JUST JUSTICE-ITS THAT SIMPLE!!!

Please forward to your lists

Contacts for each Social Services Area

We are establishing a list of contacts for each social services area so that advice literature can be provided for families needing advice. If you are willing to volunteer for your area please email Tom Paul on paultj@parliament.uk  We also need regional contacts to coordinate each region.  Don't worry if you don't know what region you live in, but if you are willing to help in a region please email Tom.

Literature

Any suggestions for what needs to be in literature needs to be emailed to Tom Paul so he can pass it to the people doing the drafting work.

Shaken Baby Syndrome

I have identified two cases recently (one in London one in Wales) where the system is trying to remove a child because a sibling of the child was diagnosed as being shaken.  In both cases it appears that a metabolic disease such as glutaric aciduria is the probable cause of the subdural haematomata and retinal haemorrhages.   There is a strong argument requiring three symptoms including some damage to the head before concluding on the probable cause.  I have written to the RCPCH about this with a view to seeing if they have formalised advice on this.

One of the cases (that of Ian and Sarah Walton) has started the process of judicial review.

A biomechanical study of SBS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15885948

Is a report which indicates that for a baby's brain to be sufficiently damaged by shaking damage to the spine would happen and without the signs of damage to the spine (or bruising to the head) a proper diagnosis should be that SBS does not apply.   This is an extension of the above point really.

Wikipedia is also helpful on this giving reference to a hearing in the USA about the admissibility of claims of SBS without other damage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken_baby_syndrome

Clearly this is not a binding precedent on the UK, but it is an important point.

Secrecy

I have looked further at the Mumby judgement and analysed what I think it means at.

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2006/11/family-courts-how-secret-are-they.html

This is important as it means that people can talk publicly about the cases they were involved in - when it has finished - as long as they don't use any of the court documents or discuss what actually happened in court.  That is without applying for permission.

The amended information rules from 2005

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051976.htm

mean that you can send a copy of the judgment to any elected representative or Peer.  Elected representative means an MP, AM or MEP.  That does not have to be your own elected representative.  Anyone with concerns about a judgment can send details to me with a copy of the judgment.  Remember, however, that I cannot deal with any substantial load of casework and, therefore, are working in conjunction with affiliated campaigns on casework.  It does allow some central recordkeeping as to the nature of problems, however.

Southall

Lawrence Alexander has collated much of the press information about Southall here.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=53964803&blogID=193129053&MyToken=87e90a16-dcb3-4ed6-aacd-40c6be3c7560

For those that have followed the different justifications Southall has given for holding the secret  files here is one of the stories

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6180516.stm

There are about 4,499 special case files according to Southall.  The hospital continues to fail to answer the question as to whether or not they will tell people what is in their special case files.  I am working to get an electronic transcript of the hearing.  We have paper copies.

SIDS research

http://www.skynews.com.au/health/story.asp?id=138793

Reports how it is the failure of a brain system that responds to hypoxia (low oxygen) or hypercarbia (high levels of CO2) that causes SIDS.  There is Chinese research that demonstrates that primates can develop tolerance to hypoxia as a result of exposure to hypoxic environments.  In other words when they are exposed to low oxygen levels it damages the response system so that they are more likely to fail to respond to low oxygen.

The original paper is here

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/17/2124

Opposite view

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/333/7579/1165?ehom=

In the above article Jonathan Gornall arguing a contrary view that SIDS has no genetic element (which would conflict from the argument about the serotonin system above).  He is arguing that Meadow's law was not the load of rubbish that almost everyone else knows it was.

St Neot's sign up

The main list of affiliated campaigns is here

http://john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/justiceforfamilies.html

A mother's story on YouTube

I haven't been able to watch this 6 minute video, but it is about forced adoptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoZKjUk6hT4

END

More here...

Reforming the Area of Children in Public Family Law

http://www.fassit.co.uk/john_hemming_campaign.htm