CAFCASS and the Judiciary -Unhealthy alliances-. "Blackstones" Constitutional law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial functions states The principal functions of the judiciary may be described, in part as follows:
"Blackstones" Constitutional law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial functions states The principal functions of the judiciary may be described, in part as follows:
The first question is how is this assessed?
In Sommerfeld v Germany 2003 it states:
42. ‘‘it must determine whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the applicant has been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests.
43. ..Correct and complete information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as the parent seeking access to the child is an indispensable prerequisite for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a fair balance between the interests at stake.
44. In the Court’s opinion, the German courts’ failure to order a psychological report on the possibilities of establishing contacts between the child and the applicant reveals an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process. ’’
In the case of CASE OF GÖRGÜLÜ v. GERMANY (Application no. 74969/01) 26 February 2004 it is stated that ‘‘Although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for family life. Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited
In Re N Ward L.J. expressed agreement with a passage in the judgment of Wall J in Re and B ( Minors) (No.1) (Investigation of Alleged Abuse)  3 F.C.R. 389,409:
"From a forensic view point para. 12.35 of the [Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland (1987) (Cm 412) the unsuitability of having a parent present at an interview] remains a correct statement of the proper practice, particularly in a case where the only evidence of abuse up to the date of the first interview was what the mother has said the child has said to her. Quite apart from any pressure which the mother’s presence may place on the child, the golden rule is that each interview is to be approached with an open mind: such a rule is in my view immediately broken if the mother is present at the interview".
Yet in many cases known of children’s wishes and feelings are ignored even to the extent when a child has to run away or suffers harm. There are also cases where when it goes against the wishes of the Court the children’s wishes and feelings are totally ignored.
(Excerpt taken from Kilgore v. Boyd, Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Hillsborough County, Family Law Division. Case no. 94-7573, Div. D)
THE COURT: ... If I do have to apply a Frye test he has passed the Frye test. And I find that parental alienation syndrome has passed the Frye test in my courtroom, which is a Circuit Court Courtroom in the Family Law division, based on the evidence and the argument before me. The evidence and the argument before me, the testimony and the CV of Dr. Gardner, together with an excerpt of his writings. There was also proffered an article from the Florida Bar Journal which, quite frankly, I read when it came out and at the time I read it I placed some credibility in it.
PAS is characterised by a cluster of symptoms that usually appear together in the child, especially in the moderate and severe types. These include:
1. A campaign of denigration
2. Weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the deprecation
3. Lack of ambivalence
4. The independent-thinker phenomenon
5. Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict
6. Absence of guilt over cruelty to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent
7. The presence of borrowed scenarios
8. Spread of the animosity to the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent.
Coursey v. Superior (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987. The Court finds that the mother, Loretta Coursey, has induced such animosity of their daughter toward their father, Eugene Coursey, that the child now suffers with parental alienation syndrome, and refuses to visit her father. The Court, therefore, fines the mother $500 and sentences her to five (5) days in jail. The order, however, is stayed as long a the mother successfully completes scheduled visitations of their daughter with the father. The Co urt also orders Loretta Coursey to pay Eugene Coursey $1,000 for attorney fees. (COURSEY V. COURSEY Sutter County Superior Court (California) No. 33254 August 18,1987)1988
Schultz v. Schultz, 522 So.2d 874, 13 Fla L. Weekly 387 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., Feb 09, 1988). Reference is made here to the parental alienation syndrome and the inculcation of the children's alienation by the mother. The Court threatened "the severest penalties this Court can impose, including contempt, imprisonment, loss of residential custody, or any combination thereof if the mother did not comply with this Court's order to cease and desist from her "slowly dripping poison into the minds of the children" rather than to instill love and respect for the father.On appeal the Florida Third District Appeals Court ruled that the Judge had acted properly and that there were no grounds for the mother's appeal. (SCHUTZ V. SCHUTZ, 467 So. 2nd 407 Fla. 4th DCA 1985)1989
“Best interests of child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both natural parents. TWERSKY V. TWERSKY, (2 Dept 1984) 103 A.D. 2d 775, 477 N.Y.S. 2d 409
“Visitation is not only a joint right of a parent and child, but it is also in the best interests of child to have a meaningful relationship with his or her father.LYNG V. LYNG, (4 Dept 1985) 112 A.D. 2d 29, 490 N.Y.S. 2d 940
“Change of child custody is appropriate if the custodial parent’s conduct deliberately frustrates, denies, or interferes with the other parents visitation rights.” VICTOR L. V. DARLENE L. (1 Dept 1998) ___ A.D. 2d ___, 674 N.Y.S. 2d 371 (emphasis added).
