such as Baby'P', Victoria Climbe and Khyra Ishaq!
This should be regarded as law and the law is Parental Responsibility which should be enforceable with the prospect of a 6 month jail term minimal for 'either' parent if they break the terms of this contract for life! (Childhood is such a short span of time)
It would also be useful to inform a child at the age of 11 that both parents on the birth certificate are responsible for their children till the age of 18, it may then focus their mind as they entre the peer and social pressures of secondary education that under age sex could have a lasting effect on their lives, not only from a personal health stand point, but also the prospect of 16 to18 years of child care when they are at an age when they probably want to do something else.This should help them wait to become mature enough to take on such an undertaking. Also if a child was to commit a crime between the age of 10 and 16 with the current perceived immunity, their parents would face the court and be prosecuted for dereliction of duty under the care of their children with a fine or if serious enough prison.
The Tory party have also announced that they wish to make Grandparents and extended family the first port of call for child care rather then social services, who should be a last resort after the possibilities have been explored for a grandparents to take charge whilst a parent resolves their difficulties offering continuity and and stability at a fraught stage in a child's life something once again social services will never do so it is better they concentrate on more extreme cases as described recently by the director of Barnardos.
I really hope Gloria Hunniford, in her capacity as patron of the parents organisation, can encourage these bastions of commonsense and stability to consider the welfare of a grandchild , niece or nephew and in turn put right this God awful law that has blighted people for so long and in my view poses a greater risk to normal society then the threat of terrorism!
Firstly; when a couple separates instead of making for the family lawyer, they should in fact sit in front of a mediator who will assess the situation and generally offer 'both' parties £500 legal aid and a single court appearance, putting the onus on a couple to find a resolution to their difficulty and to agree to a contact and financial contract which is binding in law until the youngest child leaves full time education. This should then make 'both' parents equally responsible for child welfare and maintenance! Should either parent wish to take the matter back to court beyond this, they have to fund this themselves and this should focus their minds on getting it right first time and stop 'fee earning' solicitors exacerbating matter so they can bankrupt Dad, whilst plundering the legal aid purse indefinitely for Mum!
Secondly; No intervention by CAFCASS or other social services at this stage and once a timetable (that may be allowed to vary as the child grows) and finances have been agreed with a judge (not a court reporter) if he still has a concern then the judge should be empowered to contact the family GP and schools for a report on the health and well being of a child who would have a better understanding then a 'snap shot' taken by a social worker. This will then release the social service from a duty they are ill informed to pursue and normally results in them generating future work for themselves, when they should be reformed and working harder to prevent cases such as Baby'P', Victoria Climbe and Khyra Ishaq!
This should be regarded as law and the law is Parental Responsibility which should be enforceable with the prospect of a 6 month jail term minimal for 'either' parent if they break the terms of this contract for life! (Childhood is such a short span of time)
It would also be useful to inform a child at the age of 11 that both parents on the birth certificate are responsible for their children till the age of 18, it may then focus their mind as they entre the peer and social pressures of secondary education that under age sex could have a lasting effect on their lives, not only from a personal health stand point, but also the prospect of 16 to18 years of child care when they are at an age when they probably want to do something else.This should help them wait to become mature enough to take on such an undertaking. Also if a child was to commit a crime between the age of 10 and 16 with the current perceived immunity, their parents would face the court and be prosecuted for dereliction of duty under the care of their children with a fine or if serious enough prison.
The Tory party have also announced that they wish to make Grandparents and extended family the first port of call for child care rather then social services, who should be a last resort after the possibilities have been explored for a grandparents to take charge whilst a parent resolves their difficulties offering continuity and and stability at a fraught stage in a child's life something once again social services will never do so it is better they concentrate on more extreme cases as described recently by the director of Barnardos.
I really hope Gloria Hunniford, in her capacity as patron of the parents organisation, can encourage these bastions of commonsense and stability to consider the welfare of a grandchild , niece or nephew and in turn put right this God awful law that has blighted people for so long and in my view poses a greater risk to normal society then the threat of terrorism!
