Family Lore

Re B: Why a grandmother was preferred to a father

2009-11-20T21:12:00.011Z

Why would a court prefer a child to be brought up by a grandparent rather than a parent? That was the decision in the first family law case of the new Supreme Court, overruling the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Re B (A Child) [2009] UKSC 5 concerned a three year-old boy who had been cared for since birth by his maternal grandmother, who was granted a residence order by consent in November 2006. In 2008, his father applied to the Family Proceedings Court for a residence order, but was refused. He appealed, and the High court overturned the decision, transferring residence to the father. The grandmother appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court. The grandmother then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Family Proceedings Court had refused the father's application as it had not found any compelling reasons to disrupt the child's continuity of care. In the High Court Judge Richards interpreted the leading case of Re G as indicating that it was preferable for children to be raised by their biological parent or parents. Indeed, he felt that a child had a right to be brought up by his or her natural parent. This was given short shrift by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court:

"We consider that this statement betrays a failure on the part of the judge to concentrate on the factor of overwhelming – indeed, paramount – importance which is, of course, the welfare of the child. To talk in terms of a child's rights – as opposed to his or her best interests – diverts from the focus that the child's welfare should occupy in the minds of those called on to make decisions as to their residence."

Judge Richards had gone on to suggest that, provided the parenting that the father could provide was "good enough", it was of no consequence that that which the grandmother could provide would be better. Again, Lord Kerr gave this short shrift:

"We consider that in decisions about residence such as are involved in this case; there is no place for the question whether the proposed placement would be "good enough". The court's quest is to determine what is in the best interests of the child, not what might constitute a second best but supposedly adequate alternative."

The "principal message" in Re G had been to do away with the idea that parental rights have any part to play in the assessment of where the best interests of a child lay, said Lord Kerr. The confusion over that case, it seems, came from the two-paragraph speech of Lord Nicholls, which had been given first in the judgment. He said:

"In reaching its decision the court should always have in mind that in the ordinary way the rearing of a child by his or her biological parent can be expected to be in the child's best interests, both in the short term and also, and importantly, in the longer term. I decry any tendency to diminish the significance of this factor. A child should not be removed from the primary care of his or her biological parents without compelling reason."

It is easy to see from this why Judge Richards interpreted Re G the way that he did. I'm sure I would have interpreted these words in the same way myself. However, Lord Kerr pointed out that a careful reading of Lord Nicholls' speech reveals that he did not propound any rule to the effect that a child should not be removed from the primary care of biological parents. All he was doing was "reflecting common experience that, in general, children tend to thrive when brought up by parents to whom they have been born":

"He was careful to qualify his statement, however, by the words "in the ordinary way the rearing of a child by his or her biological parent can be expected to be in the child's best interests" (emphasis added). In the ordinary way one can expect that children will do best with their biological parents. But many disputes about residence and contact do not follow the ordinary way. Therefore, although one should keep in mind the common experience to which Lord Nicholls was referring, one must not be slow to recognise those cases where that common experience does not provide a reliable guide."

The central point, said Lord Kerr, was that:

"All consideration of the importance of parenthood in private law disputes about residence must be firmly rooted in an examination of what is in the child's best interests. This is the paramount consideration. It is only as a contributor to the child's welfare that parenthood assumes any significance. In common with all other factors bearing on what is in the best interests of the child, it must be examined for its potential to fulfil that aim."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the justices' decision could not be said to be "plainly wrong" and should not therefore have been reversed by the High Court. The grandmother's appeal was therefore allowed.

In short: there is no presumption in favour of a biological parent - the paramount consideration is: what is best for the welfare of the child? This must, of course, be right, although it is easy to see why Re G was misinterpreted.

Updating Family Lore Focus

2009-11-20T14:38:00.002Z

I am in the process of updating Family Lore's companion site, Family Lore Focus. I've just uploaded the new front page, which I will be testing for the next few days, before I start to roll out the rest of the new site. I hope that readers find the new site to be an improvement, although if you find any problems with it, please let me know by email, at john[@]familylore.co.uk.

Legal Aid: Worse than shovelling sh*t

2009-11-20T07:55:00.003Z

The headline on Family Law Newswatch says it all: Legal aid lawyers paid less than sewage workers.

