Bollywood and ‘The Asses of Gujarat’!

“Indian state of Uttar Pradesh election 2017 campaign is turning into another Hillary-Trump circus – full of personal attacks, vulgarity, below the belt blows to gain brownie points and applause to sway large crowd.

On Monday, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and the ruling party Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Akhilesh Yadav took a jibe at country’s prime minister Narendra Modi by urging Bollywood famous actor and Gujarat’s brand ambassador since February 2010, Amitabh Bachchan, not to promote Gujarat’s asses. Referring to Gujarat Tourism advertisement where the actor, speaks about State’s Wild Ass Sanctuary (watch video below).

Actor-politician Amitabh Bachchan was born in Allahabad (UP) in 1942. He was Congress Party member of Indian parliament (1984-87), which supports Yadav’s government in the UP state.

Prime minister Narendra Modi was born in Gujarat in 1950. Modi has criticized the SP-Congress government in UP as full of corruption and nepotism on several occasions.

In 2014, SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav accused Narendra Modi of murdering over 2,000 Muslims while he was the chief minister of Gujarat state in 2002. Indian minority leaders have named Modi as the Butcher of Gujarat.

Yesterday, Samajwadi Party leader Rajendra Chaudhry called both Narendra Modi a terrorist who is spreading terror inside a democracy.”

Rehmat's World

Indian state of Uttar Pradesh election 2017 campaign is turning into another Hillary-Trump circus – full of personal attacks, vulgarity, below the belt blows to gain brownie points and applause to sway large crowd.

On Monday, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and the ruling party Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Akhilesh Yadav took a jibe at country’s prime ministerNarendra Modi by urging Bollywood famous actor and Gujarat’s brand ambassador since February 2010, Amitabh Bachchan, not to promote Gujarat’s asses. Referring to Gujarat Tourism advertisement where the actor, speaks about State’s Wild Ass Sanctuary (watch video below).

Actor-politician Amitabh Bachchan was born in Allahabad (UP) in 1942. He was Congress Party member of Indian parliament (1984-87), which supports Yadav’s government in the UP state.

Prime minister Narendra Modi was born in Gujarat in 1950. Modi has criticized the SP-Congress government in UP as full of corruption and nepotism on several occasions.

View original post 58 more words

Brendan Mason’s brutal murder reflects the darkest consequence of bias motivated behaviour.

Eliminating prejudice starts by learning to be good neighbourly first. How appalling that so many descendants of holocaust survivors have turned the tables themselves to now gratuitously victimise the indigenous Palestinians subjected to state-sanctioned racial discrimination, ethnic-cleansing, foreign occupation in their own homeland, illegal siege/blockade of Gaza and periodic rounds of genocidal bombardment by Israel. The hidden cost of over-privileging one culture is devaluing another hence is too high.

Politics and Insights

brendan_mason_montage2

Brendan Mason, who was brutally murdered by two young men he thought were his friends.
Picture courtesy of the Leicester Mercury

Two men who filmed themselves savagely beating a young man with learning difficulties and taunting him, telling him to “smile for the camera”, have been sentenced by Leicester crown court to life imprisonment for his murder. 

In the early hours of 5 July last year, Joshua Hack, aged 21, and Keith Lowe, 22, lured Brendan Mason, a 23 year old man with learning difficulties, to a park, where they said they wanted to spend time with him. Mason believed the two men to be his friends.

When the three of them arrived at the park, Hack and Lowe hung Mason from a tree. They took turns hitting him while the other held him down for several hours, cruelly laughing and taunting him. 

Mason was beaten unconscious, the two young…

View original post 2,771 more words

New point of principle

Legal Aid Handbook

The LAA has published an updated Point of Principle Manual. It includes a new PoP, CLA59, which applies to both civil and criminal work. The PoP says:

Where a provider exercises discretion as provided for under the relevant Financial Regulations an assessor may only overturn a determination that an individual qualifies for services where the provider’s determination was manifestly unreasonable.

This point of principle applies to any aspect of the determination which requires a provider to exercise an element of discretion. It does not override any mandatory regulatory or contractual duty relating to the assessment of means. Any determination that an individual is financially eligible for legal services must comply with all relevant regulatory and contractual provisions. In complying with these provisions providers must have regard to the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance issued in relation to determining financial eligibility.