£3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs,
We are all joining. the best thing is we won't get swine flu
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
Thursday, December 3, 2009
‘A Living Bereavement’
A granny called me recently in a terrible state. She had just met her daughter-in-law and grandson aged 5 as she was shopping in the town. She had not seen him for a couple of weeks as her son and daughter-in-law had an argument. I kept out of the quarrel but I never knew they had split up, I just thought it would blow over”
The wee boy broke free from his mother and ran up to her shouting “granny, granny” and flung himself into her arms saying “I miss you granny, why do you not come to see me any more” The granny said “ I held back the tears and looked at my daughter-in-law’s face but she was very grim as she pulled him away. As they left she turned back and spat out to me” “you will never see him again.” I was devastated - what had I done?”.
Our life with our grandson was just about every day and I babysat for them whenever they needed me and watched him regularly to give her time to herself. I love my daughter-in-law and grandson to bits and he adores me. I don’t understand why she is taking it out on me and her own son because she has fallen out with my son”
“I feel as if I’ve lost him forever like a death in my family. The pain I feel is terrible and I need to speak to someone, I just want to die” My heart felt for her immediately because the pain we felt was also agonising and still is when we hear a granny’s broken hearted plea.. I listened to her for ages but there was no consoling her. “What am I to do” she kept saying, sobbing uncontrollably, “my wee grandson will be broken hearted, he’ll be missing me?” it will take a while for the initial shock to subside before we can speak to her.
It is all to common nowadays that children are used in this way to get revenge. Taking it out on a granny who was not even involved and was always there for them. It beggars belief how people can do this to their own child for at the end of the day it is the children who lose out.
We need to put a full stop to this abuse of children for revenge and the heartbreak of grandparents who only want the best for them.
Contact your Member of Parliament and Local Authority Councillor of which country you live in and tell them to raise this in parliament. Grandparents need The Charter for Grandchildren to put an end to this madness.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness Crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
The wee boy broke free from his mother and ran up to her shouting “granny, granny” and flung himself into her arms saying “I miss you granny, why do you not come to see me any more” The granny said “ I held back the tears and looked at my daughter-in-law’s face but she was very grim as she pulled him away. As they left she turned back and spat out to me” “you will never see him again.” I was devastated - what had I done?”.
Our life with our grandson was just about every day and I babysat for them whenever they needed me and watched him regularly to give her time to herself. I love my daughter-in-law and grandson to bits and he adores me. I don’t understand why she is taking it out on me and her own son because she has fallen out with my son”
“I feel as if I’ve lost him forever like a death in my family. The pain I feel is terrible and I need to speak to someone, I just want to die” My heart felt for her immediately because the pain we felt was also agonising and still is when we hear a granny’s broken hearted plea.. I listened to her for ages but there was no consoling her. “What am I to do” she kept saying, sobbing uncontrollably, “my wee grandson will be broken hearted, he’ll be missing me?” it will take a while for the initial shock to subside before we can speak to her.
It is all to common nowadays that children are used in this way to get revenge. Taking it out on a granny who was not even involved and was always there for them. It beggars belief how people can do this to their own child for at the end of the day it is the children who lose out.
We need to put a full stop to this abuse of children for revenge and the heartbreak of grandparents who only want the best for them.
Contact your Member of Parliament and Local Authority Councillor of which country you live in and tell them to raise this in parliament. Grandparents need The Charter for Grandchildren to put an end to this madness.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness Crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
About child contact.
Yes guys, yet another cut and paste from the governments ( How to get off the hook) hand book has surfaced.
My thoughts are in blue text below the original.
Have you noticed how they manage to avoid a very important word in their brief:
Yes it is called EQUAL or EQUALITY!
