Written evidence (CFA0042)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

PREFACE

This document is a response to the call for evidence1 to the question “Is the Children and Families Act 2014 [‘the Act’] fit for purpose?”. Specifically offering views on the following topics, i.e. Parts 2 and 3:

•                     To what extent has the Act improved the situation for the most vulnerable children, young people and families in England?

•                     Have the reforms to the family justice system succeeded in making the system faster, simpler and less adversarial?

•                     Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children with special educational and disability needs and disabilities?

The author is in a position to opine as an expert by experience resulting from direct involvement in Family Courts between ***. Additionally between 2009 and 2011 working for a Shared Parenting charity as *** covering *** region as it then was. Also as Treasurer for the *** branch of the charity, meeting monthly in *** .

During one of the charity’s monthly head office management meetings in 2010, prior to the General Election that resulted in the Coalition Government, the author proposed sending a draft ‘Shared Parenting Bill’ to all Prospective Parliamentary Candidates with a request that the PPC both support the Bill and put their name in the Private Members’ Bill hat. Brian Binley (CON) Northampton South drew 6th place in the Private Members’ Bill lottery and proposed the Shared Parenting Bill, it later being adopted by the Coalition Government’s Children’s Minister.

During 2010 the author’s child who was in Year 1 was ‘statemented’ for special educational needs by the school and currently has an Educational Health Care Plan.

EVIDENCE

1.                The purpose of the Shared Parenting Bill2 was to ensure that children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing, that there would be a presumption that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.
2.                ‘Parenting Time’ is defined as physical contact, and not phone calls or letters or video conferencing.
3.              To ensure substantial parenting time the minimum of 40% of the child’s time spent with each parent was considered to be appropriate for a Shared Parenting Order.
4.                Should a Shared Parenting Order be made but not for substantial and significant amount of time then regard to the desirability of the child spending at least 25 per cent of his time, in any one calendar year, with each of his parents was to be considered as a minimum3.
5.                CAFCASS posted on their Intranet at the time as part of the Shared Parenting Guidance “Shared parenting does not mean that the child’s time is necessarily divided equally between the two parents, though that is an option which should always be considered as a starting point (by Cafcass officers as well as the parents themselves) unless there is good reason to advise otherwise.” and “Nicola Brewer, Chief Executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has noted: “The present rights of mothers and fathers appear to support the idea that fathers are 'optional seasoning' in children’s lives while mothers are the main carers.” “.
6.              CAFCASS undertakes Section 7 reports for Family Courts, some of which have taken up to forty (40) weeks to produce contrary to the child’s interests.
7.                A CAFCASS Team Leader made false allegations against a father that he had sexually abused his daughter because the father had made a complaint against them4.
8.              The CAFCASS Central Region Complaints Manager held a meeting with the author in his role with a view to co-producing a complaints framework to ensure the charity’s members complaints were handled professionally. The Complaints Manager was initially hostile until the issue of a CAFCASS Officer based in Luton was raised, who was unqualified and had cut and pasted at least eighteen Section 7 reports such the sex of the children in one report changed from one to the other.
9.              A Deputy District Judge generously extended the deadline for a parent who had avoided meeting the deadline for providing a hair sample for a drugs test without any justification.
10.         A Judge avoided dealing with the real risk of child sexual abuse by a grandparent with historical allegations by informing the concerned parent they would have to pay for a three day finding of fact knowing they couldn’t afford to do so.
11.         A senior Social Worker informed the author that the Family Court system was prejudiced against fathers.
12.         A Circuit Judge stated in court in 2019 that they were having to use pencil and paper diary to organise their case load since the system had ceased to function.
13.         After waiting several months for an urgent hearing the District Judge told the parent there was no paperwork or record of any application at the hearing and subsequently made a serious decision ‘on the fly’.
14.            A Circuit Judge asked a parent whether they were willing to change, the parent has a counselling qualification from the University of Leicester, gave the response  “Yes”. The Circuit Judge recorded the response as “No”. The legal aid funded Barrister blurted out “if you are not willing to listen then what’s the point?” to the Circuit Judge. The CJ  subsequently informed Social Workers and CAFCASS Officers in court that the parent was not prepared to change when they had said they were.
15.         A CAFCASS Officer after a year of being involved writing a Section 7 report, Addendum and acting as GAL changed his report supporting the child’s wishes for more equal parenting time, backed up by a separate Social Worker report, on the witness stand on a whim, resulting in the child’s wishes not being heard.
16.         A Circuit Judge increased the time a child spent with an abusive parent despite the child’s wish for more time with the non abusive parent being documented multiple times and the abusive parent admitting physical and emotional abuse of the child to the court.
17.         A parent was excluded from the child’s EHCP Annual Review and upon application to Judicial Review the LA Senior Educational Psychologist made a signed statement to the High Court that the parent had not written to the LA despite the parent receiving an email from the Director of Children Services secretary acknowledging receipt of the communications.
18.         The culture that resulted in the surgeon Ian Patterson Inquiry is prevalent amongst SEND teams.
19.         A child was unlawfully excluded multiple times despite case law ruling the circumstances to be Disability Discrimination. The School Governors never addressed the complaints key issue of DD. The Secretary of State for Education continues to ignore the current and active Level 3 complaint for Disability Discrimination made on 17/02/2022.
20.         SEND Teams wasted a quarter of a billion pounds fighting parents at Tribunals only to win in 3.9% of cases. They routinely discriminate on grounds of sex, race and disability. 14,000 children with SEND are not receiving any school provision – see www.specialneedsjungle.com
21.            “Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities” was the Guardian headline on 13/02/2021.
22.            Amendments in the House of Lords to Clause 11 nullified the purpose of the Shared Parenting Bill5 .
23.            Family Court Judges who affirm pro-marriage views are disciplined for doing so6.
24.            In some South American countries alienating a child from a parent carries a serious sentence in prison7.
25.            Research continues to highlight the importance of equal parenting. “Due to legal reforms, equal parenting time (EPT) laws in Spain now apply to approximately 40% of all divorces, with likely implications for family outcomes and teenagers’ risky behavior. Consistent with theories of bargaining power within marriage, we find that EPT laws decrease contentious and wife-initiated divorces and increase the employment of mothers relative to fathers. An analysis of drug use and family relationships, among 165,000 teenagers, further shows that EPT laws significantly decrease risky behavior by teenagers, especially boys, who claim to have better relationships with their father, although more unclear norms for behavior. These results have some international implications, such as for the United States, where more than half of the states are considering whether to adopt EPT laws.”8
26.            Loss of a father’s involvement causes fifty five (55) harms to children, in particular boys9.
27.            In some US states states such as in Texas, Family Court Juries are available as an option to decide what is best for the child10. Texas uses Common Law originally introduced from England.
28.            The Early Interventions Project would have removed many of the current problems inherit in the Family Courts11.