This is a useful re-statement of the principle that the role of…

View original post 104 more words

#Brexit briefing: Rights to Remain after Brexit

Brexit briefing: Rights to Remain after Brexit ~ Bernard Ryan, Professor of Migration Law, University of Leicester, 20 February 2017.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has commissioned a series of briefings on key aspects of the Brexit debate by some of the UK’s top lawyers and academics specialising in EU free movement and migration law.  The purpose of the briefings is to inform interested members of the public, charities and organisations. They are available to be used as a resource and for any further information or help please contact Nicole Francis, Chief Executive at ILPA.

Introduction

This paper is concerned with the possibility of a post-Brexit right to remain for those residing in the United Kingdom under EU law on the free movement of persons.[i] It focuses on the question: who should have a right to remain, both in the negotiations at the EU level, and at the domestic level? It also considers the status and further rights that should go with such a right to remain.

Rights of residence in EU law

The main source of rights of residence in EU law is the Citizens Directive of 2004.[ii] It provides for rights of residence for EU citizens, as follows.

  • There is an initial right of residence for up to three months, subject to possession of a passport or identity card, without substantive qualifying conditions.
  • There is a right to remain as a job-seeker with a “genuine chance of being engaged”.[iii]
  • An extended right of residence is obtained through economic activity as a worker or as a self-employed person.
  • There is also an extended right of residence for self-sufficient persons, including students. The requirements for this right are “sufficient resources … not to become a burden on the social assistance system” and “comprehensive sickness insurance”.
  • A right of permanent residence arises after five years’ extended residence, at any time. Special provision is made for the accelerated acquisition of the right by specific categories of former employees and self-employed persons. This right is lost “only through absence from the host Member State for a period exceeding two consecutive years”.

Under the Citizens Directive, family members, irrespective of nationality, of EU citizens covered by these rights have parallel rights of residence. The rights of residence of family members may be retained – subject to qualifying conditions – in the event of the EU citizen’s death or departure, or the termination of a marriage or civil partnership.

The following persons qualify automatically as family members:

  • the spouse or civil partner of the EU citizen
  • the descendants of the qualifying EU citizen or the spouse/ civil partner, if they are under 21 or dependent on them
  • dependent relatives in the ascending line of the qualifying EU citizen or their spouse/ civil partner.

Certain other family members are entitled to have their residence “facilitated”.

Separately from the Citizens Directive, two ‘derivative’ rights of residence have been recognised.

  • EU Regulation 492/2011 includes an ongoing right of residence for a child of a migrant worker, and their primary carer, so that the child may complete their education in a member state.[iv]
  • The right of EU citizens “to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”, in Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) implies a right of residence for the primary carer of an EU citizen child, if that is necessary to prevent the child being forced to leave the European Union.[v]

Under the 1992 Agreement for a European Economic Area (as amended), nationals of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway have the same rights of residence as EU citizens, apart from those based solely on Article 21 TFEU.[vi] Swiss nationals benefit from the somewhat less developed provisions of the 2002 EU-Swiss Free Movement of Persons Agreement.[vii]

In the United Kingdom, both the rights set out in the Directive and these ‘derivative’ rights are implemented by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.[viii] These Regulations apply equally to the nationals of the EU-27 states, the three other EEA states and Switzerland. The nationals of these 31 states are therefore referred to here as ‘EEA+ nationals’ when discussing UK implementation.

A final point is that British citizens, and their family members who do not qualify in their own right, do not generally have rights of residence under EU free movement law in the United Kingdom. One exception is where a British citizen has previously exercised free movement rights in another member state before returning to the United Kingdom.[ix] There is also an open question whether some dual British/ EEA+ nationals may rely upon free movement rights.[x]

Why a right to remain?

The core reason to protect the right to remain of existing residents is fairness. EEA+ nationals and their family members who live in the United Kingdom will typically have substantial family, personal and work connections here. They will have built their lives in Britain in the reasonable expectation that their residence was protected by EU law, and that it would continue to be so. In the case of nationals of EU-27 states, moreover, they will have resided in the United Kingdom on the basis that they were exercising a core right of EU citizenship.

There are also pragmatic economic arguments for protection. The most recent data show that there were 2.3 million EU-27 nationals in employment in 2016, who made up 7.1% of the employed work force.[xi] It would risk severe problems in the labour market if any significant part of this group were removed from the workforce through restrictions on their right of residence or their right to engage in economic activity. Beyond that, existing EU residents of working age or younger offer a pool of workers for future employment. Protecting their rights of residence and economic activity would offset some of the negative effects of Brexit on labour supply.

