All citizens have the right to justice for their various needs, including victims of crimes, defendants accused of crimes, consumers in debt, children in need of care, or businessmen in commercial disputes. has. Our aim is to ensure that access is provided as quickly and at the lowest cost as possible, in line with open justice, and that the public has greater trust and respect for the justice system.
Her Majesty's Royal Service says so. Except everything is a lie, especially when it comes to family and children. Yes, the family will have access, but no, they will not receive justice.
National newspapers and media report abuse and victimization of parents by courts, social services, and support organizations when children are wrongly deemed to be being abused and/or at risk of abuse. This is happening more and more.
Additionally, incidents of child snatching by the state have suddenly increased rapidly. It separates children from their parents under the cover of lies, false evidence, and perjury in court, and is carried out by the very government agencies that claim to protect families and children. The UK column has published major articles investigating and exposing this type of abuse by the state, and several court injunctions have been issued in response, all of which are clearly in the public domain of the incident. It was intended to disrupt reporting.
Journalists across the country are becoming braver in reporting these stories. The Telegraph's Booker newspaper has been performing particularly well recently, but many journalists believe their editorial boards are complicit in suppressing true media reporting or have been “warned” by their owners and establishment. It warns that either there is or is not.
But why is the establishment so desperate to keep family court issues out of the public eye? Aside from the basic rules that dirty deeds usually take place in the dark and that family courts are private, jury, and press free zones, the real answer is to protect the guilty. Let's take a look at the two main players: the family law sector and Cafcass.
Simply put, the Family Law Division forms part of a range of specialized legal departments and handles all matrimonial matters before the High Court, including the Children Act 1989 and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. Masu. The relationship between Her Majesty's Courts Service, the Prime Minister and the Judiciary (referred to as a partnership). This document contains another declaration to achieve a fair, effective and efficient judiciary with the support of an independent judiciary in the administration of justice. Everything looks delicious. Ice cream and apple pie come to mind.
The service will be delivered by Cafcass, the 'Children and Family Court Advice and Support Service', in conjunction with the Family Law Department and the Department of Justice. Cafcass, led by Baroness Howarth of Breckland OBE and Anthony Douglas CBE, was established on April Fool's Day 2001 under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act. This effectively integrates the Family Court services previously provided by the Family Court Welfare Service, the Guardianship Solicitor Service and the Children's Department of the Public Solicitor's Office. A non-departmental public body responsible to Tory Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education, Caucasus is committed to working within the strategic objectives agreed by its sponsoring departments and contributing to wider Government objectives for children. claims. The reason this sounds complicated is because nothing about family courts and children is simple and transparent.
More simply, Kafkas claims to consider the interests of the children involved in family proceedings and to advise courts on what is considered to be in the best interests of each individual child. This is done by assigning a “professional guardian” and accompanying legal representative for the child. These individuals protect the child's safety, welfare, and best interests at all times and claim to be the child's “advocate” in court. Most importantly, Caucasus claims to be “independent from courts, social welfare, education, health authorities and all other similar institutions.” Kafkas said it would “always maintain its independence and objectivity in all situations.”
Independence – essential for justice but a lie, signing a joint cooperation agreement on family division
The reassuring word “independence” comes up one after another. Surprisingly and alarmingly, therefore, the Cafcass website has been linked to Sir Nicholas Wall, Secretary of the Family Division and Director of Family Justice, and Anthony Douglas CBE, Chief Executive of Cafcass. Reveals the 'New Joint Agreement' dated 1 October 2010, signed by Sir Nicholas Wall.
The contract includes the following language:
The thrust of this agreement is that all parties involved in the system must work together to operate Public Law Summary 1 locally, within an environment of increasing and complex workloads, in order to make the best use of available resources. You can see that there is. In determining what instructions to give regarding the guardian's work, the court will normally hear all parties, especially the child's representative, and, above all, ensure that nothing in this agreement limits the child's guardian's responsibilities. Consider that it is not a hindrance. Represents the child's interests independently, in accordance with the law and court rules.
The agreement will be monitored by the Ministry of Justice, HMCS and the Department of Education.
Cafcass – Conflict of interest, vested interest but no independence
If the Family Law Department and Cafcass work “independently”, how can they sign a joint working agreement to work “together”?
A closer look at Cafcass reveals even more. Both the Cafcass Board of Directors and the Cafcass Corporate Management Team appear to be riddled with vested interests and conflicts of interest. Most of the individuals come from local authorities, social services, lawyers, court services, child adoption agencies or government advisers. Some serve as Chief Registrar Judges in the Family Division. The obvious absence is someone who is clearly independent and has no experience as a normal parent.
The fact that the agreement clearly states that “there is nothing to impede the independence of the child's guardian'' can only be described as a deception. Parents are never independent, and this is a constant theme for parents who have suffered or suffered state theft of their children and other abuses in the name of “child protection” . In a trial in which UK Column staff participated as individuals rather than as members of the media, the bias of Caucasus parents in favor of the demands of local authorities and social services was unpleasant to watch. Mothers and fathers who go to great lengths to keep their child victims out of court have little leeway to go against the “official” view of Caucasian guardians and lawyers. One judge recently declared, “I don't want a 10-year-old boy in my courtroom.'' Of course, the boy may reveal the damning truth of what he personally wants, rather than the biased, filtered perspective of the Caucasian team.
Cafcass and Contact Center – Not Independent Contracts
Digging deeper into the child protection morass, the relationship between Caucasus and contact centers (facilities used to receive and manage contact between mothers, fathers, and children) is fraught with vested interests and conflicts of interest. You can see that it continues. In family courts, contact centers are described as independent organizations that can carry out independent written assessments of “contact” between parents and children.
Once again, the tag “independent” is a lie. Although there are some privately owned contact centres, the overwhelming majority are contracted directly to Cafcass headquarters Newcastle upon Tyne under the European Tender Framework Agreement (European Communities EU Official Journal Publication 112/2009). Cafcas is described as a purchaser of goods, works and services: 85.3 million social work and related services, and 90 million other community, social and personal services. Importantly for mothers, fathers and the public concerned, the criteria for awarding contracts are as follows: Most economical bid.
Of course, cheap services are the theme at the beginning of this article, with Her Majesty's Courts Service declaring its intention to provide justice at the “lowest cost”. However, the real harm to real justice is that the contact centers that Cafcass has “bought and paid for” are virtually independent in any aspect of providing the facilities or evaluating the families using the contact center facilities. You can never say that there is. It is a lie that judges, courts, the Caucasus, etc. constantly claim that they are independent in helping families and protecting children. Lying in court is a serious breach of common law, and to the judge it must certainly be a serious criminal offence. Prison comes to mind.
The UK column has consistently warned that something very troubling is at work in the name of 'child protection'. State-sponsored child theft is one of the ugly manifestations of this. What the public needs to understand is that child theft and other abuses of parents and children by the state can only occur if openness, transparency, and free reporting in family courts is suppressed. Bias, vested interests, conflicts of interest, lies and deception work best when the true independence of the judicial system is lost. Meanwhile, young children suffer.