“The DfES Design Team convened to carry the EI reforms forward, which first met on 17 March 2004:

    was not told of the EI project

    never saw papers relating to the EI project

    never discussed the EI project

    never mentioned the EI project

In this process, eight years of agreed and approved development work was discarded. The DfES Design Team started anew, from a blank sheet of paper (Q: What do think we should do do? Why are we here? A: Dunno). The end result was nothing much. “

29.            Baroness Hale in the Supreme Court’s judgement of the Scottish Named Person Scheme ruled “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” She also quoted from a US Supreme Court judgment which states:  “The child is not the mere creature of the state” (Para. 73)12.
30.            Brock Chisholm first Director-General of the World Health Organisation and friend and colleague of eugenicist and Fabian Julian Huxley, author of the founding document of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, stated13 [author emphasis]:
1.                  “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”;
2.                “What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization of which we know anything? The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality - the concept of right and wrong. The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong are the belated objectives of nearly all of psychotherapy.”;
3.             “Children must be free to think in all directions irrespective of the peculiar ideas of parents who often seal their children's minds with preconceived prejudices and false concepts of past generations.”
31.            “Paedophiles, acting under cover, have defined, or rather redefined, the nature of childhood and the relationship between parents and children. Peter Newell, who shares a name with the illustrator of Alice in Wonderland, is a convicted paedophile. In this article we shall attempt to follow the warren-like network of his connections to the Children's Rights Movement. The results are shocking and, likely, far from complete; for the links are everywhere. ”14
32.            Members of the Houses of Parliament have a documented history of child abuse and it then being used by whips to create “brownie points” to dictate how Parliamentarians later vote15.
33.            “Destroy the family and you destroy the country.”16 translated into every day life for working people this means reducing Industrialised Civilization.