The significant pressures expected upon the Home Office due to Brexit are a third reason to adopt a generous approach towards existing residents. Official estimates are that there were 3.2 million EEA+ residents in the United Kingdom in 2015, who made up 5.0% of the population.[xii] By comparison, only 28,731 residence documents were issued to EEA+ nationals in the third quarter of 2016.[xiii] At that rate, roughly 1% of EEA+ residents will obtain a document each quarter, and it would take around 25 years to deal with all cases. It is therefore unlikely that the Home Office has the capacity to process applications one by one in an acceptable timescale. In order to avoid a chaotic situation as Brexit occurs, policies should be adopted which reduce the decision-making burden.

A negotiated approach

Since the June 2016 referendum, the Government has broadly recognised the fairness and economic arguments for protecting existing EEA+ residents. Despite that, its approach has been to avoid unilateral commitments concerning their position. Instead, protection of existing residents is to be a matter for negotiation with the EU-27 member states – and presumably the other EEA+ states – with a view to obtaining reciprocal commitments concerning British citizens living in those states.

There are some grounds for optimism as to the achievability of a generous agreement. The UK Government has stated that “we fully expect that the legal status of EU nationals living in the UK, and of UK nationals in EU member states, will be properly protected.”[xiv] On the other side, the EU Commission, the European Parliament and the EU-27 states can be expected to favour a generous settlement for EU citizens, and their family members, who have relied upon free movement rights. Moreover, the available evidence shows that there are far more EU-27 citizens resident in the United Kingdom (3.2 million) than British residents in the EU-27 (0.9 million).[xv] This numerical difference also points to support on the EU side for a protective agreement.

There is though a risk of protracted delay in reaching an agreement. While the Government has indicated that it favours an early agreement on this subject within the Article 50 ‘exit’ negotiations, there can be no guarantee of such an outcome. The possibility of a ‘transitional’ phase, between the date of withdrawal and the emergence of a ‘future’ EU-UK relationship, is a further possible source of delay. Even at this stage, the case remains for the United Kingdom to unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU-27 and EEA+ residents and their family members.

The content of an agreement

In the negotiations concerning pre-Brexit residents, it is likely that the focus will be above all on rights guaranteed by EU law itself. The following is offered as a sketch of a desirable outcome.

  • As the central issue is entitlement to stay long-term in the United Kingdom or the EU-27 states, the starting-point should be a right to remain for EU citizens and their family members who already have a right of permanent residence in EU law. It seems especially unfair that such a ‘permanent’ right could be removed by Brexit. It might also turn out to be unlawful in the EU-27 states which would continue to be governed by EU law.
  • A focus on the right to remain implies protection for other residence which leads to a right of permanent residence in EU law. That would mean protection for those with rights of residence though economic activity, or as self-sufficient persons, or as family members. These persons should be permitted to continue their residence, to obtain permanent residence at a later date. The United Kingdom may wish to set a cut-off date before which residence must have commenced, to avoid a rush of ‘late arrivals’. On principle – and to avoid unfairness to genuine late arrivals – the date of Brexit itself should be the default position in negotiations.
  • Rights of residence which do not lead to a right of permanent residence in EU law present a more complex challenge. The categories affected are: persons with an initial right of residence for three months, job-seekers, those with derivative rights, and qualifying family members of persons in those categories. The position of those with these rights could be left – as now – for the domestic level to resolve. As these are EU rights, the EU-level agreement could however contain a standstill clause, to the effect that the residence position of these other groups should not be worsened after Brexit.

Out of fairness to current residents, there should be a presumption in favour of the status quo in relation to the entitlements of persons with a right to remain. This general principle may however require adjustment in several respects:

  • Residence documents. When the free movement of persons regime comes to an end, EU citizens with a right to remain will require residence documents, for checks at borders, by employers, by landlords, etc. The agreement ought therefore to provide for residence documentation to be obtained quickly and cheaply. In particular, the current six months deadline for member states to issue documents ought to be revised downwards.
  • Residence in the EU-27 states. For British citizens who qualify for a ‘right to remain’ in one EU-27 state, will that right be exercisable solely in that state, or will it permit residence in other EU-27 states as well? Preservation of the status quo would suggest that it should be the latter.
  • Sponsorship of family members. There is a case for allowing member states to introduce a limit – such as 20 years – on the period within which new family relationships count for this purpose. Otherwise, rights to sponsor new family members will continue for a long time into the future.

