Showing posts with label cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cuts. Show all posts

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Domestic Violence and Legal Aid - Dispelling Myths

A number of headlines are circulating at the moment and it is of concern that people may think legal aid isn't available to victims of domestic violence.

It is.

The Government ensured that legal aid for victims of domestic violence was protected from cuts. Howeverm they did require that a degree of evidence was required to support that allegations of domestic violence were genuine, and not being used as a means to get free legal support (for such things as custody battles).

There is a wide body of evidence which can be produced to help gain free legal assistance. This includes:
  • an existing protective order or injunction in respect of the other party, against the applicant;
  • an undertaking having been given by the other party in lieu of a protective order or injunction for the protection of the applicant;
  • a police caution for domestic violence against the applicant;
  • appropriate evidence of admission to a domestic violence refuge;
  • appropriate evidence from a social services department confirming the provision of services to the victim in relation to alleged domestic violence;
  • evidence from GPs;
  • a criminal conviction for domestic violence by the other party against the applicant;
  • evidence of a multi-agency risk assessment conference having been referred as at risk of domestic violence, with action recommended;
  • a finding of fact by the courts of domestic violence by the other party against the applicant.
It should be noted that the above criteria do not require concrete proof that domestic violence has happened in the past, simply evidence that it may have done.

It's important to remember that false allegations are a form of domestic violence too, and the Government has a duty to protect all victims.

The Government might have insisted that legal aid funding be recouped if allegations were found to be false, or unproven, but circumstances do exist where false allegations are prompted by anxiety or mental illness, and under those circumstances, financial penalties would be inappropriate. Campaign groups for domestic violence charities would inevitably argue that such penalties would act as barrier to genuine victims coming forward.

We deplore domestic violence against either gender or children, but in this instance, believe the Government struck the right balance. False allegations remain a significant part of family law proceedings, and the impact of such allegations can cause long term emotional and psychological harm (not to mention the implications to a child's development and wellbeing caused by needless investigations, manipulation to believe a parent might be dangerous when not and the cessation of contact when allegations are false).

On our site, we have a section providing information regarding help available to victims of DV, including information about non-molestation orders, occupation orders and undertakings, and organisations which can advise and support. This includes information to assist parents who do not qualify for legal aid and who need to apply to the court for protective orders.

Click on the image below to be taken to our family law app and Domestic Violence Support Menu:

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/flapp/domesticviolencemenu.html

We might also add we provide information to support those falsely accused, too:

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/flapp/falseallegations.html

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Rumoured cuts to the Government's Child Abduction Unit

I've heard rumours that the the Foreign Office's Child Abduction Unit had faced significant cuts and attempted to clarify the details with the Foreign Office. The Child Abduction Unit is separate from the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (ICACU) which deals with abductions to Hague Convention countries and those in Europe (covered under BIS II).

Rumours include a single case worker handling over 170 abductions. Also that the unit itself had been closed, and its work absorbed within the Foreign Office. I do not know if these rumours are true, so I thought it worth checking via a Freedom of Information Act request. The request was submitted on 23rd October.

The information request asked the following questions:

  1. Has the Child Abduction Unit experienced staffing reductions within the past two years or are there plans for cuts, and would you confirm the staffing levels in that unit in 2012, 2013 and budgeted staffing levels for 2014?
  2. In 2012, 2013 and with regard to planned resourcing for 2014, how many FCO staff were/are exclusively working on child abduction cases?
  3. In 2012, 2013 and with regard to planned resourcing for 2014, how many staff have international child abduction work as part of their overall duties within the FCO?
  4. Are there plans for cuts to staff, resources or financial budgets in either the Child Abduction Unit or ICACU (within the MoJ)?
  5. Is there any truth to rumours that the Child Abduction Unit within the FCO has either been closed, been absorbed within another department within the FCO, or absorbed within the FCO as a whole?

The response so far is that the Foreign Office does hold the information I've requested, however they've engaged the 'public interest test', and 'have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies'. A further update will come by 18th December. The reply can be read at http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/reports/FoI_Request_Ref_0999-13_-_Michael_Robinson_-_PIT_Letter.pdf

The public interest, to me, is quite clear, and no doubt parents, lawyers and charities involved in abduction cases will be similarly interested. In instances of child abduction (where the number of abductions are increasing), has the Government cut resources to assist in recovery, and if yes, by how much? I'll publish further updates on 18th December.