CONCLUSION

34.         The answer to the broader question of whether the Act is fit for purpose is relatively simple, in the vast majority of cases yes. This may seem contrary to the evidence of failure to ensure a child has both parents in their lives for roughly an equal amount of time following parental separation. For some the incongruity between the stated intention and the observable outcome can never be reconciled. It is that the wish for it to be, is greater than the ability to see what it has become. A variation of cognitive dissonance that escalates our fear response repelling us away from the harsh reality of what may in fact be altogether a less palatable motivation. 
35.         A family court order is made whether by consent or otherwise in order to reduce chaos to a level the children will no longer feel affected by and can then thrive. Seems a fair premise…
36.         So what do we observe when a family court order is breached and enforcement requested? Approximately just 1% are enforced, surely this must mean children are left in chaotic family situations? well it would appear so … and where does that leave your cognitive dissonance, it goes into overdrive to avoid disharmony…since secrecy abounds then unless you are directly involved you will naturally assume that the applicant is really a terrible person and the breacher of the order is acting to save the children. Now if you are a prepared to consider the possible and not just the probable then alternatives may be appropriate. Relying on Occam for a second the simplest conclusion is that the courts want children to live in a chaotic family situation.
37.            Dickens was correct at the time of writing “The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings.” the author has met parents who spent a quarter of a million pounds and have nothing to show for it. What has changed though is that as well as making money the Family Courts also destroy families with a view to destroying England. Men, women, children, families and society have all suffered as a consequence, and that is the function of the Family Industry.
38.         To answer the three questions above:
1.                  To what extent has the Act improved the situation for the most vulnerable children, young people and families in England? - It hasn’t, the Act was stillborn following Clause 11 amendments;
2.                Have the reforms to the family justice system succeeded in making the system faster, simpler and less adversarial? - No, the system has collapsed and no longer works, applications are lost, staff cannot find what cases they are hearing, the list goes on;
3.             Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children with special educational and disability needs and disabilities? - No, ‘Kinder-Euthanasie’ is closest to describing the approach to SEND children taken by the Government.
39.            To clarify further, it may appear inconsistent to say the Act is working yet answer the three questions in the negative, however, if the general question had been “Is the implementation of the Shared Parenting Bill fit for purpose?” then the answer would instead be No.
40.         Those who would harm our children are drawn to caring professions involving children as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sadists take that which is righteous and natural and invert it. The majority of the Family Industry is sadistic whether by design or by individual purpose.
41.         The HEXACO personality inventory - a measure of the six major dimensions of personality, [Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience] identifies the Dark Triad of personality traits. Its application and intervention would remove many sadists.
42.         To conclude then, how can a determination be made as to whether the conclusions made here are accurate or otherwise? Informal utilisation of the legal instrument ‘Good Cause Notice’ should suffice.
43.         Here is a list of appropriate changes to the current legislation that would undoubtedly benefit families in England:
1.                 Presumption of 50:50 Equal Parenting upon separation;
2.               Criminalise Parental Alienation;
3.            Make false allegation a criminal offence;
4.            Introduce a standard of proof comparable to criminal courts;
5.              Open the family courts up to the public using Chatham House rules.
6.            Introduce the option of juries for the more intransigent cases;
7.          Make assisting in breaking a relationship with a parent a criminal offence;
8.        Enforce court orders on a ‘three strikes’ basis;
9.            Introduce Early Intervention to ensure the situation is frozen from Day 1;
10.              Train all personnel in Parental Alienation;
11.            Screen staff using HEXACO Personality Inventory;
12.          Enshrine Pre Nuptial Agreements in Law including child arrangements.
44.         Given the time it takes to introduce legislation, the CFA2014 took three years then let us say that if the above twelve items are not implemented by the end of 2024 there is ‘Good Cause’ to accept the conclusions of this document are both valid and accepted to be an accurate representation of how the Family Industry is operated in England by the British Government.

REFERENCE

1.                https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/2579
2.              https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/737
3.              https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/737
4.              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720414/Why-I-falsely-accused-father-abusing-daughter-Police-leant-stand-claim-social-worker-told-tribunal.html
5.                https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0059/amend/ml059-II.htm
6.                https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10523138/Judge-Sir-Paul-Coleridge-disciplined-for-stating-views-on-traditional-marriage.html
7.                https://lynnsteinberg.com/resources/mexico-parent-alienation-law
8.                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358485977_The_impact_of_equal_parenting_time_laws_on_family_outcomes_and_risky_behavior_by_teenagers_Evidence_from_Spain
9.              https://boycrisis.org
10.            https://www.waltersgilbreath.com/blog/texas-family-jury-trials-top-5-frequently-asked-questions
11.            https://www.cyriax.co.uk/early-interventions.htm
12.            https://no2np.org
13.            https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1111916
14.            https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/curiouser-and-curiouser
15.            https://labourheartlands.com/black-books-child-abuse-threats-and-rumour-the-secrets-of-the-whips
16.         https://familieslink.co.uk/pages/issues_genderbias_family_destruction.htm

Word Count 2787

April 2022