Mediation is unattractive

2009-11-19T06:43:00.005Z

I take exception to the suggestion in this article by Jane Robey (left), chief executive of National Family Mediation, in the Guardian's Comment is free column today, that solicitors discourage mediation in order to boost their fees. I cannot speak for the entire profession, and I'm sure there are some solicitors who do this, but I most certainly did not, and nor did most of the other solicitors with whom I had dealings. I always encouraged clients to go to mediation (although I had reservations - I had often found that the results of mediation were less than satisfactory) and, after advising them about how mediation worked, left the decision to them. My experience was that the majority of clients decided not to go to mediation, but that was entirely through their own choosing.

Despite my reservations, I agree that mediation can be very helpful in resolving family breakdown issues, but it is not a panacea - it is an additional tool, useful in appropriate cases, i.e. where the parties are willing to utilise it. In other words, my experience suggested that its lack of take-up is due to the unwillingness of parties to go to mediation, rather than the greed of their solicitors. Robey should consider why so many people find mediation unattractive, instead of speculating upon what solicitors may have told their clients.

Perfectly reasonable...

2009-11-19T06:17:00.004Z

I remember years ago when I was an articled clerk finishing my first file and taking it to my principal to ask how much I should charge the client. He weighed the file in one hand, grinned, and said "about £800". He was joking. Solicitor Trevor Hobden, however, was not joking when he told investigators that he calculated fees in precisely this way.

It's not often that proceedings in the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal make the national papers, but this case did. Apart from his novel way of calculating costs, Hobden took money from clients for his costs without billing them and billed for doing no work. He was struck off after being found guilty of taking money from a client account in respect of costs without delivering a bill, taking money which was not properly due to him, overcharging a client and failing to give clients proper information.

Interestingly, and amusingly, he was cleared of having compromised or impaired his integrity.

Recommended listening

2009-11-16T19:57:00.004Z

In a podcast for the Law Society Gazette, Charon QC has been speaking to Law Society Council member Christina Blacklaws (left) about the state of the family justice system. As Charon states, a pretty grim picture she paints too. If you have an interest in family justice then you should head over to Charon QC and listen to this.

GOVERNMENT URGED TO ACT ON FAILINGS OF CHILDREN ACT

2009-11-16T07:43:00.004Z

I have received the following press release:

GOVERNMENT URGED TO ACT ON FAILINGS OF CHILDREN ACT

Twenty years on and one in three children are losing touch with their fathers when parents’ split, new research shows

Parents’ failure to separate amicably is leading to an increasing number of children losing permanent contact with their father according to a landmark study into the effects of family breakdown in the UK.

The study of over 4000 parents and children was commissioned by family lawyers at Mishcon de Reya to mark the 20th anniversary of the Children Act which was implemented in November 1989 to improve the welfare of youngsters caught in the middle of parental separation.

The report highlights the negative effects of separation on children and shows, despite the Act’s good intentions, in practice the law is not working – leaving the UK counting the financial costs of litigation, court resources and increasing numbers of socially excluded children.

Seventy per cent of parents quizzed by the law firm cited their child’s welfare as the main priority during separation. However, children said they felt used (19 per cent), isolated (38 per cent) and alone (37 per cent). Many admitted they turned to drink and drugs, played truant from school or self harmed. For 38 per cent of children the separation meant they never saw their father again.

What parents say
A quarter of parents surveyed believe that their child was so traumatised by their separation that they self harmed or contemplated suicide. Despite this, 50 per cent admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process over access issues and living arrangements. Nearly half (49 per cent) admitted to deliberately protracting the legal process in order to secure their desired outcome and two thirds (68 per cent) confessed to indiscriminately using their children as ‘bargaining tools’ when they separated.

A staggering 20 per cent of separated parents admitted that they actively set out to make their partners experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.

What children say
Half of the children surveyed said that their views were disregarded by both of their parents during the separation.

Almost half of children polled (42 percent) witnessed aggressive rows between their parents, while a further 17 percent were caught in the middle of violent fights. A quarter (24 per cent) admitted they were forced by one parent to lie to the other and 15 per cent were asked to spy on their mother or father.

As a result, almost one in ten children (8%) considered suicide as an escape and a third sought solace in drug or alcohol abuse. The resulting effect to society is captured in the fact that 10% felt so angry and alone because of their parents’ behaviour that they turned to crime.

The financial cost
As well as the emotional effect on children, statistics from the Legal Services Commission reveal that Legal Aid funding for separating parents to go to court to resolve child care arrangements is costing £151million annually – enough to employ more than 5000 extra social workers. The figure is also 56 times the amount by which the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) is having to reduce its budget by in the next two years (£2.7million). CAFCASS was established in 2001 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children facing separating parents.