Can anyone out there please try to tell me:
1. Why do I need to go to court to remain a loving and devoted parent for my children?
2. If I must go to court can anyone please tell me why the court action is not on-going in the background and the child / parent relationship
does not faulter?
3. Why does a judge not enforce the law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts. Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
We do not see any need to change this law, but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes. In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents. Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing. Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside. Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to. If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare. The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute. The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents who have been unable to agree arrangements, to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests.
They may very well believe it but they do not enforce it!
The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration.
If this is true then how has the welfare issue shifted to the mother?
While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce,
Many do not and the blackmail begins.
the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact.
Why do the parents need to apply for residence or contact?
The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The courts need to butt out and not get involved.
Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses,
Many witnesses are not allowed to give their information.
including experts.
Who needs these “So Called” experts? (If they were not required before)
Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court.
This is untrue and the judge will only allow what he sees fit.
If arrangements under a court order do not work out,
What do they mean If the don’t work out?
either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
Apply all you want, the court will not enforce an order that you should need anyway.
We do not see any need to change this law,
There is no need to change the law they just need to enforce it!
but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes.
How are they going to do that?
In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts,
If a mother is withholding the children, where else can a father go?
as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents.
No surprise here then! How would a parent be dissatisfied if they “Owned” the children?
Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation
Mediate till the cows come home, the mother need not attend! Why should she?
and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing.
Why should a parent have to go to court to remain one?
Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
Implement all you like, it will make no difference! It is real enforcement that will help.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty
The word here should be “Impossible”
in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside.
This happens quite simply because one parent is given “Ownership” of the children.
Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to.
Why did the involvement with your children stop in the first place? Just because the mother does not like you anymore?
If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy
Ahh you forgot something quite important here.…..The Money it costs!
£300 per hour for a family solicitor……..£10-15K to get a court order.
but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare.
So why do they not do their job properly?
The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area.
It is only sensitive for the mother and the father receives no sensitivity!
Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment.
When is this ever going to happen?
The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
Again when is this going to happen?
However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute.
What a cop out! This is a disgrace. So it is okay to shut out the father and all of the extended family. Is this appropriate?
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders.
How?
For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work.
Refer the mother as much as you want, she need not attend or adhere as the government won’t enforce any measures!
The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost.
I have lost lots of money due to paying for lost holidays, passports train tickets etc and how am I ever going to get this back?
These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution.
They will not assist as they will not enforce anything against the mother.
The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents
They work very much against the non-resident parent.
who have been unable to agree arrangements,
Who of sound mind would agree to losing their children?
to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The records show that CAFCASS do not want to disobey the mother’s wishes!
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually
Why do they use the word “Usually”? when they couldn’t care less if the children have a meaningful relationship with their father or not!
in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
So let me get this right. The government want me to prove that my children are suffering serious harm or are at risk of it before I can continue to be a father to them!
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson Public Communications Unit www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions
My thoughts are in blue text below the original.
Have you noticed how they manage to avoid a very important word in their brief:
Yes it is called EQUAL or EQUALITY!
Can anyone out there please try to tell me:
1. Why do I need to go to court to remain a loving and devoted parent for my children?
2. If I must go to court can anyone please tell me why the court action is not on-going in the background and the child / parent relationship
does not faulter?
3. Why does a judge not enforce the law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts. Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
We do not see any need to change this law, but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes. In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents. Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing. Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside. Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to. If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare. The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute. The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents who have been unable to agree arrangements, to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Morris
Thank you for your email dated 16 November about child contact. On this occasion I have been asked to reply.
The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests.
They may very well believe it but they do not enforce it!
The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration.
If this is true then how has the welfare issue shifted to the mother?
While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce,
Many do not and the blackmail begins.
the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact.
Why do the parents need to apply for residence or contact?
The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The courts need to butt out and not get involved.
Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses,
Many witnesses are not allowed to give their information.
including experts.
Who needs these “So Called” experts? (If they were not required before)
Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court.
