It is often said that it is all too easy to criticize something without taking the time to show how the situation could be made better. Since the damage that is caused by current processes, attitudes and staff is so horrendous it does not take much thought to suggest something that would be a vast improvement.
The basic problem:
The Children's Service seems to have four main precepts:
1) It will never be held to account for the vast harm that it causes.
2) You are guilty, unless you are a female willing to make accusations against a male, in which case they will assist.
3) If you are male you will lose your children, you are cut out of their lives immediately. If you are female but support a male then you are treated as an "honorary male" (or "failed female") and your children will be removed.
4) Evidence, rational thought and even decisions made in a law court can be ignored. If they do not like the look of you then you must be guilty.
At heart the Children's Service is a misandrist organisation, as long as the female plays along with the prejudices then the female can do no wrong. Even if a law court decides on evidence that a female has made false allegations, or has herself abused children, it will cause no change in the Children's Service viewpoint.
It pretends to conduct investigations into allegations of criminal activity but it has no competence (in any meaning) to do so and the accused will suddenly find themselves in a kangaroo court where hearsay rules and they are expected to prove negatives without being allowed to use any evidence that does exist.
Support will be offered and given to the female (including tactical and legal advice concerning how to retain control of the situation), the male has to fend for himself.
The service will act on pure hearsay, it will not listen or otherwise examine evidence that does not fit in with pre-conceived notions.
Compared to any "innocent until proven guilty" format that might be traditional elsewhere, the accused is treated as guilty from the outset and will have to attempt to disprove assertions from periods of his life that might be years in the past.
The service will enforce its printed "star-chamber rules" against the male but ignore them if flouted by the female.
Interim decisions will favor the female and thereafter the "status quo" will be used as an excuse. Once an anti-male allegation has been made it is treated as gospel. If the allegation is eventually put to the test, whether by the police, the law courts or any other method and found to be false the Children's Service will continue as if the allegation was true and consequently the idea of taking action against the female, supporting the male or even attempting to rectify the harm the service has caused will not even come into consideration.
Lawyers and para-legals understand this and use the biased nature of the service to the female's advantage and the gross detriment both of the children concerned and other family members that are not favored by the female. I suspect that a sizeable portion of the Childrens Service positively enjoys breaking up families, providing further fodder for the Social Services.
The Children's Service will never make an admission of wrongdoing or apology for the vast amount of harm caused to the children or parent, it is as if they actively take pleasure in the damage that they create.
A serious consequence of the problem:
Since so much time is wasted reaching bogus conclusions on false premises it stands to reason that those few cases where child abuse actually has occurred will not have received the correct level of attention.
The Childrens Service is simply not competent to investigate child abuse allegations. It is plainly incorrect and unjust that the effective power to destroy family life of both adults and children should fall to the whim of a social worker. Although I have very little faith in them the "natural" organisation for investigating crimes is the police force. Some of the police do at least understand that allegations should be put to the test and that the police force is not also judge and jury. The police have the option of prosecuting (abuse of a child, attempting to pervert the course of justice, perjury, wasting police time to name a few) when allegations are found to be false however I have never heard of them using these options whereas it should be mandatory.
The law should be amended such that making false allegations to a government agency becomes a defined criminal offence. In the instance of false allegations of sexual offences, or other offences against children, the minimum sentence should be one year imprisonment with the maximum matched to the maximum sentence that would have been applied to the alleged offence. It should be made an absolute offence, that is to say without the need to establish "intent" (mens rea) since the damage caused is permanent in either event. Furthermore if a false allegation involves children then the allegation will be a form of abuse of the children, if there is intent it is a deliberate attempt to destroy the family and pervert the course of justice and if there is abuse without intent then the accuser is too dangerous to be entrusted with the care of children.
Allegations must never be used to have the effect of an ouster order. If the accuser claims that they are at some form of risk from remaining in the matrimonial home then it is up to the accuser to leave. The accused must be given the immediate opportunity to secure the building and possessions. If the accused requests that the building be sealed then this must be done.
In order to prevent the pitfall posed by the status quo in disputed cases of abuse the children should either be under equal residence with both parties whilst the matter is under process (it being reasoned that any repetition of alleged behavior under such circumstances would be extremely unlikely) or taken in to a specific special form of care where neither parent is favored, both parents have equal supervised access and the children are protected from interference by agencies (which would include interference by the SS). An alternative would be to split the Childrens Service into maternal and paternal wings, each supporting their side in a similar fashion to the traditional adversarial nature of British courts.
It would be better if the service were renamed to reflect what it actually does "Female allegation team" or "Family destruction" would be more accurate, it has precious little to do with what is actually better for children. I would also query the basis under which the staff can be considered "professional" as they simply do not qualify for that label under any general meaning of the term, if the service was called "Nosey neighbours" it might better reflect the degree of trust that should be placed in them.