Finally, provision should be made for individuals to have the legal means to enforce their continuing rights. For British citizens in EU-27 states, the agreement concerning existing residents will be part of EU law, which will lead to a role both for the Court of Justice and for domestic courts. It is more difficult to identify a mechanism to ensure compliance by the United Kingdom, given the Government’s opposition to any continuing role for the Court of Justice. A potential solution would be for the agreement to require that the rights it provides should be legally enforceable at the domestic level in the United Kingdom.

In order to prevent disputes arising, it would also be desirable to provide clarification of unresolved points in the exit agreement. A major example is the question whether access to the National Health Service by EEA+ nationals and their family members counts for the purposes of the ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ requirement. The Commission considers that it does.[xvi] The, United Kingdom authorities, however, have so far prevented EEA+ residents who meet all other requirements from having a right of residence, if this is their only source of healthcare.

Decisions at the United Kingdom level

Even if there is a generous EU-level agreement concerning existing residents, it will still be necessary to address a number of matters at the United Kingdom level. In approaching these matters, fairness to existing residents suggests that the status quo should be respected as far as possible, so that any rights previously recognised in EU law or British law for EEA+ nationals should be protected..

The following more specific proposals may be made.

  • If any of the points proposed in the previous section are not covered by an EU-level agreement concerning existing residents, they should be addressed at the domestic level.
  • Rights of residence recognised in British law should be maintained, where these go beyond the requirements of EU law. An example is that periods spent within the initial three-month period of residence, and residence as a job-seeker, count towards permanent residence in the United Kingdom. A second is that formal statuses acquired by same-sex couples outside the EEA+ count as ‘civil partnership’ in the United Kingdom. A third is that the right of permanent residence applies Swiss nationals and their family members, which is not required by the agreement with Switzerland.
  • If any EU law-based rights of residence do not lead to a right to remain at the EU level, should they do so in the United Kingdom? In this regard, there is a strong case for protection of the derivative rights of residence referred to above, as these can last for lengthy periods of time, and in the British system give access to indefinite leave to remain after ten years’ residence.
  • There should be distinct statuses for those with rights to remain. This would avoid the conflation of this category with holders of indefinite leave and limited leave in the domestic immigration system. Moreover, if the agreement concerning existing residents does not provide for post-Brexit statuses to be acquired automatically, that should be done at the domestic level, so as to reduce the administrative burden upon the Home Office.
  • The procedure to be followed to assert a right to remain, including the evidence to be provided, will need to be simplified.[xvii]
  • It is uncertain when an agreement concerning existing residents would be negotiated as between the United Kingdom and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. As the Government intends that nationals of these countries and their family members should be protected, that may need to be done at the domestic level in the first instance.

[i] Any doubt as to whether the free movement of persons would come to an end was removed by Theresa May’s confirmation that the UK Government would not seek membership of the single market: ‘The government’s negotiating objectives for exiting the EU: PM speech’, 17 January 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech. This was reaffirmed at point 5.3 of the Government White Paper ‘The UK’s exit from and new partnership with the EU’ published 2 February 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589191/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf

[ii] Directive 2004/ 38 on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the member states, OJ 2004 L 158/77.

[iii] While Article 14 of Directive 2004/ 38 protects job-seekers (and their family members) against expulsion, United Kingdom implementation confers a ‘right of residence’ upon them.

[iv] Regulation 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, [2011] OJ L 141/1, Art. 10.

[v] Ruiz Zambrano, Case C-34/09, [2011] ECR I-01177.

[vi] This is by virtue of Annex V of the EEA Agreement (as amended) available at http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/eea/annexes-to-the-agreement.

[vii] http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/switzerland/docs/freedom_movement.pdf.

[viii] SI 2016 No. 1052.

[ix] This principle was first recognised by the Court of Justice in Case C-370/90 Surinder Singh [1992] ECR 4265.

[x] This issue is currently before the Court of Justice in Case C-165/16 Lounes.

[xi] Office for National Statistics, Employment by country of birth and nationality, available from https://www.ons.gov.uk/, for the third quarter of 2016.

[xii] Office for National Statistics, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality: Underlying datasheets, available from https://www.ons.gov.uk/.

[xiii] Office for National Statistics, Immigration Statistics, Table ee02, available from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/. This figure covers both residence and permanent residence documents.

[xiv] See the statement concerning ‘the status of EU nationals in the UK’, published on the Cabinet Office website on 11 July: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-the-status-of-eu-nationals-in-the-uk.