Mishcon de Reya’s Head of Family Law Sandra Davis said: “This research highlights shows that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs. They don’t have the tools to co-parent effectively following separation and their only solution is to turn to the courts. Children – alongside the economy - are suffering because of this.

“The millions of pounds spent each year on Legal Aid, running the courts and CAFCASS could be better spent educating parents about their children’s needs and gaining an understanding of how to resolve and avoid long term disputes and reduce hostility.”

The solution
Davis is now calling on the Government to set up National Family Therapy centres. These would be funded by diverting public expenditure on Legal Aid and savings on the running costs the courts and CAFCASS. Couples who would otherwise pay privately to go to court would be charged on a sliding scale, similar to counseling schemes run by charities such as Relate.

She said: “Litigation should be the last, not the first, resort for the resolution of parental disagreements. Despite the best intentions of the judiciary, CAFCASS, specialist family law practitioners and experts the process remains fundamentally adversarial and blame focused. Whilst the courts are able to impose solutions on parents, they can’t resolve the root cause of disputes which is necessary before parents are able to co-parent effectively after they separate.”

Two thirds (64 per cent) of separated parents quizzed as part of the study said that if counselling was available they would consider attending.

Last week Mishcon de Reya invited key opinion formers to a debate that took place at Westminster to discuss how best to improve the legal process and minimize the impact of parental separation on children. Panel members included MPs from both major parties.

Said Davis: “Action is needed to protect childen from the worst excesses of parental conflict. Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.”

Lawyer of Love?

2009-11-12T05:18:00.005Z

I see that Chicago divorce lawyer Corri Fetman is back in the news. As long-time readers of Family Lore may recall, Fetman gained fame (?notoriety) for her firm's billboard advert two years ago which read: "Life's short. Get a divorce." She subsequently posed nude for Playboy, and briefly wrote a column for the magazine. That all went sour, however, and now Playboy is suing her over her attempt to trademark the phrase "Lawyer of Love", which was the title of the column, and which Playboy claims to own.

I particularly liked the comment by Mitch Kowalski in the FP Legal Post. He said: "Given that she is a divorce attorney, it seems odd that she would want to seen as the Lawyer of Love. Perhaps "Lawyer of Scorched Earth, Death and Destruction" would be more apt for someone in her line of work." Quite.

Fetman, incidentally, now writes the Love Lawyer blog for Chicago Now, a Web site affiliated with the Chicago Tribune.

Disturbing News

2009-11-11T07:40:00.005Z

Some highly disturbing news from The Wall Street Journal. Apparently, there is this awful new trend called the "Civilized Divorce". Quite made me feel faint when I read about it. People divorcing amicably and remaining good friends? Where's the ~~fees~~ fun in that?

Let us hope that this will be one trend that is short-lived.

[Hat-tip to James Gross of the Maryland Divorce Legal Crier for pointing out this story.]

Papering over the cracks

2009-11-11T06:22:00.008Z

One year after Baby P the Guardian has an article today in which social workers and others involved with child protection give their views on how much progress has been made in children's services. It makes pretty uniformly depressing reading, with recurring complaints of excessive workloads, excessive bureaucracy, shortages of qualified staff, poor remuneration, constant scrutiny and lack of respect. Here are a couple of typical examples:

"It is obvious to social workers that the orders from above are focused on a social worker's ability to fill in forms, rather than whether we have time to sit down with the family or sit and think about how that family functions for the child. Social workers are then being disciplined for not meeting the deadlines."

and:

"Around the country I am regularly coming into contact with people ... who are burnt out after 18 months in the job. Social workers are literally serving the machine in office hours and then doing their proper field work at evenings and weekends, all the while facing a barrage of negative press"

Is it any wonder that the BBC reports today that a growing number of social workers are leaving the profession? The government points out that there is no shortage of people applying to become social workers, but how many of those will be burnt out 18 months into the job? It seems to me that far more is required than just a flashy recruitment-advertising campaign.

Beauty and Substance

2009-11-10T08:13:00.004Z

A Blawg Review by a UK blogger is a rare and (sometimes) beautiful thing. Certainly, Blawg Review #237 by Christian Metcalfe (left) of The Property Law Blog is a thing of great beauty, not to mention great substance. The theme is the 1647 Putney Debates - takes me back to my A-level history. Well worth a read.

