When Healthy Parenting is Regarded as More Harmful than Abuse
The outcome of the CAFCASS Child Impact Assessment Framework is starting to show in the UK. This week news reaches us of cases where severe alienation is found but CAFCASS are recommending that moving the child to live with the healthy parent will be more harmful than leaving the child with the parent who has been found to have abused them.
Despite the fact that CAFCASS have publicly acknowledged that parental alienation is child abuse, recommendation that the child remains with the parent who is abusing relies upon the statement in the CIAF which says –
Despite these risks to the emotional wellbeing of the child, the risk of forcing them into time with the other parent may be higher……….It can, very understandably, feel wholly unjust to a rejected parent.
However, regardless of how they were formed, a child’s wishes and feelings may be so entrenched against time spent with…
View original post 1,457 more words
Yesterday, I received the transcript of the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham on the day of the funeral of Alfie Evans, 14th May 2018. This concerns my unsuccessful application for an urgent injunction prohibiting the cremation of the remains of Alfie Evans, without a prior post-mortem examination. (At the time, I did not know whether a burial or a cremation was planned.) Continue reading
The defendant senior coroner, Mr Andre Rebello, has acknowledged service of my claim for judicial review of his decision not to investigate the death of Alfie Evans (9th May 2016 – 28th April 2018).
He hasn’t really responded much to the grounds for judicial review that I have pled. He has, instead, quoted extensively from our email correspondence on 8th and 9th of May this year, and annexed the transcript of the injunction hearing of 14th May 2018. Continue reading
I was delighted when the coroner suggested that parents Tom Evans and Kate James ought to be allowed to join in, as interested parties, with my legal challenge against his decision that Alfie’s death didn’t need investigating. The Christian Legal Centre tried to prevent me from serving the court papers on Tom and Kate, so I went back to court last Wednesday to apply for the court’s help in getting to Tom and Kate the good news of my legal challenge, enabling me to recover from the Christian Legal Centre’s treachery in keeping from their clients the news of my involvement, from May onwards.
Behind closed doors today, Mr Justice Butcher ruled, without the 30 minute public hearing for which I had applied, that Tom and Kate are not entitled to know about my legal challenge, and don’t necessarily even have any interest in whether the coroner’s decision was right or wrong. The judge did put the ball back in the Christian Legal Centre’s court though, by ordering me to ask them to send Tom and Kate copies of his order today. Continue reading
In an attempt to recover from the treachery of The Christian Legal Centre and the apparent official secrecy of all contact details of Tom Evans and Kate James, I returned to court today to file an application. Unfortunately, I was not able to get the application heard immediately. Although it is an application without notice, I have already sent a copy of it to the defendant coroner, The Christian Legal Centre and Merseyside police.
The gist of the application is getting the coroner, the police and The Christian Legal Centre to co-operate with the court in getting to Tom and Kate the paperwork they need (a) in order for them to be able to understand what I have done, which they may well decide is to their advantage and be glad of, and (b) for Tom and Kate to make informed decisions whether either or both wish to take advantage of what I have done. Continue reading
I’ve asked the police please to enable me to serve, on bereaved parents Tom and Kate, my #AlfieInquest judicial review claim against the coroner, challenging his decision not to investigate Alfie’s death. (Please could I suggest that readers follow this blog who want to be notified automatically by email when I publish the police’s response?)
This is the email I sent: Continue reading
I have started to wear a pair of precious feet on the lapel of the blazer I use most often. These feet are an exact representation of the feet of a ten week old child in the womb. I bought this pin from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have done a fair bit of thinking about the rights and wrongs of wearing a political symbol on my clothing (not something I would normally do), but I went ahead and attached this pin to my blazer anyway, and, to the extent that anyone would be interested in my views on this, I would like to provide a rationale as to why.
Put simply, I oppose the practice of abortion and its facilitation in ours and every culture that would so promote it.
I do not believe that children who are less than twenty-four weeks old are somehow…
View original post 1,195 more words