[xv] Office for National Statistics, What Information is there on British Migrants Living in Europe? (27 January 2017).

[xvi] In April 2012, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom challenging that interpretation, but has not as yet taken the matter forward.

[xvii] This question is addressed in the separate paper on by Matthew Evans. See also Colin Yeo, ‘Eight changes the UK Government could make right now to simplify permanent residence applications’, Free Movement blog, 17 January 2017, at https://www.freemovement.org.uk/eight-changes-uk-government-make-right-now-simplify-permanent-residence-applications/.


ILPA has commissioned a series of papers, the Brexit Advocacy Series, on legal issues relevant to Brexit. Each paper is accurate at the date of publication.

The purpose of the papers is to provide advocacy, expertise and leadership to help policy-makers and commentators develop a response to Brexit in areas relevant to the expertise of the members of ILPA.

The position papers have been produced by legal experts in the relevant fields and ILPA is very grateful to all those who have contributed to this work.

Copies of the other Brexit Advocacy Series papers can be found on the ILPA website at www.ilpa.org.uk

Nicole Francis, ILPA Chief Executive Nicole.francis@ilpa.org.uk

Paul Erdunast, Brexit Advocacy Series Project Manager Paul.erdunast@ilpa.org.uk

Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association   www.ilpa.org.uk 020-7251 8383 (t) 020-7251 8384 (f) _________________________________________________________________

ILPA

ILPA

 

ILPA is the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, a membership organisation established in 1984 by a group of leading immigration law practitioners to promote and improve the advising and representation of immigrants, provide information to members and others on domestic and European immigration, asylum and nationality law and secure a non-racist, non-sexist, just and equitable system of immigration refugee and nationality law practice.

The Round Up – locking up leakers for longer

UK Human Rights Blog

whistleblowingInformation leaks have led to some slippery situations for some in recent weeks. Not even David Beckham escaped unscathed, when his disappointment at being overlooked for a knighthood was revealed in a series of expletive-ridden emails by Football Leaks earlier this month, and saw him vilified by the British public for his attitude to charity, tax and Katherine Jenkins.

Donald Trump too found himself insisting at a press conference, and – as ever – on his trusty twitter account, that his former US national security adviser had been a victim of criminal and illegal leaks. Michael Flynn was forced to resign after allegations emerged that he had conducted meetings over diplomatic issues with the Russian ambassador before holding office at the White House, even though it is illegal for private citizens to engage in US diplomacy. These revelations have only increased concerns over the US’ relationship with Russia.

Back in the UK, the issue…

View original post 1,540 more words

The poor state of child health in the UK

“Our children are the first generation in the UK in a very long time, if ever, to have much less than their parents and grandparents. Their lives are far less secure than ours have been. It’s not because of a lack of resources, it’s because of the greed of a small ruling elite and because of neoliberal ideology and policies. We have already lost the social gains of our post-war settlement: public services, social housing, legal aid, universal welfare and unconditional healthcare are either gone, or almost gone.

We must not allow this steady dismantling of our shared, public services, supports and safeguards to continue, as a society. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and we have sufficient resources to support those most in need. It’s simply that the government chooses not to, preferring to be generous to the wealthiest minority, with tax cuts handed out from the public purse, and spending our public finds on being “business friendly” instead of recognising and reflecting public needs.

We must work together to challenge the toxic dominant ideology that places profit over and above human need and social wellbeing. We each share some of the responsibility for this. We now need to work on how to change this for the better, collectively. For our children and the future.”

Politics and Insights

uk-child-poverty

Neoliberalism is based on competitive individualism and mythical “market forces”. In such a competitive system, where the majority of people are left to sink or swim, most are pitched against the tide, as it were, since the very design of the economy means that only the wealthiest make significant gains.  It’s therefore inevitable there will be a few “winners” and many “losers”.

That’s what “competition” means. It means no rewards for most people – inequality and poverty for the 99%. It’s not possible to “work hard” to change this. Inequality is built into the very system of our socioeconomic organisation. Therefore it’s hardly fair or appropriate for a government to blame and punish people for the failings of their own imposed dominant ideology – a political and economic mode of organisation – which most ordinary people did not intentionally choose.

A  major report – State of child health – says…

View original post 2,344 more words

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CONSULTATION

Kerry Underwood

This is all dealt with in my new book – Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs which will be out in March. This is three volumes and over 1,300 pages. You can pre-order your copy at a discounted price of £68 including P&P (normal price £80 including P&P) by 6 March.