This is untrue and the judge will only allow what he sees fit.
If arrangements under a court order do not work out,
What do they mean If the don’t work out?
either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.
Apply all you want, the court will not enforce an order that you should need anyway.
We do not see any need to change this law,
There is no need to change the law they just need to enforce it!
but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes.
How are they going to do that?
In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts,
If a mother is withholding the children, where else can a father go?
as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents.
No surprise here then! How would a parent be dissatisfied if they “Owned” the children?
Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation
Mediate till the cows come home, the mother need not attend! Why should she?
and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing.
Why should a parent have to go to court to remain one?
Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders.
Implement all you like, it will make no difference! It is real enforcement that will help.
I realise there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty
The word here should be “Impossible”
in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside.
This happens quite simply because one parent is given “Ownership” of the children.
Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to.
Why did the involvement with your children stop in the first place? Just because the mother does not like you anymore?
If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy
Ahh you forgot something quite important here.…..The Money it costs!
£300 per hour for a family solicitor……..£10-15K to get a court order.
but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare.
So why do they not do their job properly?
The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area.
It is only sensitive for the mother and the father receives no sensitivity!
Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment.
When is this ever going to happen?
The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests.
Again when is this going to happen?
However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute.
What a cop out! This is a disgrace. So it is okay to shut out the father and all of the extended family. Is this appropriate?
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders.
How?
For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work.
Refer the mother as much as you want, she need not attend or adhere as the government won’t enforce any measures!
The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost.
I have lost lots of money due to paying for lost holidays, passports train tickets etc and how am I ever going to get this back?
These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution.
They will not assist as they will not enforce anything against the mother.
The Government brought the remaining provisions in Part 1 of the Children and Adoption Act (sections 1-5 and 8) relating to new powers for the courts to order 'contact activities' to assist people in resolving contact disputes and new enforcement powers on 8 December 2008.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) works with parents
They work very much against the non-resident parent.
who have been unable to agree arrangements,
Who of sound mind would agree to losing their children?
to help them resolve their disputes, where it is safe to do so and in the child's best interests.
The records show that CAFCASS do not want to disobey the mother’s wishes!
The Children and Adoption Act 2006 contains measures for the extension of the maximum duration of Family Assistance Orders from six months to 12 months which were implemented in October 2007. Beyond this, the Government plans to implement additional measures to enforce contact orders, including through the monitoring of court-ordered contact.
Denying a child contact with one of its parents is not usually
Why do they use the word “Usually”? when they couldn’t care less if the children have a meaningful relationship with their father or not!
in the child’s best interests, but it is for the courts to decide whether or not a child has suffered serious harm or is at risk of suffering serious harm, in the circumstances of each case.
So let me get this right. The government want me to prove that my children are suffering serious harm or are at risk of it before I can continue to be a father to them!
Yours sincerely
Emma Hutchinson Public Communications Unit www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0097256. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries why not browse our Popular Questions website. This site has been built to allow you to quickly find the answer to your question http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/popularquestions
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Demo, THE SEA OF SANTA’S
PRESS RELEASE
UNMARRIED AND SEPARATED FATHERS/FAMILIES OF IRELAND
ANNUAL PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
WHEN: SUNDAY 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 @ 12:30
WHERE: MEETING AT DOLPHIN HOUSE DUBLIN FAMILY LAW COURT
AND PARADING TO O CONNELL BRIDGE
WHY:
TO CAMPAIGN FOR FATHERS WHO WILL NOT GET To
SEE THEIR CHILDREN THIS CHRISTMAS BECAUSE OF FAMILY
BREAKDOWN AND TO COMEMORATE THOSE 6 OF OUR
MEMBERS WHO HAVE TAKEN THEIR OWN LIFE BECAUSE THE
FAMILY LAW SYSTEM IN IRELAND HAS FAILED THEM BOTH
AT CHRISTMAS TIME AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BY
ALLOWING HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN COURT TO ENSURE
CHILDREN DO NOT GET TO SEE THEIR REAL HERO THIS
CHRISTMAS, THEIR FATHER
HOW:
EACH MEMBER WILL DRESS UP AS SANTA CLAUS AND WILL
PEACEFULLY MARCH WITH BANNERS SUCH AS ‘PUT THE
FATHER BACK INTO FATHER CHRISTMAS’. BASED ON
PREVIOUS YEARS AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MEN, WOMEN AND
CHILDREN COME OUT TO SUPPORT THIS EVENT. WHEN THE
MARCH ENDS AT O CONNELL BRIDGE WE WILL HAVE A ONE
MINUTE SILENCE AS WE DROP 6 CHRISTMAS WREATHS INTO
THE RIVER LIFFEY TO COMMEMORATE OUR 6 FALLEN
FATHERS WHO SIMPLY COULD NOT GO THROUGH ANOTHER
CHRISTMAS WITHOUT THEIR CHILDREN.
