Spare time: here’s what I do in it

Spent a fascinating part of this evening with a Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy – one of the good guys in my view – talking about the service they offer, the questions the local service professionals have about the care proceedings / psychiatric interface – what should they worry about – should they get involved as experts in court proceedings etc. Really impressed by the commitment I was hearing to client care and the awareness of responsibility to the court process. 

I would like to see more interdisciplinary opportunities like this. Why is it not a fundamental part of a lawyers’ training or at least one offered generally by CPD training? Could not the GMC / RC Psych / Bar Council organise some joint training opportunities?

If not maybe I will. Any offers?
Posted by jacquig at 23:29 0 comments   Links to this post
Labels: experts, training

Lyndamac’s reply to this is: I am surprised you could see that far up some psychs backside . You never find a solicitor willing to represent a client with complaints about an expert do you . It is after all a joint agreement by all the legal parties who they have for experts so there  is a conflict of interest and it would also be in bad taste to the grass on the expert after instructing and paying a lot of money for the reports for court.

Word of advice

The GMC solicitors will take over the complaints for court,  once a lot of the ground work has been done single handed by the parent which could take years to complete after the multi-agencies deny handing over the paperwork using the DPA request 40 days  .

I also see the contact centres got  a mention.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/20/care-assessment-limited-time-scale

Modern day Children's Prison in the UK

Social Worker Sitting in the seat behind us with her head down.

Theses contact centre cost taxpayers a lot of money out of local government money  on average it costs  a session per family  on ( £35- £75 an hour see the link for YT letter from MP Kelvin Hopkins done a FOI to Luton LA )  and who controls these private sector business schemes (why ex social workers or ex SS managers )which are run to abuse children’s rights and primarily set out to degrade children .

Finding of Fact.

This should not take 42 weeks or 30 weeks .Finding of fact ,it should be found at the start of proceedings .It should be a criminal matter after being  found and dealt with in the criminal court .That is if you have been done for real child abuse . The fact is the courts are reclassifying what constitutes for child abuse .

This emotional harm, or significant  risk of emotional harm & needs to be protected from is inserted quiet innocently  into documents statements  at the final hearing  stages  for court you never see the words significant being used at the start of proceedings. The parents will not know the significance of these words or the cost of their use in closed court until they realize they have lost their child for ever to a group of people (multi agency groups of professionals )who will not let go .

Finally after a court makes a decision based on bogus expensive reports for court . Then    these practitioners have paved a way for themselves to have  a very abnormal relationship with your child/children. This should sound like it is ringing alarm bells with you now. The taxpayers are now paying indefinitely for theses so called practitioners to keep on going whilst all along they  are making a vast amount of money out of children’s misery  .  These professionals realistically in all probability could not ever make this kind of money  anywhere else, but in a secret court.

The taxpayers are paying  heavily for these practitioners to  take as much time off on holiday off work with stress ( same stress they remove your children for )and keep returning back to court for as long as your child’s life expires and dies a death worth meeting if it is to shake of these horror of a misfortune the courts have inflicted on children.

Question for MP Mr Dobson what happened to a public inquiry for this parents daughter ?

We are still waiting for answers Mr Dobson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwXzGFVAcc&feature=channel

Click to see the cost to you the taxpayer .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlcUECQ-pQ&feature=related

BBC v CAFCASS Legal & Ors [2007] EWHC 616 (Fam)

Application by BBC seeking clearance to make a documentary about a couple who successfully resisted care proceedings. The application was successful but subject to conditions set out in the order which is part of the judgment.

In the course of proceedings, it emerged that the key issue was not an objection to the publication of the story but whether the anonymity of several of the social work and medical professionals involved should be preserved and whether publication of the original judgment in an anonymised form would impinge on that anonymity. In this judgment Munby J reviews the recent case law and policy developments governing practice in this area and concludes that the story can be broadcast but with restrictions on who can be identified.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/puffbox/hyperpuff/front_page/panorama_choice/newsid_8924000/8924600.stm

In my  humble opinion I think  the courts and the multi-agencies create these cases ,and the parents who ordinarily would never have been made a referral to Social Services end up in the higher courts setting a precedent, or bench marking their  cases. My personal experience has left me  feeling used by the system.