In the papers today...

2009-11-09T07:44:00.006Z

Three stories that caught my eye this morning:

The Guardian reports that: "The number of divorce and separation cases being fought in the courts that involve children has risen, with £151m of legal aid money being spent on litigation, according to figures released today." They quote research by Mishcon de Reya which "shows that more than half of parents going through divorce and separation went to court to challenge issues relating to their children". The Guardian goes on: "The increase in proceedings is causing delays to private law cases, a panel of experts will hear at a debate in parliament today, with alarming implications for children involved." No doubt we will be hearing more about this as the day progresses...

Meanwhile, one divorce which most definitely did not involve minor children was that of Bertie and Jessie Wood who, at the age of 98, were the oldest couple in the world to get a divorce, according to the Daily Mail. This is, in fact, the case of Baker v Rowe, which I reported in Family Lore Case Digest on Saturday.

Lastly, I have mentioned here before the phenomenon of divorce cakes, which originated in America. I'm not sure if this is exactly news, but the Daily Mail reports today that the trend has reached these shores. Yummy...

Dawkins causes population crisis shock!

2009-11-06T06:36:00.007Z

Further to my last post I read today that Dawkins is being blamed for falling birth rates across Europe! This would be laughable, but for the fact that our government has recently seen fit to elevate the author of this nonsense, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, to a position in the upper house of this country's Parliament. His argument appears to be that secularism equals selfishness and immorality. This is an old, tired, and completely wrong proposition that is regularly wheeled out by theists and has long-since been proved utterly fallacious. Dawkins himself dealt with it in The God Delusion, a book that Sacks appears to have either not read, or not understood. It is truly scary that someone who thinks that all morality flows from belief in mystical sky-gods occupies a position in the government of this country. (And I'm not even going to deal with the fact that he thinks a falling birth rate is a bad thing...)

No fossil rabbits in the Precambrian

2009-11-03T20:38:00.007Z

When I am ready to shuffle off this mortal coil I will not be able to console myself with the thought that I did anything useful with my life. I did not make any great scientific discoveries, I did not save lives and I did not teach children the wonders of the world. I was a lawyer. Still, it could have been worse - I could have been a politician.

Why these depressing thoughts? Well, I have just finished reading Richard Dawkins's latest opus, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. It is not that the book is depressing - far from it. It is that whenever I read a science book I realise how little of real value I or any lawyers have achieved by comparison to the great scientists to whom we owe our knowledge of the universe around us. As the title suggests, the book sets out the massive body of evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact, every bit as much as it is a fact that the Earth is round and that it orbits the Sun. Unfortunately, as Dawkins points out, the book is very necessary, as there are still many who will deny this truth even 150 years after it was discovered. Quite why they deny it is beyond me - perhaps it is ignorance, perhaps it is lack of intellectual capacity, perhaps it is indoctrination, or perhaps they simply deny it for their own ends. Dawkins is not so naive as to expect that many of the deniers will read the book, but hopefully a few will, and any furthering of the truth can only be a good thing.

If you are a denier, then do yourself a favour and buy this book. If you are not, then just get it to wonder at the story of evolution, and of those great people who uncovered it.

Needs Must

2009-11-02T06:47:00.010Z

Reading the big-money cases reported over the years and dealing (occasionally) with cases involving significant wealth myself, I've often been amused by the amounts that parties claim they need to live on. However, a case hitting the headlines in America takes the amusement to a whole new level.

Jamie McCourt is the wife of Frank McCourt, the owner of the LA Dodgers baseball team (although his sole ownership is disputed by Mrs McCourt). The pair appear to be heading for a highly-public and highly-acrimonious divorce after he dismissed her from her position of chief executive officer of the team, after she allegedly had an affair with her driver (or was it her bodyguard, as some reports suggest?). She responded by filing for divorce and reportedly seeking alimony (that's maintenance to you and me) of an eye-watering $488,000 a month, or about £300,000 a month. She claims that she needs this for such essentials as private jets, five-star hotel accommodation, "personal care" (£7,000 a month) and flowers in her office. Even in the state that is not known for its lack of excess this has raised a few eyebrows, with one local paper remarking that the divorce "seems destined to titillate and disgust the common people in Southern California who wouldn't even know how to spend $500,000 a month". Nope, nor would I, although I wouldn't mind finding out.

Control, or React?

