I have been researching several journalists who have been using the family court system to bludgeon social workers. And I wonder whether having the proceeedings in public – with the agreement of all parties – or having a judge make a ruling on naming participants (such as in certain cases of crimes by adolescents) would actually help social workers.

The argument being that keeping it as transparent as possible would prevent accusations of cultures of secrecy and baby snatching and evil cabals etc

What do social wokers think? 

Hi keefer,

I think more transparency in our system is inevitable and I for one would welcome it. However, let's not mistake secrecy for confidentiality, children and their families should feel confident that they'll not be reading about their most intimate details on the front page of the local paper or a sleazy tabloid.

I'm not convinced it will stop accusations of baby-snatching though...

I think it has been proved with appeals that responsible journalism can be achieved inside the family courts.

A judge will go to painful lengths to remind the journalists present that initials should replace names and identities kept secret.

So there is absolutely no reason not to open the courts.

But the government has gone th other way, they are now stopping the press entering magistrates courts as well, but will release findings.

The parents lobbying for the court to be open and transparent want social workers and cafcass to show 'evidence' not opinion and supposition in court, otherwise it's like a man being on trial for murder and the arresting officer says " well I have no evidence, but I feel it in my water that he's a bad one, and if he didn't do this one, well at some time in the future he may commit a crime".

That's th arguement, show the evidence, concrete 100% evidence.

 The family court should not have a 'guilty and can not prove themselves innocent' tag to it.

Show the proof.

Keefer , Simplistic veiw what SW's think ; what about the rest of society ? I for 1 have witnessed 4 years inside closed courts enogh to report accurately what is going on. Families are outraged at the draconain law and discretion of district judges and not even properly qualified SW's giving evidence. Time & again I have read a shortage of SW's well who do you think is in their giving their opinion on what is right for a child. I had a person who was not able bodied for a SW. A family Aid who said my child did not ask to see me . He had cancer /leukaemia and was on medication and begging to see me. The other SW the not so able bodied SW for want of being near as PC is possible said the child was not responding to treatment. The hospital would not agree to work with her until she corrected this information. The SW went on to man handle him or force him into a car to see his father . The child had serious issues he would not go and see him. I say yes open up let everyone in and longer to fight the threshold argument. Enough time to find a loop hole to challenge EW bogus reports , And heresay allegations from malicious witness's. Video camera set up fro Children to be asked what they want . And again not a toke gesture of a hand full of supposedly childrens opinion on whether the courts should be opened up by the DFCA in a couple of months behind everyones back. Ask our children include us in a survey we are witness's to what went on in closed court we pay our taxes we have a voice too.!

Hi Keefer.

I am researching the secret family courts for 14 years now.

It is not necessarily the single fault of social workers, but also the way the law is misused and the result is several miscarriages of justice.

Looking back, I see it is the existance of too many agents with their own individual opinions, all making a mess in the end.

Have a look at the evidence gathered by social workers, then Guardian, then psychologist, psychiatrist etc.

Then along comes the solicitor, and then barrister- all playing out various roles in court.

By the time a final hearing comes, the person does not resemble the same person described by the original social worker.

The service user gets totally overwhelmed in the midst of all the proceedings, thus often leading to Legal Abuse Syndrome and PTSD.

However, as the case usually began with a social worker, then any blame will be shifted to the first service provider involved.

I am not sure how much experience you have from being inside the court itself and all the goings on.

One has to be a shrewd observer to see it all.

The lawyers and Barristers etc, want to keep proceedings going on for as long as possible to make money, so they are not concerned with the impact on service users.

Unless you know the ropes, a service user will come out feeling they were  in some nightmare, and the nightmare is relived over and over for years or forever unless they do proper healing work to reclaim their self esteem.

margaretthatcherschild

I see you speak from experience then.?

Yes, it is all tied up inside the court system, and unless you are one of the pack, then you are seen as the enemy.

That reaction of all involved is their inner knowing of what they are doing is wrong. Thus the friend of foe thinking.

Agents of the state are service providers- full stop- paid for by us- the tax payers.

The amount of client abuse I see daily is deplorable.

And what is the obsession of keeping children from their parents, making them suffer.?

That is emotional abuse and also shows a sadistic nature of social worker, Guardian etc.

It is this feeling of having power over others that makes some people tick.

It is also against the child's human rights, but in UK Victorian thinking is still visible to me as an outsider.

When I came to UK, I was shocked to see the treatment of children, the prisons they went to school in,the dark colours, the uniforms from 1950's, the locked gates, the unqualified teachers etc.

The very feel of how UK people look at children.They are treated as possessions by some social workers and Guardians.

But, that is not protection, it is possession.

 

The one main reason family courts must be opened is to put an end to being condemned like a Witch purely on hearsay.

All some one has to do is call social services, and make an allegation, and a family is ruined for life.

I know several families in this situation.

Years later truth finds a way and social workers go- wow- we thought that old woman was telling the truth about Mr and Mrs X.

As Justice Holman says, there has to be solid evidence, proven beyond doubt.

Not, like the father who was accused of hurting his son, and it being in hospital.

Did social services call the hospital to check?? NO.

But the sweet old woman was believed and nothing changed until I asked the LA barrister to call the hospital herself and learn.

She said she had no reason to doubt the social worker involved, but the social worker fell for the sweet old lady, and that sweet old lady was a lady of the night , a drug dealer, a maker of porn etc, and it took 7 years before anyone dared to doubt the sweet old dear.

In a criminal court, all must be proven, and you cannot lock up 200 people per year for showing they are good parents protecting their children because the service provider is allowing the abuse.

Of course people want to know what is going on.

Lord Justice Keane stated, that secrecy leads to abuses of power.

JUSTICE MUST BE SEE, TO BE DONE.!!!!

This post has been deleted.

I have quite alot of experience with the workings of both the family magistrates courts as well and family proceedings within the crown court. I am not quite sure to what extent we should support the opening of the doors to the public. Surely we need to protect the children in these matters as well as give all parties the opportunity to have there say. Courts are a place of law and we rely on this place of law for justice. Is it not bad enough for the children to have to endure the time spent by all parties within the courts without them fearing that their case will be splashed across the tabloids. Or have I woken up into a country where journalist actually just pring the truth and are sensitive to people (i think not).

I can see why people feel that it is dreconian and that they feel that by being shut out of court proceedings there must be some wrong doings going on, but before we open the doors can we just remind ourselves that children should be protected from court cases and not have their names dragged through papers. Maybe it will happen in the future but it will need to be dealt with sensitively with some very strong guidelines put in place first.   

This post has been deleted.