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, Volume 16, Number 4, 1998, p. 5-14MMPI-2 VALIDITY SCALES AND SUSPECTED PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
MMPI-2 validity scales of two groups of parents going through child custody evaluations, parents who engage in parental alienation syndrome (PAS) behaviors and parents who do not, were compared. It was hypothesized that PAS parents would have significantly higher L and K scales and a significantly lower F scale than parents who do not engage in these behaviors.
The hypothesis was confirmed for K and F scales, indicating that PAS parents are more likely to complete MMPI-2 questions in a defensive manner, striving to appear as flawless as possible. It was concluded that parents who engage in alienating behaviors are more likely than other parents to use the psychological defenses of denial and projection, which are associated with this validity scale pattern. Implications of this finding regarding possible personality disorders in PAS parents are discussed.
Hon. Richard HunterFormer chief judge of the King's County (Brooklyn) Family Court. He was a prominent member of the New York State Commission on Child SupportJudge Hunter on fathers, he said:
"You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved; he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o'clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological."
Quoted in "The Fathers Also Rise," New York Magazine, November, 18, 1985.
Judge Turner in reply to a parent who sought to question a court welfare officer’s report: ‘That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that it is totally wrong that members of the public can challenge judges and court welfare officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.’
Parental Alienation Syndrome or PAS which will give rise to mental health and psychological disorders and dysfunction will result in more false allegations being made. PAS is recognised in Germany, Holland, Israel, Spain, Canada having passed the Mohan Test and in the United States having passed two Frye tests. Yet in the UK the main case law on it is re L,V,M and H, stating that PAS is a misnomer after a report by Sturge and Glaser two feminist psychiatrists on the issue of Domestic violence not on the psychology behind PAS and report by LJ Wall.
Parental alienation Syndrome exists even if the Court denies it exists. Children’s welfare is being destroyed. Already in the UK we have the greatest amount of teenage pregnancies which is directly related to fatherlessness, the worst ever mental health of teenagers, increasing teenage delinquency, rape, drug and alcohol abuse, self harming and poor behaviour in our schools. This is backed up by the BMA report in 2004 and the UNICEF report 2007.
Raja V Austin Gray (a firm),  EWHC 1607 (QB) 31st July 2002 and in particular paragraph 12 where it states; It seems to me that it is reasonable and in the public interest to expect professionals, and indeed anyone else offering particular skills for reward, to exercise them with reasonable competence.
This includes the Judiciary with their ample pensions, lawyers, barristers, Guardians, Social workers, CAFCASS officers.
In the CASE OF T.P. AND K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28945/95)
The local authority, which is charged with the duty of protecting the child and is a party in the court proceedings, may reasonably not be regarded by a parent as being able to approach the issue with objectivity. The question whether crucial material should be disclosed should therefore not be decided by the local authority, or the health authority responsible for the medical professional who conducted the interview.
The same principle applies to CAFCASS officers and others.
Please contact Shaun on the above contact details and be willing to permit sight of the documents in order to ensure we do not have any cranks/ weak cases involved as the campaign has begun for the restoration of the family and accountability.
…….and God help those that deceive us…