On average it takes a parent 2 weeks after the final hearing  to go looking for answers.

I remember sending the link to the case law out to several people online. The only difference is that we name experts ,solicitors & social workers online  we did not seek permission to disclose the fact that there is something going wrong in the closed courts. This is very much a general public interest matter and families need to be prepared as much as this mother & father were prepared for court .

The 3 experts who work both in NHS & Private sector.In our case these experts  were: in order Dr Claire Sturge of Northwick Park Hospital or Gayton Road , who has since  moved to South Harrow is also listed as a director of Social Services in Social Care.

Moving on to Dr Anthony Wilkins Police Forensic Psychiatrist of Windsor Works in both Private & NHS is know for renting rooms by the hour in Lisson Grove Edward House London. Dr W has a warning already on the GMC data base this is disclosed on a public website.

Last but not least Graham Flatman who is not shy about saying he earns more money than the  PM David Cameron in a year ,but prefers to work from home and uses a PO BOX like some kind of rogue trader I posted  earlier Machins  solicitors they wrote “I trust you will not need to see Grahams CV “I found evidence later on when back tracking that they were cherry picking experts for the case . It is far to late for me I was well and truly set up ,however with so much information online if you look hard enough for answers and research you could out wit the legals and see the end game through yourself by going Litigant in person.

Save your energy & money rather than let the solicitors slowly drain you of any self respect  & any prospect of recovering after the closed court experience or any realistic prospect of  putting you, or your family back together again after financial ruin.

Consider Your Options to go litigant in person .

Either way you may consider this your next option ,or( albeit tongue in cheek) just buy a pair of cement boots and take a run and jump off  Niagra Bloody Falls if going  LIP is so daunting .

Going back to 2005 I bet Machins solicitors of Luton wish I had of done this, got some cement boots  after the final hearing and jumped off Niagra Falls.  I went AWOL  twice  to Canada,after  declining an offer to do yet another psych report for court for Graham Flatman.  Graham Flatman CV should read he only does inconclusive reports for court .This would have left Mr Flatman out of pocket to the sum of £5,980 plus VAT  a report for court.

If I had the time all over again, and the opportunity to access so much information on line with support of Mac Kenzie Friend I know I would take the LIP option every time, and forget the cement boots as I was only joking.

Lyndamac’s top tips from London  .

I was thinking of suggesting to Mothers for Justice & Fathers for Justice get donations in and buy the new i-pad to be share within the growing community to go  on loan for parents who want to  go LIP .Together with this  scheme up and running with a MKF for court I am convinced with the shared information and right contacts for court this will prove more successful for families  than dealing with Shister solicitors.

Please take a look at this i-pad ,I am also impressed with the free application for dictation and record function of this for meetings. This takes up such a long time recording and transcribing statements for court ,however with the use of this……http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad?afid=p202|GOUKE339616180&cid=OAS-EMEA-KWG-+UK_iPad-UK

When I think back to our case and the miscarriage of justice surrounding fact finding not to mention maladministration of evidence the press release is a major insult to children & families . The GMC who are currently investigating our case happen to think that this is a a general public interest matter .

As this is not rocket science I have to ask this next question why did the courts not think of the long term interests or child C s considering this is a medical case? The Children Act 1989 has not considered the long term interests for C to find a stem cell donor or a true genetic key .

This lacks sincerity and is insulting to the general public.

http://www.lawsocietymedia.org.uk/site.php?s=1&content=56&video_content_id=1327

Experts

Stepping outside her field of expertise we had  Dr Claire Sturge  & Dr Anthony Wilkins plus  the shy Psychologist working from home or a POBOX number on close to just under half a million pounds a year Graham Flatman .Dr Wilkins for the record he already has his card marked by the GMC as he has 1 warning.

Now don’t I wish that I had more hours in the day to research these experts instead of trusting my old solicitors Machins http://www.machins.co.uk/to let the child’s solicitor Patrick Perusukohttp://www.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/borneo-linnells-solicitors-16835106.html to cherry pick this beast .

