EXCLUSIVE: Why So Secret? What Happens Behind Closed Doors at UK Family Courts

CANADA: "INTHE BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN" EMOTIONAL PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL DAMAGE FOR LIFE ON CHILDREN AND PARENTS…

Shrouded in secrecy, concealed from public and media scrutiny, gagging parents, stealing children - these would be the charges against UK family courts if they themselves were ever to be put on trial.

Reporting restrictions are meant to protect the children but, according to activists, it's the professionals and the judges who mostly benefit from family courts' confidentiality.

Keep It Quiet

"When my son was taken into care the second time, the court case took a year. The guardian — who is supposed to be on the child's side — told my son before the judge had made the ruling that he was going to stay in foster care. They shouldn't know that until the judge's ruling," a mother and activist Alexsandra Hedderwick-Watson told Sputnik.

Alexsandra can openly share her story with the press because her court case has been closed.

Under UK law, family courts can restrict attendance "if a child's welfare requires it, or if it is necessary to do so for the safety and protection of parties or witnesses — who can request this of the court if they feel it is necessary."

Additionally, reporting restrictions can be and are usually places on family court cases "to protect the welfare of children and families." 

On April 27, 2009, all levels of the Family Courts were opened to accredited members of the media. However, the hearings are normally private, with media authorized to attend only in certain instances.

Cases of mothers abused and let down by the family court system were brought up at a mock trial organized outside the Houses of Parliament in London by the Global Women's Strike and supporters on March 8, 2018.

If you have judges making outrageous accusations in a criminal case, the public and the media are there. In the family court, nobody knows what's happening, except the people contesting the case and the lawyers. It is all anonymous, and even if it's reported, you don't know exactly when it took place. They supposedly do this to protect the children, but we are saying that in fact they do it to exert absolute control. As a result, there has been no public scrutiny. In family courts they get away with things they wouldn't get away with in the criminal court," Ms. Lopez, a women's rights activist with Support not Separation, told Sputnik.

Anne Neale, the spokesperson for Legal Action for Women launched in 1982, who has worked with women for over 40 years, agrees that the anonymity of children must be protected.

She however believes it doesn't have to be at odds with the right of parents to talk about the case.

"There are ways where children's anonymity can be protected. Family courts could be much more open and what happens there should be reported on much more widely. When rape victims go to court, they are guaranteed anonymity but the court hearing can be reported on and the court itself is open. There is no reason why the family court couldn't operate in a similar way," Ms. Neale told Sputnik.

"The public has no idea what's going on [in family courts]. They'd be very shocked if they did," she added.

Judge's View

The need for greater transparency of the UK courts, including family courts and the UK Court of Protection

Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, in 2014 called for "greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system."

"At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name. The Guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for publication (even if they will often need to be published in an appropriately anonymized form," Sir James wrote in the practice guidance issued on January 16, 2014.

In the light of criticism unleashed on family courts, highlighting the the lack of public accountability, Sir James expressed concern over challenges faced by UK judges.

They are "grotesquely overworked" and "tired," he said in recent comment.

Sir James argued that journalists should indeed be exposing the flaws of the system and the errors of the rulings but noted they can't do that without access to the evidence.

"I have a terrible feeling that if you actually stopped some of the parents in these care cases as they were going out of court at the end and you asked them what was going on, what's been happening, what's the answer, they'd be unable to explain. And that is an indictment of our system, not of them," Sir James added.

The President of the Family Division is also the overall Head of Family Justice-in charge of the system of family courts.

'Gobsmacked'

