Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Why is this idea important?

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

review / stop public funding for family mediation

People seeking public funding when getting divorced etc are subjected to family mediation before being assessed for eligible for funding.  This process often  does not work, it costs the tax payer an extortionate amount and is often seen as a needless and painful process – the outcome is not legally binding and  is often a waste of time and money for the most part.

Why is this idea important?

People seeking public funding when getting divorced etc are subjected to family mediation before being assessed for eligible for funding.  This process often  does not work, it costs the tax payer an extortionate amount and is often seen as a needless and painful process – the outcome is not legally binding and  is often a waste of time and money for the most part.

Repeal s.54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and provide legal aid where permission to appeal is granted

Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents a matter being taken before the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal (at the Royal Courts of Justice) has refused permission to appeal. This refusal prevents the proper development of law, and effectively gives the Lord Justices of Appeal a right of veto over its own precedent being considered and reviewed by a higher authority (the Supreme Court).

Repeal of s.54 of the Access to Justice Act will assist in reducing delays to legal reform, and in the example set out below, would have ensured that child welfare is better safeguarded. It would protect both the judiciary and our legal system from reputational harm.

For the law to be upheld, it must be open to scrutiny and perceived to be beyond reproach. There must be a system of checks and balances. This statute precludes this.

Where the Royal Courts grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicant should have the assistance of legal aid, given that matters of great constitutional or social importance go before the Supreme Court. Where it is accepted by the Lord Justices of Appeal that an application is meritorious, the limited financial means of an applicant should not preclude arguments being properly set forth by counsel. In such circumstances, the fees for an application should also be waived. Where there are general points of law to be reviewed which impact on more than a single applicant's case, there should be no barrier to a full and open review, and one where the applicant is assisted by expert counsel. Such an outcome is in the public interest.

Why is this idea important?

Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents a matter being taken before the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal (at the Royal Courts of Justice) has refused permission to appeal. This refusal prevents the proper development of law, and effectively gives the Lord Justices of Appeal a right of veto over its own precedent being considered and reviewed by a higher authority (the Supreme Court).

Repeal of s.54 of the Access to Justice Act will assist in reducing delays to legal reform, and in the example set out below, would have ensured that child welfare is better safeguarded. It would protect both the judiciary and our legal system from reputational harm.

For the law to be upheld, it must be open to scrutiny and perceived to be beyond reproach. There must be a system of checks and balances. This statute precludes this.

Where the Royal Courts grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicant should have the assistance of legal aid, given that matters of great constitutional or social importance go before the Supreme Court. Where it is accepted by the Lord Justices of Appeal that an application is meritorious, the limited financial means of an applicant should not preclude arguments being properly set forth by counsel. In such circumstances, the fees for an application should also be waived. Where there are general points of law to be reviewed which impact on more than a single applicant's case, there should be no barrier to a full and open review, and one where the applicant is assisted by expert counsel. Such an outcome is in the public interest.

S Family law & social services need a root & branch over haul.

The government need to take a long hard look at the way social services works &  family courts work. There needs to be public scrutiny of these actions to prevent children being removed when parents are silly enough to ask for support, whilst leaving other children in dangerous homes because social workers are too scared of the parents.

Why is this idea important?

The government need to take a long hard look at the way social services works &  family courts work. There needs to be public scrutiny of these actions to prevent children being removed when parents are silly enough to ask for support, whilst leaving other children in dangerous homes because social workers are too scared of the parents.

Family law – contains degenerate principles which allow persecution of good men

Family law currently contains 2 principles which have no place in the family laws of a civilised society. These principles are :

– 'no-fault' divorce

– the child's best interests.

The first is easily recognised as contributing to injustices in divorce/child custody etc.

The second is an insidious principle, easily accepted by a gullible public as being appropriate. It is no such thing. The inclusion of this principle in family law (Children Act 1989 etc) allows judges, indeed mandates judges, to take control of children from perfectly good and decent parents, overwhelmingly the father. No one should be allowed, in a civilised society, to take control or direct the upbringing of a child from a parent who has done nothing wrong. The rights of an unimpeschable parent should be protected by the courts, not removed. This principle is probably the most evil intrusion into people's lives of any in UK law, in any part of the law. When people whp have done no substantive wrong are persecuted, as they are under this principle, we can say that the law has degenerated into utter evil.

Why is this idea important?

Family law currently contains 2 principles which have no place in the family laws of a civilised society. These principles are :

– 'no-fault' divorce

– the child's best interests.

The first is easily recognised as contributing to injustices in divorce/child custody etc.

The second is an insidious principle, easily accepted by a gullible public as being appropriate. It is no such thing. The inclusion of this principle in family law (Children Act 1989 etc) allows judges, indeed mandates judges, to take control of children from perfectly good and decent parents, overwhelmingly the father. No one should be allowed, in a civilised society, to take control or direct the upbringing of a child from a parent who has done nothing wrong. The rights of an unimpeschable parent should be protected by the courts, not removed. This principle is probably the most evil intrusion into people's lives of any in UK law, in any part of the law. When people whp have done no substantive wrong are persecuted, as they are under this principle, we can say that the law has degenerated into utter evil.