Take a look at what FLW has to say about experts.http://flwblog.lawweek.co.uk/

It won’t be long is the message to the professionals when clients pick up on how corrupt the gravy train to closed court really is. Most of the searches on this post have something to do with our case or somebody else wants to know more about you or your CV .

If you barrister is telling you to concede the threshold just say NO!

Reply

A-biz replied on 9 Aug 2010 1:02 PM

rated by 0 users

I did not see this article, but I agree with you. It is not really a child protection/ abuse issue, but perhaps certain parents who do smoke alot around thier children could be sent on a parenting/smoknig awareness course….possibly refered by the GP.

We will have to see where this leads….

Reply

redana replied on 10 Aug 2010 8:18 PM

rated by 0 users

depends on the individual case- I have cited this as an issue in the context of other factors-like a child prone to bronchial infections or chronic asthma. These can become life threatening, so if it’s not CP in those cases I don’t know what is. It can sometimes demonstrate a more general neglect-but not always.

I would like to show the public what would you do about a case which was a medical priority with serious health problems concerning   a seriously ill child who was having with treatment for leukaemia and on treatment for 3 years?

The fact is the Luton social worker covered it up and now the LA are supporting her. My Mp is writing on my behalf for a serious case review or a public inquiry .

I never wrote the notes,it was a good old fashioned practitioner  senior social worker named Julie Tadd.

“The government is clear that every child’s case should be dealt with as quickly as possible to minimise trauma and keep young people safe from harm.”

More bullshit: why does it take 42 weeks for finding of FACT?

It is never child abuse when the corporate parent is failing children by not completing the parenting assessments.If they had of completed through assessments of my ex-partner & his wife we would not have to read the paperwork saying my son stank of cigarettes and so did the house. What happened to this? it got covered up along with the rest of it. The courts said Luton Local Authority was in dereliction of duty of care for C and left it at that . It is an “IN-HOUSE PROBABLY FOR THE LA TO SORT OUT”.

This is the space I will leave to put in the notes of Sharon Andrews family aid and Julie Tadd Social Worker  when they wrote they stank their clothes reeked of it after a house visit……. The foster carer Grace Human said the same C stank of cigarettes when they had him visit for respite care over a week end he turned up with no mouth wash , no medication more important of all and stinking of cigarettes. Now don’t you find it very odd that it is not child abuse when the LA are involved in court and have a father on a supervision order?

The courts attitude stinks ! I want to know does this top GP  Steven Field want to see this paperwork concerning Luton Social Services and a father smoking in front of a seriously ill child in the car and in the house.

At the time  when this case was live in 2004-2006 this child was in remission from T cell Leukaemia and is having 3 years treatment and maintenance oral medication daily for 3 years  thats all and the father could not be bothered to stop smoking.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/about/advisoryboard/field/

http://www.uksocialworkers.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10908026

Family lawyer Christina Blacklaws said social workers dealing with public law cases were often inexperienced, lacking in confidence and simply “overwhelmed” by their workload.

I hear a lot of Luton firm of solicitors go on holiday at the final hearing and will not go to court with their clients. The clients told me they got handed the bundles and said you are on your own at the final hearing. So that means they will take your taxpayers money ,bin your case and leave you to get on with the case without any legal representative for court.

Top Search on Google: Lyndamac  telling it like it is .

Machins of Luton binned my case in 2004-2006 . Machins had a contract for the Local Authority and are in the back pocket of Luton LA. I sent back £12,000 from public funding and said they were sacked .

://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=lyndamac&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=tjRdTMDBAZWSjAfC073xAw

Another top search on google is Name & Shame solicitors. Take your pick, we never had this much help when we were coming through the system.

http://www.name-n-shame.co.uk/

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=name+%+shame+solicitors&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/

Or are they just to embarrassed to be seen out in public taking these children to the final hearing for another forced adoption?

Why not name and shame your solicitor on the website.Or go one better and make them sign a contract not to bin your case and tell them you require to attend all the court appointments and not go AWOL ON HOLIDAY WITH THE DIRTY ££££ .

Let’s Keep This Simple here are yesterdays searches on Google . Marcia Hyde is working for Luton Local Authority as a legal .I  bet she turns up everyday of the week .

Yesterday