Family Court Secrecy
Family courts are to be opened up to public scrutiny The Times announces today. The move is in response to mounting criticism from parents whose children are taken into care and complaints that they are victims of “secret justice”.
I wrote about the problem of secrecy in the Family Courts back in 2004 in the first edition of Your Right to Know. The situation has not improved since then despite government promises for reform and a consultation in 2006. The former Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer, made the cowardly decision to maintain the status quo which gave social workers and other so-called ‘experts’ a license to operate with almost total impunity.
The power to seize people’s children must surely be one of the most draconian state powers. Great power entails the greatest amount of accountability which can only come through openness. Yet that is precisely what’s been missing from the Family Courts. It is good to read that judges have finally begun to see the damaging costs of secrecy. But opposition is still strong from those organisations representing social workers. They claim secrecy is necessary to protect the privacy of the child, but more often it protects social workers from public scrutiny.
Judges already have the power to impose naming restrictions to protect children’s privacy so there is no need to close off an entire branch of the judicial system. Public confidence in the justice system can only be assured if the courts and the evidence used in those courts are open to the public.
Secrecy allows bad practice to carry on unchecked. It fuels mistrust in the judicial system. Stories abound of the courts removing children from their families on flimsy medical evidence or simply the opinion of a social worker who may have never even met the child.
I believe this current shift in opinion is mostly due to the writing of Camilla Cavendish who was able to put faces to the nameless victims of Family Court secrecy. It is often the case that while the costs of openness are exaggerated, if not blatantly made up, the costs of secrecy are discounted and ignored. Cavendish was able to show in terms of ruined families’ lives the cost of Family Court secrecy.
Social workers have been allowed to think they are above the law and their opinions not open to question. The reputation of the Family Courts depends on the ability of the public to see justice being done.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
My partner is a children’s guardian and I’ve heard the threatening calls left on our answer phone by parties to cases she has dealt with - I’m an ardent advocate of freedom of information, but in this instance I think there is good cause for an element of secrecy to protect those who are professionally responsible for protecting the welfare of children.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Social Services seems to have some great affinity with Traffic Wardens and Secret Police. Is that why they are called ‘SS’?
They feel that they are unaccountable for their actions. I speak from personal experience, gained in Stockport. That Local Authority does not even seem to feel the need to comply with the law (Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1738) in respect of Children’s Social Services Formal Complaints. It has gleaned a DRAFT document from Bolton Social Services IT Department, which it has not bothered to complete. That means that it has worked on the wrong side of the law since 01 September 2006. Theactions of Stockport MBC employees show clearly that they do not regard any aspect of legality to be of any remote importance in Stockport.
The Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Directorate in Stockport is also the former Head of Social Services.
Would Heather like to join us in our struggle to ‘Make Stockport Legal’? If we can manage that, there are numerous parents and disabled children who would benefit.
The following letter was recently sent to teh Stockport Express. It was featured in this week’s paper:
—– Original Message —–
From: “Charlotte Peters Rock”
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: Letter for the Editor.
> Dear Editor,
>
> The Stockport Solution?
>
> With a Children’s Services Complaints Procedure which has not complied
> with the Law since 01 September 2006, (Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1738)
> Stockport MBC seems to have retreated to its own little island. Even the
> currently used Draft Complaints document of Stockport MBC was gleaned from
> Bolton Social Services Department - and not completed.
>
> In Stockport any parent/carer, who sets out along the punishing trail of
> its ‘Complaints System’, seems automatically to be banned from all dealings
> with any employees of Stockport MBC as a direct result of complaining about the
> terrible service which the child has currently to endure.
>
> Such banning comes from the highest level of Stockport’s Children and
> Young People’s Directorate.
>
> Are Stockport Council tax payers aware of this “Stockport Solution”?
>
> How many people are currently banned from the premises and from speaking
> to Stockport MBC employees - which their Council Tax funds? For what reason
> were they banned?
>
> Perhaps they would like to write in to the Stockport Express?
>
> I would also be interested in hearing from similarly ‘banned residents’.
>
> Charlotte Peters Rock
>
> PS contact 07050 183 417 charlottepetersrock@tiscali.co.uk