 
Una mujer, a quien le quitaron a su hija cuando tenía apenas cuatro años, habló con el Sputnik sobre el papel que juega la violencia doméstica en los casos de los tribunales familiares. Lisa [no es su nombre real] prefirió permanecer en el anonimato, por miedo a las repercusiones legales, ya que su caso aún está en curso.
Sexualmente abusada cuando era niña, Lisa dice que fue manipulada por su esposo, quien eventualmente se convirtió en el cuidador de la hija de la pareja.
Ella le dijo a Sputnik que su esposo fue contrabandeado al Reino Unido y que estaba buscando establecerse en el país y para eso planeó casarse y tener un hijo con un ciudadano británico, como Lisa.
"Mi esposo, que es originario de Punjab, India, fue contrabandeado a este país. Me usó y abusó de mí. Quería un bebé. Tuve un embarazo ectópico en 2010 y un aborto involuntario en 2011. Tan pronto como tuve a mi hijo, Le dije que ya no podía soportar el abuso ". Los tribunales, los trabajadores sociales y CAFCASS [Servicio de Asesoramiento y Apoyo del Tribunal de Niños y Familias] me decepcionaron. Le regalaron a mi hija a un hombre que no tenía visa, ni beneficios, ni trabajo, ni alojamiento. También dio positivo por drogas de clase A. Apelé contra la decisión del tribunal, por lo que el Ministerio del Interior sabía que la madre presentó la apelación. Pero mientras yo estaba apelando, le otorgaron una visa antes de que los tribunales llegaran a decidir dónde viviría el menor de forma permanente. Estaba desconcertado. Mi hija tenía solo cuatro años cuando la llevaron y ahora ella tiene casi seis años. Ahora mi hija está creciendo sin su madre y estoy luchando contra ella ".
Las víctimas de violencia doméstica son las primeras en pagar y si denuncia violencia doméstica, es probable que se lleven a sus hijos, explicó Nina López.
"En lugar de brindarle protección, las autoridades pueden culparlo por no proteger a los niños. Muchas víctimas de violencia doméstica no lo denuncian porque tienen miedo de que, como resultado, se los quiten".
Deber de evaluar el riesgo
El Servicio de Asesoramiento y Apoyo del Tribunal de Niños y Familia (CAFCASS), una agencia independiente que vela por los intereses de los niños en casos de corte familiar en Inglaterra, tiene un marco para evaluar el riesgo en casos de abuso doméstico, llamado Práctica de Abuso Doméstico. Camino.
Según el portavoz de CAFCASS, los trabajadores de la agencia toman muy en serio los informes de abuso doméstico, independientemente del sexo del acusado.
"Cuando se informa el abuso doméstico a CAFCASS, tenemos el deber de evaluar el riesgo y cualquier impacto en el niño. Dichas evaluaciones no solo se basan en información de la policía y las autoridades locales, sino también en cualquier inquietud planteada por las partes adultas en el caso ", dijo el portavoz de CAFCASS al Sputnik.
CAFCASS es un organismo público ejecutivo no departamental, patrocinado por el Ministerio de Justicia. Está destinado a ser independiente de los tribunales, los servicios sociales, las autoridades de educación y salud y todas las agencias similares.
"Ofsted, el Defensor del Pueblo Parlamentario y de Servicios de Salud, que puede investigar denuncias sobre CAFCASS y Juntas de Salvaguarda Local de Niños, proporciona retroalimentación externa independiente. También se reciben comentarios de nuestros principales interesados ​​como jueces, tribunales, grupos de interés clave y Juntas Locales de Justicia Familiar. , así como de usuarios de servicios y niños ", dijo el portavoz de CAFCASS a Sputnik.
Sin embargo, Kate [no es su nombre real], una madre involucrada en un caso en el tribunal de familia, cuando habló con el Sputnik, arrojó dudas sobre la imparcialidad de la organización.
'¿Te consideras un rebelde?'
"CAFCASS y los trabajadores sociales están destinados a ser independientes, pero no lo son, todos trabajan juntos. Hay muchas personas que ganan dinero en este negocio porque es un negocio, realmente, jueces, cuidadores de crianza, abogados. Pero no lo hacen". obviamente me importa porque es el contribuyente el que paga la factura ".
El caso de Kate ha durado 1.5 años. Sus dos hijos están bajo cuidado de crianza, por orden de la corte.
"Mis hijos eran equilibrados, de buen comportamiento, amados, alimentados. Tengo estándares bastante altos en cuanto a cómo crío a mis propios hijos. La evidencia está en mi caso. Han expresado un fuerte deseo de volver a casa. Mi hijo escribió una carta a el juez, diciendo que estará deprimido si no fue enviado a casa ".
Kate dijo que fue violada en el pasado y como consecuencia tuvo algunos problemas de salud mental, lo que sugiere que se está utilizando en su contra.
"El psiquiatra asignado a mi caso dijo que" me ingenié para ser violada "y que ni siquiera estoy seguro de lo que eso significa. Me preguntó durante la evaluación:" ¿Es usted un espíritu libre? ¿Te consideras un rebelde? ". Dije que tomaría parte en una protesta contra el racismo, por ejemplo. Él basó su evaluación en que yo no soy conformista".

Oppressors: We are asleep. Our life is a dream. But sometimes we wake up, just enough to know we're dreaming-Ludwig Wittgestein

 

Practitioners assess cases and make recommendations to the court based on what they believe to be in the child's best interests, CAFCASS spokesman told Sputnik.​

How practitioners assess cases depends on the individual circumstances of each case, however, the same evidence-informed tools and resources are available to all practitioners, he added.

CAFCASS have previously come under criticism for "inadequate risk assessment and poor reports to the courts," as determined by Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Too Many Children in Care

Nina Lopez believes there has been a push for adoption in the UK, "where they are treating mothers as surrogates and want children adopted by middle-class families."

"Adoption is promoted as a way of not having too many children in care" she told Sputnik.

And as for the reasons for such a push, Ms. Lopez suggests the financial incentives are there, considering that many functions of the state in social care have been privatized.

"For example, about 40% of fostering is run by private agencies, as well as about 80% of children's homes. The more children you have — the more money you will get. Local authorities deny there are quota targets but in fact we do think that, for example, they get premiums when children are put in care."

More and more children in Britain are being put up for adoption — more than 20,000 were adopted between 2013 and 2017. 

The number of children in care in the UK during the same time period amounted to 72,670.

Raising the curtain of secrecy around family courts in Britain has the potential to bolster public confidence and hold social care professionals, as well as courts, more accountable.

However, reforms — when rushed — could be harmful the most vulnerable members of society, those who the courts system is meant to protect.

New policies, if adopted, should as much reflect the concerns of the mothers, fathers and children, as of the professionals in the field. After all, they're called family courts for a reason.