Saturday, 20 October 2012

Child threatened with handcuffing prompts many questions

A distressing Youtube video was brought to my attention today which shows a 13 year old child being forcibly removed into foster care. I don't know the parties or the case circumstances, but watching the video prompted the following questions:
  • Why weren't the child's wishes and feelings represented in court, or were they? 
  • If they were, why wasn’t sufficient weight afforded to them? Impossible to say without hearing the full case. The child's wishes and feelings, as expressed on the video (in fairly horrific terms), seem quite clear to me. 
  • The father appears to have been badly advised or had no advice. He didn't attend court, because it appears the solicitor he found had a conflict of interest and couldn't represent him. Whether or not this is the case, how much more likely is it that we'll see similar occurrences after legal aid is abolished. Is this the real face of cuts in the legal aid budget? 
  • Did the child's solicitor ever meet with the child?
  • It appears that the Guardian and social services had not visited the father's house. Should the police be threatening to handcuff a 13 year old child? 
  • Could the police have handled matters better, than handcuffing a parent in front of a child, and threatening to handcuff the child... waving an order made 'in the child's best interests'. 
You watch... you decide... I can't see the child's face being shown, or their surname being given, so I'm fairly satisfied no laws have been broken in posting this video, or our drawing it to your attention, as the child has not been identified.

What harm to this child… going through that… and my problem is that when you have knowledge of cases where Social Services have lied in court (acknowledged by the judge) it makes you question just a little bit more…
Was that reasonable force? Really...

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Press Release - A lifeline for families as legal aid cuts bite

Press Release

'A lifeline for families as legal aid cuts bite'
05 October 2012

Legal aid cuts are expected in April 2013, and the Government estimates that legal representation is to be lost in 50,000 cases (of which 45,000 are in the private family law arena). Many families are struggling to find a legal aid solicitor now as professionals exit the industry and firms close.

Since learning this, we developed a range of resources for parents and grandparents who simply cannot afford to privately employ a solicitor. Today we officially launch the first part of our lifeline:

The Family Law Web Based Application: A bit of a mouthful, so we shortened the name to flApp. We wanted a resource which puts a vast quantity of family law information at a parent's or grandparent's fingertips. Over half a million words of content, 8 case law categories, 250 questions answered, case law to view online or download in hard copy, court process guides, key international and national legislation… 60 categories of information. Accessible on PCs, smart phones, tablets and macs. We include minimal graphics to cut internet usage costs, and pages are designed to be viewed on any platform, but especially mobile phones… even better, flApp is free.

Litigation Packs: Process guides helping the litigant through each stage of court proceedings. We have information to help them write a statement, put together a court bundle, attend a first dispute and resolution hearing or mediation  and much more. We talk them through, step by step, and include the forms and documents they need. We charge a minimal fee of £2.50 which goes towards site running costs.


Case Law on Kindle: For the unrepresented parent and lay advisers (McKenzie Friends) we have launched four case law packs which are available on Amazon in a kindle format. These cover shared residence, parental alienation, internal relocation and leave to remove.

“Internal Relocation”: The first of our new guides on specific and more complex areas of private family law... Internal Relocation. Written for parents whose children live in England and Wales, this book explains private family law  related to relocation. Such situations typically arise after parental separation and when the primary  carer seeks to move the child(ren) away from the area of the family home to another part of England or Wales. Their motives may be genuine (such as seeking new employment or moving closer to other family members) or malicious (to place distance between the children and their non-relocating parent).

The guide comes in a kindle format and in three parts. The first gives an analysis of relocation law, the second is a court process guide specific to internal relocation cases, while the third includes the full text of case law related to internal relocation.

Support Forum: Our new support forum is especially tailored for mobile phones and staffed by an experienced team from the third sector who have collectively answered more than 10,000 posts.

Case Law for iPad: Design complete, and cloud based versions are now available. We will be converting them to an app version soon.

All available at www.thecustodyminefield.com

The Custody Minefield is a leading provider of family law information for parents, charities, grandparents, step parents and the wider family. Many who use our site do so from libraries and internet cafes. Our guides are currently viewed some 40,000 times a month.

Take the video tour


Family law at your fingertips