Any "independent chair" of a Children's Service committee must be demonstrably independent, as a former SS employee Jean Andrews simply cannot be regarded as independent, she should be sacked immediately and replaced with some rational person who is truly independent of the SS.
All staff to be evaluated for competence and bias, membership of known misandrist organisations to be a mark of failure.
A 50:50 male:female staff ratio to be attempted, an imbalance of more than 10% to be refused.
A minimum of 75% of staff to have experience of raising their own children in a normal family setting.
Causes and Effects of Child Abuse - Abusive Mothers
Those members of the public who have the slightest experience of the family courts rapidly learn what the term "Kafkaesque" means. These courts are a disgrace in comparison to the basic tenets of British justice, a magistrate's court is an area of modern enlightenment in comparison and I believe the general public would be disgusted if they knew of the travesties that are played out at public expense by a small self-perpetuating group of rather well paid operators who have the benefit of total secrecy covering their actions. A magistrate's court may not be perfect but in comparison to the family courts it is several orders of magnitude better. Particular changes (patterned after the Magistrate's court) that should be made immediately:
No secrecy, justice must be seen to be done, all hearings to be open.
No gagging orders of any kind.
All those who submit "evidence" to be open to cross-examination.
Hearsay to be treated simply as hearsay.
and most importantly
Innocent until proven guilty.
Criminal allegations to require criminal standards of proof.
Any allegation where the maximum penalty would split the accused from any immediate member of the family for 6 months to automatically be given the option to be heard in front of a jury.
[please consider this with the regard to the right of any person accused of any other offense where the maximum penalty that might be imposed is six months or more to have a jury trial. If you have been accused of say theft with the threat of being jailed for 26 weeks if convicted you can demand to have the case heard and the decision of guilt or innocence made by twelve normal people but if you have been accused of any of the aspects that can come up in a child protection conference then you may find yourself permanently removed from your children just on the say of a social worker]
The British government is apparently starting to realise how costly the family courts are. I would imagine that their prime interest is in the tax burden of running the courts (rather than of any innate desire to see justice prevail or prevent the wholesale destruction of families). Given what the British government has done to encourage divorce within various acts of parliament, and the government and local authority agencies that are designed to destroy families it is not surprising that there are an increasing number of cases that take advantage of the biased opportunities that now exist. I suspect that the vast majority of allegations are fueled by two particular strands, the desire to hurt the accused in any way that is available and the desire for financial benefit. Given the nature of the majority of people that would consider making such allegations there is probably not a lot that can be done regarding their desire to hurt but the prospect of receiving no financial advantage can be attended to. If the instigation of false allegations raised the prospect of an actual penalty then perhaps they would balance their wishes to cause damage against the risk of being found out.
Pre and post nuptial agreements to be given full force (removing any discretion of the court).
I think it can be seen that one set of laws is unlikely to cover the attitudes, beliefs and traditions of each and every couple or family. A very simple change that would remove an enormous burden from the family courts would be to permit (or force) those couples who prefer to be married according to the rites of a particular religion (being a religion that is accepted as a religious body and has people who are duly authorised to carry out a marriage ceremony) to have the dissolution of that marriage carried out by the same religious body and according to their strictures and traditions. It would be the respondent (the person who did not file for divorce) who would have the the choice between a "church" or "civil" divorce.
Naturally there will be a considerable number of people who do not regard a church wedding or other religious ceremony as being the appropriate setting and for those the civil function will have to suffice. In those cases where there is no existing pre-nuptial agreement the couple must indicate on signing the register either that all pre-nuptial assets are taken out of consideration in the event of divorce or that all pre-nuptial assets are to be divided equally. The marriage certificate issued indicates the choice of individual pre-nuptial agreement, equal division of pre-nuptial assets or pre-nuptial assets to be beyond the grasp of the spouse and court.
If the ludicrous concept of the no-fault divorce is enforced then the person who initiates such a divorce abandons any claim on the spouse, children (if any) and matrimonial assets.
Having seen the conduct of two police interviews of a child, under what they consider to be "best practice" (methods and conditions), I have to say that I am not impressed. I have a very slight sympathy with the Police in that interrogation has been a part of their methods from the very beginning but it must be understood that interviewing a child who has been under the sole control of one parent (or of one side of the family) renders the interview suspect. If any weight is to be given to a child's interview then the other parent must be given sufficient time to reestablish proper contact with their child beforehand. Adults seem to forget that the perceived passage of time is entirely different for a child who may well regard a day, week or month as an eternity. If the SS and police policy prevents the accused parent from seeing the child for months on end then the SS and police have abused not only the child but also the parent from being denied contact. From the child's point of view they have effectively been abandoned and when you have got to that stage it is relatively simple for the "free" parent to control the child. Putting the child in a situation where they know that their controlling parent is just the other side of a door when their other parent has been kept out of the child's life puts an enormous influence on what they will say.
Just as an experiment I am adding a messageboard to this site, please feel free to submit any relevant comments