2009-11-01T12:19:00.005Z

I posted a few days ago about the Law Commission's proposal that cohabitants should have an entitlement on intestacy. My good friend John Hirst of Jailhouselawyer's Blog has drawn my attention to this article in The Times, in which Ross Clark (left) argues against the proposal, saying that: "For any cohabiting couples who don’t like the inheritance laws there is a simple answer — get married."

The whole issue of cohabitants' rights raises strong feelings, especially amongst those who are against. Most family lawyers are in favour, as they have seen first hand the injustices that the lack of rights can cause. It is all very well saying "if you don't like it, get married", but this raises the fundamental question of whether the law should be used as a tool to control how people conduct their relationships. Personally, I do not think that it should, or even that it could - in a free society, at least. If people want to live their lives in a certain way (and it is not that they can't be bothered to get married, as Clark suggests) then they should be free to do so. The law should react to changes in society (rather than try to control them) and ensure that injustices do not happen as a result of those changes.

October Post of the Month

2009-11-01T10:13:00.003Z

Non-lawyers often seem to find it difficult to understand that lawyers must maintain a distance from the cases they are dealing with. In the family context, it would be all too easy to get involved in some of the highly-charged and often distressing situations that lawyers deal with, but to do so would be to fail in one's professional duty. The corollary of this is that lawyers are often accused of not caring, as discussed by Lucy Reed of Pink Tape in her post ‘Don’t you lot EVER think about the kids?’, my Post of the Month for October.

The particular source of the criticism that Lucy discusses is a children's guardian, who is quite clear in their view as to how the case should be resolved and becomes frustrated by what they see as lawyers (acting for parents) causing unnecessary delay. However, as Lucy says, parents are entitled to a fair trial too: "For what is fairness if it is not something applicable to all parties?". She concludes: "I think about the kids all the time. How could one not? But then I get on with giving sound advice and acting on my instructions, and put my faith in the court to work out the right solution."

It would be nice if this post were read in certain quarters, before lawyers are insulted in this way.

Inconsistent

2009-10-29T15:23:00.005Z

The point has already been made, but it does seem a little odd that the Law Commission is proposing that cohabitants should have an entitlement on intestacy, while at the same time the Government has shelved plans to give cohabitants property rights upon separation. If the Law Commission's proposals are passed into law, we could have the very strange situation whereby if your partners dies intestate then you will automatically receive part of their estate, whereas if they leave you then you will receive nothing. Of course, we already have the situation whereby a cohabitant can benefit from their deceased partner's estate if they make a successful family provision claim although, as the Law commission points out, such a claim is expensive and stressful, and involves litigation against the deceased’s relatives and even perhaps the cohabitant’s own children.

Time for a bit of joined-up thinking, perhaps?

White v Withers: Not swept under the carpet

2009-10-28T07:45:00.010Z

TV chef Marco Pierre White has succeeded in his appeal against the striking out of his claim against his wife's solicitors, Withers LLP. The full report of the Court of Appeal judgment may be found here, and a summary in The Times, here.

The case may involve a celebrity and a top London law firm, but it clearly has application across the board. It is a very frequent occurrence for a party to an ancillary relief claim to remove or copy documents belonging to the other spouse, often because it is feared that the other spouse may seek to hide assets from the court. Such documents are, of course, known as "Hildebrand documents", so named after the 1992 case Hildebrand v Hildebrand. Lord Justice Ward summarised the Hildebrand rules as follows:

"The Family Courts will not penalise the taking, copying and immediate return of documents but do not sanction the use of any force to obtain the documents, or the interception of documents or the retention of documents nor I would add, though it is not a feature of this case, the removal of any hard disk recording documents electronically. The evidence contained in the documents, even those wrongfully taken will be admitted in evidence because there is an overarching duty on the parties to give full and frank disclosure. The wrongful taking of documents may lead to findings of litigation misconduct or orders for costs."

White alleges that his wife told him that Withers had told her to take his mail. Withers, following the Hildebrand guidelines, maintain that they advised Mrs White that she was only entitled to take copies of documents that she found in the matrimonial home, provided she did not break into any of Mr White's property to obtain access. They considered that White's claim was an abuse of process, designed to 'hassle' his wife. However, the Court of Appeal was particularly concerned about a letter to White from his daughter Letty, which had been intercepted and which White did not see until it was produced by Withers. Lord Justice Ward:

"solicitors are officers of the court and if they are shown to have done wrong they should face the judgment of the court. It is not conducive to the administration of justice that such claims are simply swept under the carpet. It is in the public interest that the bounds of proper conduct be clarified. The interception and retention of Letty's letter ... leaves me with such an uncomfortable feeling that for my part I would be reluctant to shut out the claimant and deny him his day in court. Thus I am not persuaded that this claim has been shown to be an abuse of the process."