Simplify divorce and family law

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

Why is this idea important?

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

Minister for Men

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

Why is this idea important?

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

Remove Opt-Out From Family Law Mediation

Family law, as it currently stands, encourages both sides in a marital/relationship breakdown to engage in a process of mediation and/or collaborative law prior to seeking redress through the courts. There is currently an 'opt-out' in place for spouses who have suffered Domestic Violence/Abuse. Whereas this is understandable in such genuinely unpleasant and extreme cases, there is a suggestion that many spouses are making spurious allegations of Domestic Abuse, which are subsequently withdrawn, in order to circumvent the necessity for mediation. This is predominantly being done by the Interim Resident Parent prior to any eventual residency hearing, hoping to stretch out the timeframe before the eventual hearing takes place, in order to establish a new 'status quo' which often then persuades the Court that the best interests of the child are served by leaving things as they are.

Why is this idea important?

Family law, as it currently stands, encourages both sides in a marital/relationship breakdown to engage in a process of mediation and/or collaborative law prior to seeking redress through the courts. There is currently an 'opt-out' in place for spouses who have suffered Domestic Violence/Abuse. Whereas this is understandable in such genuinely unpleasant and extreme cases, there is a suggestion that many spouses are making spurious allegations of Domestic Abuse, which are subsequently withdrawn, in order to circumvent the necessity for mediation. This is predominantly being done by the Interim Resident Parent prior to any eventual residency hearing, hoping to stretch out the timeframe before the eventual hearing takes place, in order to establish a new 'status quo' which often then persuades the Court that the best interests of the child are served by leaving things as they are.

equal parenting

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Why is this idea important?

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

The Family Rights Act – 2010

Mr Cameron you are right..our  society is 'broken' and wee have a problem.

Current family law is a mess and fails children and fathers alike.

It is all to easy for a woman at the moment to get a divorse, + a hansome financial settlement even in 'short' marriage and get primary care of the children. The vast majority of men did not long to have children, respecting the union of marriage, only to have the horror not only of divorse but to then find children taken away and contact denied so easily by abusive mothers.

All this is possible currently under the shocking legislation known as the Children Act. We have the most regressive family law in the World it needs to change. It is time to  respect and enshrine the rights of each parent and give children fundamental human rights.

This country urgently needs to readdress the unfair avdantage that some abusive women can exercise over loving, responsible fathers over child access and contact.

Solution:  Abolish the Children Act.  Natural law and rights of father and children to be enshrined in legislation which will recognise fundamental Human Rights of the child to have equal access to a father unless it can be proved that it would not be in the best interests of the child. Women/ mothers to no longer have an assumed right to be primary carer of child. Each parent should apply on equal ground if they want of need more of less that 50% access caring responsibilities for child care. So what if the mother was child caring and the man working. If a partner wants to break up marriage each need to re apply on equal grounds of entitlement to contact.

Partntal responsibility. Abolish the current system whereby it is far too easy for a step parent (father)to aquire parental responsability by virtue of perhaps committing adultery with a married woman. Then adding his name to the childens name then aquiring parental responsibility. Under the current law,  not only is all of this possible it can be done with considerable ease..This has to be made much harder. 

 

I urge the repeal of the Childrens Act to be replaced with a new Bill of Family Rights. Let's give our children the rights they are entitled to and respect the value of marrige and the rights of fathers. I urge your support for change.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Mr Cameron you are right..our  society is 'broken' and wee have a problem.

Current family law is a mess and fails children and fathers alike.

It is all to easy for a woman at the moment to get a divorse, + a hansome financial settlement even in 'short' marriage and get primary care of the children. The vast majority of men did not long to have children, respecting the union of marriage, only to have the horror not only of divorse but to then find children taken away and contact denied so easily by abusive mothers.

All this is possible currently under the shocking legislation known as the Children Act. We have the most regressive family law in the World it needs to change. It is time to  respect and enshrine the rights of each parent and give children fundamental human rights.

This country urgently needs to readdress the unfair avdantage that some abusive women can exercise over loving, responsible fathers over child access and contact.

Solution:  Abolish the Children Act.  Natural law and rights of father and children to be enshrined in legislation which will recognise fundamental Human Rights of the child to have equal access to a father unless it can be proved that it would not be in the best interests of the child. Women/ mothers to no longer have an assumed right to be primary carer of child. Each parent should apply on equal ground if they want of need more of less that 50% access caring responsibilities for child care. So what if the mother was child caring and the man working. If a partner wants to break up marriage each need to re apply on equal grounds of entitlement to contact.

Partntal responsibility. Abolish the current system whereby it is far too easy for a step parent (father)to aquire parental responsability by virtue of perhaps committing adultery with a married woman. Then adding his name to the childens name then aquiring parental responsibility. Under the current law,  not only is all of this possible it can be done with considerable ease..This has to be made much harder. 

 

I urge the repeal of the Childrens Act to be replaced with a new Bill of Family Rights. Let's give our children the rights they are entitled to and respect the value of marrige and the rights of fathers. I urge your support for change.