HELP:
WE AS A NATIONAL ORGANISATION ARE CALLING ON ALL OF
THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL MEDIA TO COVER THIS EVENT
AND ASSIST US TO HIGHLIGHT THE TRAUMA BROKEN
FAMILIES GO THROUGH AT CHRISTMAS TIME, AND TO SEND A
MESSAGE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO LETS MAKE THIS
CHRISTMAS ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND GIVE THEM THE
RIGHT TO SPEND THEIR MOST EXCITING PART OF THE YEAR
WITH BOTH PARENTS EVEN IF IT HAS TO SEPARATELY.
INFO:
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR Mr. Ray Kelly 0868879444 ray@usfi.ie This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need java-script enabled to view it
UNMARRIED AND SEPARATED FATHERS/FAMILIES OF IRELAND
ANNUAL PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
WHEN: SUNDAY 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 @ 12:30
WHERE: MEETING AT DOLPHIN HOUSE DUBLIN FAMILY LAW COURT
AND PARADING TO O CONNELL BRIDGE
WHY:
TO CAMPAIGN FOR FATHERS WHO WILL NOT GET To
SEE THEIR CHILDREN THIS CHRISTMAS BECAUSE OF FAMILY
BREAKDOWN AND TO COMEMORATE THOSE 6 OF OUR
MEMBERS WHO HAVE TAKEN THEIR OWN LIFE BECAUSE THE
FAMILY LAW SYSTEM IN IRELAND HAS FAILED THEM BOTH
AT CHRISTMAS TIME AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BY
ALLOWING HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN COURT TO ENSURE
CHILDREN DO NOT GET TO SEE THEIR REAL HERO THIS
CHRISTMAS, THEIR FATHER
HOW:
EACH MEMBER WILL DRESS UP AS SANTA CLAUS AND WILL
PEACEFULLY MARCH WITH BANNERS SUCH AS ‘PUT THE
FATHER BACK INTO FATHER CHRISTMAS’. BASED ON
PREVIOUS YEARS AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF MEN, WOMEN AND
CHILDREN COME OUT TO SUPPORT THIS EVENT. WHEN THE
MARCH ENDS AT O CONNELL BRIDGE WE WILL HAVE A ONE
MINUTE SILENCE AS WE DROP 6 CHRISTMAS WREATHS INTO
THE RIVER LIFFEY TO COMMEMORATE OUR 6 FALLEN
FATHERS WHO SIMPLY COULD NOT GO THROUGH ANOTHER
CHRISTMAS WITHOUT THEIR CHILDREN.
HELP:
WE AS A NATIONAL ORGANISATION ARE CALLING ON ALL OF
THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL MEDIA TO COVER THIS EVENT
AND ASSIST US TO HIGHLIGHT THE TRAUMA BROKEN
FAMILIES GO THROUGH AT CHRISTMAS TIME, AND TO SEND A
MESSAGE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO LETS MAKE THIS
CHRISTMAS ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND GIVE THEM THE
RIGHT TO SPEND THEIR MOST EXCITING PART OF THE YEAR
WITH BOTH PARENTS EVEN IF IT HAS TO SEPARATELY.
