It should be as illegal for first cousins to marry as it is siblings.

People should not marry their first cousins, no more than they are  currently allowed to marry their own siblings.  Offspring of such unions have such a high incidence of life threatening and or crippling genetic abnormalities that not to legislate against this practise is morally wrong.

Why is this idea important?

People should not marry their first cousins, no more than they are  currently allowed to marry their own siblings.  Offspring of such unions have such a high incidence of life threatening and or crippling genetic abnormalities that not to legislate against this practise is morally wrong.

Apply the precautionary principle to leave to remove cases

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Why is this idea important?

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

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!

ban injunctions preventing non criminal parents contacting their children

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Why is this idea important?

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

The 1953 Act for the Registration of Births,Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales

It only states that there should be an index, and the legal interprtation of what that index contains and how it is delivered shifts according to goverment whim and civil service expediency. Apparently this legislative framework makes it difficult to improve existing indexes and deems it necessary for all certificates to be issued only as certified legal paper documents at a cost of £9.25. Historical certificates ovber a certain age currently held by the GRO and local registrars should'nt have to be issued as expensive official certificates. They should be made available in digital form via a pay per view or subscription service (check out how Scotland do it). Some of these documents have already been digitised and are being used to issue the paper copies, so we know that it is possible to make the available in this way. The GRO should improve indexing of these digital documents and make the index available online, or enable a commercial partner to provide the service accordingly. If the law cannot make that happen,then we must change it.  I am sure it will make the GRO money and satisfy many hundreds of thousands of family history customers througout the world, which is what goverment is supposed to be about. I was interested to read that this new coalition goverment is asking for suggestions for amendments to unnecessary laws and free up regulatory burdens, if any law needs overhauling and brought into the 21st century it is this one

Why is this idea important?

It only states that there should be an index, and the legal interprtation of what that index contains and how it is delivered shifts according to goverment whim and civil service expediency. Apparently this legislative framework makes it difficult to improve existing indexes and deems it necessary for all certificates to be issued only as certified legal paper documents at a cost of £9.25. Historical certificates ovber a certain age currently held by the GRO and local registrars should'nt have to be issued as expensive official certificates. They should be made available in digital form via a pay per view or subscription service (check out how Scotland do it). Some of these documents have already been digitised and are being used to issue the paper copies, so we know that it is possible to make the available in this way. The GRO should improve indexing of these digital documents and make the index available online, or enable a commercial partner to provide the service accordingly. If the law cannot make that happen,then we must change it.  I am sure it will make the GRO money and satisfy many hundreds of thousands of family history customers througout the world, which is what goverment is supposed to be about. I was interested to read that this new coalition goverment is asking for suggestions for amendments to unnecessary laws and free up regulatory burdens, if any law needs overhauling and brought into the 21st century it is this one

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Freedom to take photographs in public places.

Restore the right of ordinary people to take photographs in public places without fear of being criminalised.  It is a gross over exaggeration to regard anyone who takes a photograph of a policeman or a public building as a potential terrorist, or family and friends who want to take photographs of their children at school events as potential paedophiles.  Amateur photography  used to be regarded as a legitimate and acceptable pastime, not as an underhand activity to be regarded with suspicion.  I would like to see it restored to its former status.

Why is this idea important?

Restore the right of ordinary people to take photographs in public places without fear of being criminalised.  It is a gross over exaggeration to regard anyone who takes a photograph of a policeman or a public building as a potential terrorist, or family and friends who want to take photographs of their children at school events as potential paedophiles.  Amateur photography  used to be regarded as a legitimate and acceptable pastime, not as an underhand activity to be regarded with suspicion.  I would like to see it restored to its former status.

home-educational funding

Currently every child of educational age is allocated a fixed amount of money by the state, this money comes from taxpayers pockets.   If a child is home-educated none of this money is used by the child it is allocated to.  Instead the taxpaying parent has to fund this childs education at home as well as continuing to pay for schooling they don't receive.

My idea is that the allocated amount should be applied to the child who is being home-educated in the form of credits/vouchers that can be used for educational trips/visits, exams, courses and equipment e.g. correspondence courses/NEC/OU, sports access, musical services.  These credits/vouchers should be easily accessed by parents who registers their child as being home-educated, this should not  be compulsory.  Every home-educated child should also be entitled to have a computer at home, as are school children.

Why is this idea important?

Currently every child of educational age is allocated a fixed amount of money by the state, this money comes from taxpayers pockets.   If a child is home-educated none of this money is used by the child it is allocated to.  Instead the taxpaying parent has to fund this childs education at home as well as continuing to pay for schooling they don't receive.