Let us hope that, now it is proceeding to trial, the case does, indeed, clarify 'the bounds of proper conduct'.

Essential CPD

2009-10-27T07:10:00.005Z

I threatened some while back to start making CPD courses. Unfortunately, that project never came to fruition. However, I am pleased to announce that I am now making CPD courses for the CPD Channel. The courses provide one CPD point (or one hour) each, and comprise an audio, a set of notes and five multiple-choice questions, all for £25. My first three courses are now available and are all designed for those new to family law, or those returning to the subject who require a refresher. They are: Essential Divorce, Essential Ancillary Relief Part 1: The Law and Essential Ancillary Relief Part 2: Procedure. Further courses will follow, including more advanced topics and updating courses.

What price vulnerable children?

2009-10-26T06:44:00.006Z

The Times today has a series of three articles describing the dire state of the under-resourced family justice system, and its consequences for 'vulnerable children' (a phrase that appears in the headline of each article). One article is by Christina Blacklaws, who seems to be running a one-woman campaign to highlight the problems, and is essentially a layperson's version of the article that she wrote for the Gazette last month. The other two articles are both by Frances Gibb, one concerning the risks of the proposed cuts in legal aid and the other dealing with the post-Baby P increase in care applications and its consequences for Cafcass.

The Times has, of course, long taken an interest in the family justice system, and has been running a campaign to open up the courts. Whether or not there is any 'agenda' behind the publication of these articles is unclear, but two things are certain if more resources are not pumped in:

1. The unacceptable delays in the system, which must harm the children involved, will only get worse.

2. The quality of service that those children are likely to get from those within the system will deteriorate, simply because there will not be enough experienced professionals (be they social workers, Cafcass officers or family lawyers) to cope with the demand.

What price vulnerable children?

All men are created equal

2009-10-21T18:55:00.004+01:00

In Maine they are voting upon the possible repeal of the state’s newly approved law allowing same-sex couples to marry. Here, 86 year-old veteran Philip Spooner puts the case in favour of the law with dignity and eloquence:

The Baby P Effect

2009-10-21T08:12:00.009+01:00

The newspapers are full of stories about the substantial increase in care applications. See, for example, this report in the Guardian and this one in the Independent, both of which appeared in the last 24 hours. Now, this isn't new news - it has been reported for some time that the numbers are up, but I haven't done any care work for many years, so I have hesitated to comment. However, I think that some comment is required.

The primary reason for the increase is, of course, the Baby P case. Agencies are fearful that they will be vilified for making mistakes by failing to protect children, and are therefore applying for care orders in 'lower level' cases, where they would not have done so previously, effectively passing responsibility to the courts. This, of course, is having the effect of overloading the system, which is struggling to cope. This, in turn, will mean more delay in cases where children are in real danger. It will also almost certainly mean that more children will be removed from their families unnecessarily.

This is not the way the system should work. It is, however, the inevitable result of those working in the child protection system being subjected to hysterical, uninformed media criticism, without proper support from government. As I have said here before: who would be a social worker? It is virtually impossible to do a proper job when you know that your every decision will be publicly scrutinised, and your first mistake will likely be your last. I'm sorry, but no system is perfect. People do make mistakes, and anyone saying that we 'must prevent another Baby P tragedy' is just not living in the real world. We cannot prevent tragedies from ever happening. We can, however, minimise them, but this will only happen if those working within the system are allowed to do so without fear.

* * *

Update: I find it somewhat ironic that the media are now saying that innocent families are suffering.

Not clever...

2009-10-21T06:57:00.005+01:00

I suspect that quite a few hen-pecked husbands around the world may empathise, but for a Saudi man to allow his wife to find out that he has nicknamed her 'Guantanamo' is not very clever. Now she is apparently threatening divorce unless he pays her "substantial" compensation. Either way his wallet is going to get a lot thinner...

Come lie with me (allegedly)

2009-10-20T20:39:00.004+01:00

Personally, as a divorce lawyer I can't see anything wrong with this, even if the divorces were a sham just to get the pension payouts. Well, it's all good business for us, isn't it?