 

 

Equal Rights for Fathers

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Why is this idea important?

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Rewriting family law to give parents equal rights

Family law is a disgrace and an injustice to thousands of children and their parents.  This must be addressed to give parents equal rights over their children.  Currently many parents lose contact with their children as a result of absurd legislation and a judiciary that is ignorant of the outcomes of their decisions.  The family is an essential element of society and is being totally undermined by the law which serves to divide families and generate hardship for many parents – hardly working in the best interests of children as is claimed.

The Child Support Agency is totally inefficient, the staff intrusive and offensive.  Agencies such as CAFCASS are not acting in the interests of children at all and help to split families.

Major overhaul of the law is needed, not tinkering at the margins.  The idea that grandparents should be considered more fully is laughable given the fact that parents are often divided from their children and the law does nothing to help.

Why is this idea important?

Family law is a disgrace and an injustice to thousands of children and their parents.  This must be addressed to give parents equal rights over their children.  Currently many parents lose contact with their children as a result of absurd legislation and a judiciary that is ignorant of the outcomes of their decisions.  The family is an essential element of society and is being totally undermined by the law which serves to divide families and generate hardship for many parents – hardly working in the best interests of children as is claimed.

The Child Support Agency is totally inefficient, the staff intrusive and offensive.  Agencies such as CAFCASS are not acting in the interests of children at all and help to split families.

Major overhaul of the law is needed, not tinkering at the margins.  The idea that grandparents should be considered more fully is laughable given the fact that parents are often divided from their children and the law does nothing to help.

Reform of Family Law

A family legal system which fails to acknowledge fathers as having equal status with mothers fails to protect the best interests of children.

We need to "degender" the issue. There should be no presumption that one parent is better than the other. Sometimes the mother will be best, sometimes the father, hopefully both will be able to play an equal and meaningful roll.

We need to remove the notion that simply because one parent has been the child's prime carer that that parent is necessarily more able or more important than the other. The fact that that prime carer frequently prevents the other parent from having contacvt with the child or makes it as difficult as possible needs to be recognised and acknowledged. In such situations the courts allowing this situation to continue is often not acting in the child's best interest at all.

Legal costs are astronomical and this prevents many very willing fathers who wish to be involved with their children from having teh relationship which not only they but the child would like to enjoy.

Tens of thousands of pounds are spent by fathers (predominently) who do not have this kind of money because that is the level of importance they place on their children. 

You can't give anybody their childhood back, you can't give them back the time they have lost with their father growing up. We need to wake up and act NOW. Little wonder people resort to dressing up in super heroe costumes. I don't think that this neccesarily serves the cause well but my word, what else does one  do when nobody ever listens? This is an issue affecting thousands of very loving and capable fathers. PLEASE listen, please address these issues meaningfully. 

Why is this idea important?

A family legal system which fails to acknowledge fathers as having equal status with mothers fails to protect the best interests of children.

We need to "degender" the issue. There should be no presumption that one parent is better than the other. Sometimes the mother will be best, sometimes the father, hopefully both will be able to play an equal and meaningful roll.

We need to remove the notion that simply because one parent has been the child's prime carer that that parent is necessarily more able or more important than the other. The fact that that prime carer frequently prevents the other parent from having contacvt with the child or makes it as difficult as possible needs to be recognised and acknowledged. In such situations the courts allowing this situation to continue is often not acting in the child's best interest at all.

Legal costs are astronomical and this prevents many very willing fathers who wish to be involved with their children from having teh relationship which not only they but the child would like to enjoy.

Tens of thousands of pounds are spent by fathers (predominently) who do not have this kind of money because that is the level of importance they place on their children. 

You can't give anybody their childhood back, you can't give them back the time they have lost with their father growing up. We need to wake up and act NOW. Little wonder people resort to dressing up in super heroe costumes. I don't think that this neccesarily serves the cause well but my word, what else does one  do when nobody ever listens? This is an issue affecting thousands of very loving and capable fathers. PLEASE listen, please address these issues meaningfully. 

Review Family Law and Secret Family Courts

For those lucky enough not to have been involved with the Secret Family Courts you may find the following unbalieveable in Britain in 2010…..

There are such things as Secret Courts – they deal with Family Law, and allow such evidence as 'hearsay'.  Life changing decisions are made in these courts – such as to remove children from their homes and have them adopted.  Once done, nothing can reverse that decision.

There can be no reporters in these courts, and if anybody speak about what happened in a court – they are sent to prison.  Every week – distraught parents are going to jail

Why is this idea important?

For those lucky enough not to have been involved with the Secret Family Courts you may find the following unbalieveable in Britain in 2010…..

There are such things as Secret Courts – they deal with Family Law, and allow such evidence as 'hearsay'.  Life changing decisions are made in these courts – such as to remove children from their homes and have them adopted.  Once done, nothing can reverse that decision.

There can be no reporters in these courts, and if anybody speak about what happened in a court – they are sent to prison.  Every week – distraught parents are going to jail