My idea is that the allocated amount should be applied to the child who is being home-educated in the form of credits/vouchers that can be used for educational trips/visits, exams, courses and equipment e.g. correspondence courses/NEC/OU, sports access, musical services.  These credits/vouchers should be easily accessed by parents who registers their child as being home-educated, this should not  be compulsory.  Every home-educated child should also be entitled to have a computer at home, as are school children.

Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Why is this idea important?

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Mothers blackmailing fathers

It is a childs inherited right to see and be with their father in equality of seeing and being with their mother.  This should be recognised by the Courts, then one gets a happy balanced child growing up knowing that they are loved equally by both father and mother.

 

Children should never be used as a form of blackmail against fathers for financial or other reasons.  Mothers should always consider the childs well being first over and above their own selfish needs.

 

Very often fathers have to fight to see their children and are used as  pawns in this"GAME" and mothers should not be allowed to do this by the Courts.

Why is this idea important?

It is a childs inherited right to see and be with their father in equality of seeing and being with their mother.  This should be recognised by the Courts, then one gets a happy balanced child growing up knowing that they are loved equally by both father and mother.

 

Children should never be used as a form of blackmail against fathers for financial or other reasons.  Mothers should always consider the childs well being first over and above their own selfish needs.

 

Very often fathers have to fight to see their children and are used as  pawns in this"GAME" and mothers should not be allowed to do this by the Courts.

Remove the requirement to notify the government of “private fostering”

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

Why is this idea important?

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

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).

Get rid of the CSA

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchman the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchman the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

Get rid of the CSA

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchmen the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchmen the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

Get rid of the CSA

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchmen the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act needs to be completely re-thought from scratch and it's henchmen the wretched CSA (Child Support Agency) should be completely scrapped. The Act and the Agency do not provide a fair or workable system for providing or accessing the financial needs of familes. The enforcement methods and tactics the CSA have developed do not serve either the Parent with care or the Non-resident family at all well. The injustices that have eminated form this system are enormous. If anybody has any doubts about this just read some of the case examples provided on http://www.csahell.com The whole system is quite farcical.

The Enforcement of Family Law contact orders for children absent from father!

The proper enforcement of this administrative current bungle!

Where as an absent father I've been granted a contact order & parental responsibility for my child.

However, it isn't enforced so that conatct can take place on a regular basis nor is it a good code of conduct for the mother who denies contact to the father.

Why then do we pay the child support when we are un-able to support our childrens education & spiritual, physical development?

I have been through the legal system for the last 12 years.

Thankful to God! My child uses the internet. This enables us to achieve some basic disalogue but it is still not enough respect for paternal development of our relationship!

What a farce!

I'd like a whole review of this scheme. That is contact centres, schools & other government centres where we should be allowed our rights! To keep the human family.

My local government library seems to be the safest place to even mention such a thing!

Also the fact that we are of an African Islaamic heritage born & bred in this kingdom & empire.

We need more Democracy not Plutocracy in our culture!

www.ruthinking.co.uk

Why is this idea important?

The proper enforcement of this administrative current bungle!

Where as an absent father I've been granted a contact order & parental responsibility for my child.

However, it isn't enforced so that conatct can take place on a regular basis nor is it a good code of conduct for the mother who denies contact to the father.

Why then do we pay the child support when we are un-able to support our childrens education & spiritual, physical development?

I have been through the legal system for the last 12 years.

Thankful to God! My child uses the internet. This enables us to achieve some basic disalogue but it is still not enough respect for paternal development of our relationship!

What a farce!

I'd like a whole review of this scheme. That is contact centres, schools & other government centres where we should be allowed our rights! To keep the human family.

My local government library seems to be the safest place to even mention such a thing!

Also the fact that we are of an African Islaamic heritage born & bred in this kingdom & empire.

We need more Democracy not Plutocracy in our culture!

www.ruthinking.co.uk

Inheritance

Introduce a statute of limitation in cases of Proprietary / Promissory Estoppell, in line with Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Introduce a statute of limitation in cases of Proprietary / Promissory Estoppell, in 
 
line with Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
 
Prevent the practice of a surviving (often aggreived) partner holding an estate to 
 
ransom and preventing families who inherit by natural law from distributing family 
 
assets.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a statute of limitation in cases of Proprietary / Promissory Estoppell, in line with Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Introduce a statute of limitation in cases of Proprietary / Promissory Estoppell, in 
 
line with Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
 
Prevent the practice of a surviving (often aggreived) partner holding an estate to 
 
ransom and preventing families who inherit by natural law from distributing family 
 
assets.