HOLLY BARKER = LAW SOCIETY – SUN 28 OCT. 12

HOLLY BARKER SECTIONED FOR TRYING TO PROTECT HER DAUGHTER

Message to every MP sent earlier:
Dear Mp,
…Sir, or Madam,..these atrocities against vulnerable parents and children just go on and on!!…this removal of children from good homes by dubious tactics is now so rampant it begs investigation…why are you determined to lose the support of every citizen in this country, because you will if things carry on the way they are?…taking children by forceful means is not the way to go!!…please look into this latest case of this mother Holly Barker being robbed of her child in very questionable circumstances and act accordingly!!…this is not and never will be right!!..please see to it that the child stealing through dubious personnel’s actions paid for by this government, and the Secret Family Courts who administer bad justice are investigated properly and be made to stop their abhorrent actions against good citizens – particularly defenceless mothers and fathers and their children!!
..thank you!…J. Graham
Subject:

Holly Barker sectioned in Oxfordshire for trying to protect her daughter –

For Immediate Release
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:44:08 +0100
From: Brian Gerrish mailto: brian@ukcolumn.org
To: Editor, UK Column mailto:editor@ukcolumn.org
For immediate and widespread distribution –
Mother at risk of forcible drugging with anti-psychotic medication. Holly Barker, a caring mother, has been sectioned on Friday 26 October 2012 by Oxfordshire and Welsh Child Services and Mental Health Teams for trying to defend her daughter against abuse. Holly was not properly admitted to hospital on arrival at 1830 Friday evening; she was not examined by a doctor on, or shortly after admission, and was not assessed by a doctor until 0200 on Saturday morning when she could not sleep.
The doctor attending her at that time had no idea why she had been admitted, did not appear to have read her medical notes, and seemed unsure of her status in the hospital. Despite this a nurse is now attempting to forcibly prescribe anti psychotic drugs. This action by Oxfordshire County Council, where members of the Child Protection Team and the Psychiatric team are working in collaboration, appears to be to silence Holly, whilst her daughter, who has been placed in ‘care’, continues to be abused. It is understood that at least one of the abusers is connected to Oxfordshire County Council.
Holly is now in immediate danger of being forcibly prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, and is being told that the need for these drugs was prescribed during her admission examination – an examination which never took place. Prior to her sectioning Holly was rational and measured in her actions, applying reason and common sense and working hard to protect her daughter from further abuse; abuse facilitated and condoned by Oxfordshire Child Services in collusion with others.
Holly is now in: Winterborne Ward Warneford Hospital Warneford Lane Headington Oxford OX3 7JX Contacts 01865 741717 (switchboard) Can we ask that all concerned people call in a polite, reasonable and measured way, to ask what is happening and why and to establish her safety and well being. Holly has been sectioned to prevent her defending her daughter.
She was tricked by Oxfordshire Social Services into allowing the sectioning team into her Oxford flat, whilst she was alone and waiting for removal men. Oxfordshire SS have colluded with Welsh SS in sectioning her for telling the truth. Concerned individuals may also wish to call the Emergency Child Protection Team on 0800 833 408. Duty Officer for Saturday 27 October 2012 is Elaine Wade on 01235 521967
What is happening to Holly could happen to any caring Mother or Father in UK unless the wider general public act to stop it. One phone call from many can be the first step into stopping this fascist detention and sectioning of caring innocent people. Please help – politely and calmly.
please see the Musa case,the Baylis family, Norman Scarth, Maurice Kirk, Hollie Greig: http://www.butlincat.wordpress.com
———————————————————————————

Sunday, 28 October 2012

LAW SOCIETY

Law Society’s Response to Family Justice Review’s Draft Legislation

27SaturdayOct 2012
Posted by in Family Law

The Family Justice Review has now published its draft on proposed laws they would like to see come to life and which are designed to tweak existing laws to help improve the legal processes in the family courts. This month, The Law Society has responded to that draft legislation, with the eight page document expressing the Society’s agreement over certain areas and its concerns over others. The response itself was created, as the document tells us, by the Law Society’s Family Law Committee and Children’s Law Sub Committee.Here is a quick summary of The Law Society’s views on the draft legislation (and for what it’s worth, our own thoughts in italic next to each section):

