From midwife to sick and homeless in 2yrs #PIPstories #DWP

Source: From midwife to sick and homeless in 2yrs #PIPstories #DWP

Advertisements
Standard

From midwife to sick and homeless in 2yrs #PIPstories #DWP

Jenn’s account – like the others that will follow in the series – puts the Tories’ ‘conscious cruelty’ into stark, human terms that must surely move and outrage those who read it. If we’re unmoved, then sheer self-interest should motivate us to demand change – if Jen can go from a long and fruitful career as a midwife to homelessness in such a short time, almost any of us is vulnerable.

The SKWAWKBOX

midwife.pngLast week, the SKWAWKBOX put out an appeal for those who have suffered the abuse of the government’s PIP (Personal Independence Payment) process, which consists of multiple hoops, unrealistic appointments and constant meaningless assessments that often result in the withdrawal of payments to people whose conditions are never going to improve.

We were inundated.

The stores we received were full of bravery and anger. Some are desperate. All are harrowingly tragic. In the first of a series of those stories to raise awareness of the human cost of government callousness, the following tells of the situation of J – a senior midwife who, within just two years of a diagnosis of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), was unemployed, homeless and bounced around without support by the DWP (Dept of Work and Pensions) and its agents.

It is told in J’s own words, with emphases added by the SKWAWKBOX:

I was diagnosed…

View original post 1,056 more words

Standard

Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

Source: Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

Standard

Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

A High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

Researching Reform

High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

  • Family courts cannot prevent parents, the media and websites from identifying social workers once care proceedings have ended
  • Video footage or photos posted online by parents are allowed as long as the content does not lead to the identification of any children involved in…

View original post 29 more words

Standard

Section 20 Consent Forms For Parents and Children – Get Yours Here.

The best thing since sliced bread! xx

Researching Reform

Together with child rights campaigner Michele Simmons, Researching Reform has produced two consent forms for families and children thinking about entering into a S.20 Agreement.

Michele, whose idea it was to create these forms, wanted to be able to offer parents and children the opportunity to fully inform themselves about these agreements and to protect them from their more controversial, and illegal, use – coercing families to place children in care.

Section 20 Agreements are intended to allow children access to temporary accommodation for a variety of reasons, including situations where parents through no fault of their own are unable to care for their child at that time, and instances where communication breaks down between parent and child. Their purpose and function are outlined in the Children Act 1989.

These agreements have become infamous for their misuse. Their implementation is now being investigated after it emerged that councils were removing…

View original post 235 more words

Standard

Question It!

At Researching Reform we take the view that parental consent must be a basic ingredient of any Section 20 Agreement, which is by its nature a voluntary arrangement. Failure to secure that consent, to our mind, renders the agreement null and void precisely because it is a voluntary arrangement, which expressly implies a need for consent.

Just as critically, failure to obtain consent acts as a gateway to abuse, allowing social workers to coerce families into child protection proceedings. It is this lack of transparency, and consent, that has led to councils being able to use S.20 Agreements to break the law and take children from parents.

But that’s just one view.

Our question then, is just this: do you think parental consent should be a legal requirement for S.20 Agreements?

Source: Question It!

Standard