INFO:
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR Mr. Ray Kelly 0868879444 ray@usfi.ie This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need java-script enabled to view it
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Letter to David Cameron
Dear Mr. Cameron,
A couple of weeks ago on early morning radio I heard Caroline Spellman outline the Conservatives plan for the family should you become elected. This morning I heard you stating that you hope and expect your ministers to build on achievements already gained from charities etc. rather than have a complete sweep, losing any information that is already there.
We are very much impressed by this positive move toward family unity and would like to be a part of this, building on our previous work.
Representatives of our group have attended meetings in relation to Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice research and we have taken part in the workshop with his Breakthrough Glasgow program.
We are a support group that helps grandparents who are denied contact with their grandchildren and our approach is building bridges within families and encouraging families to work together for the sake of the children involved as they are always the innocent victims of adult behaviour. We very much support traditional family values and believe much work is needed to rebuild the erosion of the family unit, with education in parenting and compromise as priorities. We have been working in this field for ten years now and have a varied case load with a good success rate in regaining or maintaining contact within families.
We believe you will be coming to Glasgow during the build-up to next year’s election and would appreciate it if you could spare us some time during one of your visits to discuss our proposals to help families.
A couple of weeks ago on early morning radio I heard Caroline Spellman outline the Conservatives plan for the family should you become elected. This morning I heard you stating that you hope and expect your ministers to build on achievements already gained from charities etc. rather than have a complete sweep, losing any information that is already there.
We are very much impressed by this positive move toward family unity and would like to be a part of this, building on our previous work.
Representatives of our group have attended meetings in relation to Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice research and we have taken part in the workshop with his Breakthrough Glasgow program.
We are a support group that helps grandparents who are denied contact with their grandchildren and our approach is building bridges within families and encouraging families to work together for the sake of the children involved as they are always the innocent victims of adult behaviour. We very much support traditional family values and believe much work is needed to rebuild the erosion of the family unit, with education in parenting and compromise as priorities. We have been working in this field for ten years now and have a varied case load with a good success rate in regaining or maintaining contact within families.
We believe you will be coming to Glasgow during the build-up to next year’s election and would appreciate it if you could spare us some time during one of your visits to discuss our proposals to help families.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Freelance Journalists
Dear all,
I would like to warn you about free lance journalists who promise you payment (not even asked for) for stories then never hear from them again. The time and labour I have put into it is a big expense out of our funds for phoning our members usually at the shortest notice to take part can provide up to £1000.00p for these journalists
Two major magazines have been involved concerning £200.00p and one of £400,00p for our funds via a freelance from Stroud. The magazines knew about the deals but took nothing to do with it.
I have always went out of my way to help but how many times have you been disappointed by the stories end result, forgetting to put in your details of contact, switching the story to suit their own best interests and being told it was the editor who left it out.
What have they really done for you? Today’s internet and organisations like Facebook ‘s widespread publicity etc. Who needs freelancers when they are deceptive?
I would like to warn you about free lance journalists who promise you payment (not even asked for) for stories then never hear from them again. The time and labour I have put into it is a big expense out of our funds for phoning our members usually at the shortest notice to take part can provide up to £1000.00p for these journalists
Two major magazines have been involved concerning £200.00p and one of £400,00p for our funds via a freelance from Stroud. The magazines knew about the deals but took nothing to do with it.
I have always went out of my way to help but how many times have you been disappointed by the stories end result, forgetting to put in your details of contact, switching the story to suit their own best interests and being told it was the editor who left it out.
What have they really done for you? Today’s internet and organisations like Facebook ‘s widespread publicity etc. Who needs freelancers when they are deceptive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