  • Family mediation information and assessment meetings (Also known as MIAMS): The Law Society agrees that such meetings, which are designed to inform parties of their options regarding forms of mediation, should be compulsory rather than something more akin to a choice, but would like to see the law clarified in relation to exemptions, relating to costs and some requirements regarding MIAMs to be left to professional judgement rather than legislation, such as the way in which MIAMs are set up. (We remain concerned about mediation as an effective tool to make everyone’s lives easier – if we don’t solve the emotional conflicts first, or at least find intelligent ways of stabilising them, mediation will be of no use whatsoever).
  • The Law Society also welcomes the wider range of choices for alternative dispute resolution (This is a good step forward and away from the adversarial process, but once again, trying to get parties to broker deals when they are emotionally conflicted is not going to yield good results for anyone. How about some holistic alternatives, please).
  • They are also in favour of changing the terms ‘Contact’ and ‘Residence’ in the respective Orders to Child Arrangement Orders (CAOs) but are concerned about the way in which these Orders are being defined, as they feel they may lead to more power struggles between parents (In principle we agree with changing the terms; it may help, but the whole system has to fall in line with a more collaborative ethos, otherwise everyone’s going to be very confused).
  • Control of expert evidence, and of assessments, in children proceedings: The Law Society want clarification of proposed legislation in this area, as they feel it may cause confusion but they agree with the view that social workers who give evidence on behalf of the local authority or the NSPCC in proceedings to which that authority or the NSPCC is a party should not be deemed to be experts for the purposes of this part of the legislation (we find this section very interesting – if the court assumes such evidence is not to be classified as expert evidence will that also mean that the status of social work reports and oral evidence from social workers will be given less weight?)
  • Time limits in proceedings for care or supervision orders: The Law Society’s response to this section was diplomatic. They state they have no comment, but go on to qualify that with…… a comment. Their view is basically that time limits may be suitable for some cases, but not others and that extensions should be made in the right circumstances. (For us, it’s very simple – time limits must be worked to, but where several choices need to be considered and time is running out, it makes no sense at all to remove a child and place them into care because everyone’s on the clock. Getting it right at the thirteenth hour is better than getting it wrong for the rest of a child’s life).
  • Care Plans: The Law Society agrees that legislation should be first and foremost about the welfare of the child rather than ‘permanency’, or put another way, families must be kept together wherever possible and when placements occur, to ensure that contact with birth parents and siblings must be considered and that the judge must always be given the full care plan (we would go one step further and insist the judge reads the entire care plan, from cover to cover).
  • Repeal of restrictions on divorce and dissolution etc where there are children: The Law Society supports repealing these restrictions, where a divorce is not contested by applying the model of no-fault divorce. (We are not quite sure what this would mean in practice, as although we are in favour of removing unnecessary admin and agree with no-fault divorce as a concept, we are aware that no-fault divorce varies in states across America and can have a dramatic impact on the fairness of hearings in relation to contact and finances. We will have to wait and see what develops).
  • General principles on marriage and divorce: The Law Society is concerned by the conflicting messages the draft legislation puts forward: it aims to repeal certain sections which encourage supporting families going through marital breakdown so that less distress is felt by the parties and keeping an eye out for any vulnerable members of the family, whilst encouraging the institution of marriage and trying to help couples save marriages which appear to have broken down. The Law Society’s view is that families need to be supported regardless of which road they take when faced with marital breakdown and that the message relating to fault is further confused by the proposed on-line divorce portal and that further clarification is needed as to who will explain to divorcing spouses what the implications of fault may be. (We think Coleridge may have slipped the Family Justice Review a fiver for this nod to the institution of marriage. This is an unnecessary and inelegant way to approach family unions. Those who wish to stay married will certainly have tried, it really shouldn’t be the court’s remit to play adjudicator in relation to a couple’s decision to divorce. Live and let live, and whilst you’re at it, why not focus on providing an embracing and compassionate system, rather than one which seeks to impose its very narrow views on its citizens).

2 thoughts on “Law Society’s Response to Family Justice Review’s Draft Legislation”

  1. MEDIATION – Is a waste of time and money and simply embellishes an ailing and dysfunctional Family Court industry. Less than Ten per cent of separating couples are involved in Family Law proceedings, the rest being able to resolve their post-relationship difficulties in a reasonable and responsible manner. Those which come to the Family Courts mostly involve power and control issues by one or other of the parties, most commonly expressed in violence and child abuse, or deprivations such as financial control. These are not in any sense CONFLICTS – they are acts of oppression by one person over another or several. The reactions and attempts to fight back, should not be seen as conflicts, which imply some kind of equal contest – they are not. They are Oppressors/Controllers/Persecutors and their victims. Mediation forces the victims to have to face and confront their Controller/Oppressor after they have escaped that person’s control and have found at least a limited amount of freedom. Can you imagine being physically, psychologically, and even sexually abused and then be ordered to meet with your assailant and have to discuss your personal issues with them.?. MEDIATION may embellish the Family Law process, but it will do nothing for the victims of Oppressors and does in fact cause them greater harm. EXPERTS – Social workers are not experts. They have no discreet Body of Knowledge which is a requirement of Experts in Court Proceedings. They have a hotch-potch of theories culled from other professions and the study of such theories is often simplistic and limited. They have no significant level of expertise which is any different or better than those of people in other trades. Barmaids are far better listeners – corner shop owners know more about customer services – good neighbours and friends or family can be more supportive and helpful in difficult times. Attempts by social workers to bring the theories of other professions into their work has been a litany of disasters for the families concerned and for the image of social work. Reflex Anal Dilatation (Cleveland), Satanic Ritual Abuse (Orkneys, Rochdale, Nottingham), Repressed Memory Syndrome, and the hideously damaging Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (Fabricated and Induced Illness in Children) have each respectively caused immense harm to thousands of children and their families and have contributed to the disrepute which is now of pandemic proportions in social work. All of them are theories with no scienticially conducted research base, merely the conjectures and fanciful speculations of some theorist with career ambitions and seized on by the intellectually deficited elements within social work. CARE PLANS – Only of benefit if they can clearly show that opinions regarding the future care of children are based on a odentified set of facts, in an approaqch which has been objective, impartial, and even-handed. Few ever meet such criteria and are more often marked by judgementalism and personal beliefs, prejudices, and bias. GENERLA PRINCIPLES – When a marriage is over, it is over. Two individual have changed and can no longer meet each other’s needs or share their aspirations. Forcing them to endure the continued torture of continuing such a fractured relationship is cruel and a self-indulgence of those who pepetuate such processes.

  2. Pingback: Anonymous

About butlincat

my butlincats blog: http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/butlincat http://www.twitter.com/butlincat https://www.facebook.com/butlin.cat.9 [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbutlincat-graham-5a35b440/detail/recent-activity/
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.