To pre-order your copy, contact Kerry Underwood on 01442 430 900 or email kerry.underwood@lawabroad.co.uk.

This is also all dealt with in my Personal Injury Reforms course this May, which can booked here – early bird discount for booking and paying by 6 March.

On 30 January 2017 the Department of Health published its consultation paper:

Introducing Fixed Recoverable Costs in Lower Value Clinical Negligence Claims

 

The consultation closes on 1 May 2017.

It covers England and Wales only.

It covers all clinical negligence claims, for example those against private healthcare providers and not for profit…

View original post 3,209 more words

Child’s evidence – Part 2: contact and domestic violence

“Both areas of court process – contact arising from alleged violence and what proved violence requires in relation to contact – call for urgent law reform. That must include, on both points, reform of statute law. This will reflect the need for funding if alleged perpetrators are to cross-examine complainant of child witnesses in person. If statutory presumptions are to be altered for the protection of the children concerned, then this cannot be by practice direction. That is not enough if a parent against whom CA 1989 s 1(6) imputations are made against him/her who validly objects to what the proposed PD12J para 4 seeks to do.”

dbfamilylaw

Child welfare, contact – and a practice direction

In Re S (a Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 44 (as explained in Part 1 of this series) the Court of Appeal allowed one ground only of a mother’s (M) appeal. That ground related to whether or not her eight year-old son, A, may have been physically abused by his father (F). M did not oppose contact in principle but wanted it to be safe for the child. (Though represented below, the child seems not to have appealled, nor to have made representations in the Court of Appeal.) As reported in Part 1 the parents had a short relationship. In the court below the judge had found three of M’s allegations proved: controlling behaviour and violence exacerbated by drink. A last allegation was based on what A had told a family support worker, but which the judge had rejected; though the judge had…

View original post 3,368 more words

Child’s evidence – Part 1: before and after EU withdrawal

“The Charter will go with EU withdrawal. It remains to be seen whether UK judges develop its concept of child’s rights (as distinct from their views being taken into account); or whether they will take the more passive approach implied by the UK sources referred to above. And then, as will be considered later in this series, it remains to be seen whether any of the rights now attaching in English proceedings, will be salvaged from the EU withdrawal wreckage; or will English and European courts brandish differing rights of issue and enforcement of proceedings?”

dbfamilylaw

Court of Appeal and hearing the child – or not…

In Re S (a Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 44, through a fog of imprecise chronology and unavailable evidence (or was it uncalled, in the case of the child?), the Court of Appeal were able to allow one ground only of a mother’s (M) appeal. That ground related to whether or not her eight year-old son, A, may have been physically abused by his father (F). She did not oppose contact in principle but wanted it to be safe for the child. (Though represented below, the child seems not to have appealled, nor to have made representations in the Court of Appeal.) By the time of the hearing before the judge M had left United Kingdom to live with her husband in Ireland; but, after A was made a ward, she returned to UK to apply to the UK court…

View original post 2,721 more words

How Forgiveness Changes a Person

“Forgiveness is often prescribed as a remedy for healing from a traumatic experience. It is a very effective tool in bringing closure. Instead of remaining a victim, the offended person can regain control over a trauma by choosing a forgiving response. In many ways this destroys the offender’s influence over the life of another and reinforces the empowerment of the offended. However, too often forgiveness becomes a task on the counseling to-do list instead of a change of heart. This minimizes the full impact and reduces it to a behavioral, instead of an attitudinal experience. Martin Luther King Jr. said it well when he stated, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.” So how can a person receive the maximum benefit? Here are some suggestions. Understand the reason for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not for the offender, it is for the victim. When individuals decide to forgive an act, they are releasing themselves from the controlling power of the offensive event”

Source: How Forgiveness Changes a Person

Parental Alienation

Forgiveness is often prescribed as a remedy for healing from a traumatic experience. It is a very effective tool in bringing closure. Instead of remaining a victim, the offended person can regain control over a trauma by choosing a forgiving response. In many ways this destroys the offender’s influence over the life of another and reinforces the empowerment of the offended. However, too often forgiveness becomes a task on the counseling to-do list instead of a change of heart. This minimizes the full impact and reduces it to a behavioral, instead of an attitudinal experience. Martin Luther King Jr. said it well when he stated, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.” So how can a person receive the maximum benefit? Here are some suggestions. Understand the reason for forgiveness. Forgiveness is not for the offender, it is for the victim. When individuals decide to forgive…

View original post 20 more words