The Forgotten Children of drug and Alcohol Abuse.

The forgotten children are children that are caught in a protection gap where no-one can help them if they are being abused until the unthinkable happens and in the situation of a 37% rise in drug and alcohol fatalities (one nearly every day) “Who” is looking out for these children that are involved? No-one! No one is permitted to contact them if the resident parent wishes it.

Children’s agencies say they can only cope with half the calls they receive and can only act when the abuse has been recognized, usually when a child has been badly abused or worse. A gap in child protection that grandparents could fill because of their unique relationship and love for their grandchildren; creating a much needed helpline to someone they can trust. Grandparents know their own children and have the special insight as to how they could treat their grandchildren, especially in drug and alcohol danger homes.

An abuser of a child can get a court order with or without good reason banning a non-resident parent or grandparents from having contact when all they want is to know are the children OK. Surely this is in the best interests of a child? Every one who loves them should be able to have some contact in case of problems in their lives. A stranger is allowed to come and go any night and has abused and murdered a child. Non-resident parents and grandparents are enraged at this powerlessness to protect their own children.

The above was put to the previous Scottish Executive by Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland their answer was “we have nothing further to add to our previous correspondence with you” Turning a blind eye will not make the abuse go away. It is obvious they had no answers to this problem. They have previously stated they also have no answer to non-compliance of court orders.

The unique relationship children could have with their grandparents must be explored and supported to the full for the welfare of our children. There is an army of grandparents out there where the majority of them would be delighted to help in early intervention should problems arise in their offspring’s home. For example, taking care of children and providing them with a known home environment rather than being taken to strangers, especially if their mum or dad is in trouble. The worst thing that can happen to a child at any age is to be parted from the family. The effects of this can be with them all their lives and lead to insecurity and problems in society.

cSA Amended Authority Form. Do not Sign.

Hi to everyonePlease do not sign the CSA's amended "Representative Authority" form, until you have had legal advice.Sue Price of the MRA spoke with me recently. After our discussions, I believe that there is some concern about the revised wording of the CSA’s newly amended "Representative Authority" form. www.csa.gov.au/forms/index.aspxhttp://www.csa.gov.au/forms/pdf/RepresentativeAuthority.pdfwww.csa.gov.au/forms/RepresentativeAuthority.aspxThis form has to signed by a person who represents another person in a child support matter. This person can be (and often is) a non-lawyer. The layout of the form suggests that the person who signs as a representative also accepts the potential liability of up to $2000, if the person that they are acting for has been found to have made a false statement.We would suggest any person who is considering signing this amended "Representative Authority" form, should obtain legal advice before so doing.RegardsJohn

Grandparents/Grandchildren. (The Way Forward)

Grandparents /Grandchildren.
(The way forward)

Gloria Hunniford is an excellent celebrity to highlight the need for grandparents to be more prominent in their grandchildren’s lives. I have written to her myself a few months ago because of the similarity of losing both our daughters to breast cancer in early motherhood. It was heartbreaking to lose our own daughter but to find out that we could be cut off from her children, especially when they had bonded with us from birth, caused the children and us so much grief and distress it was unbearable.

The UK Government is being requested to remove the need for grandparents to crave a courts permission to apply for contact with their grandchildren. In Scotland we already have the right to go straight to court without asking permission but it has not advanced the cause any further. The problem of being irrelevant persons in the eyes of Social Services and professionals and to convince a court that grandparents are decent enough to have contact with their own flesh and blood. “This being an insult to the extreme”.

We need to be more focussed and specific about what is required.’ The Charter for Grandchildren’ having been thought out carefully by the legal eagles of a government and created by the Scottish Executive needs to be adopted and made compulsory for professionals such as Social Services to accept that grandparents are of huge importance in children’s lives.

The UK Governments are determined that grandparents will never get automatic legal rights to their grandchildren; they claim it would cause more problems than it would resolve. In the stakeholders group that created the ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ we experienced hostility from father’s groups who claimed that grandparents would have more rights than some parents, and if that came about it would cause enormous conflict on a massive scale. We have no desire to take over our grandchildren; we only wish to know them, love them and be part of the family. We consider parents to be the first and foremost in their children’s lives every time, with grandparents a close second.

‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ was to be advisory guidelines for everyone who work in the welfare of children to consider more carefully the role grandparents can play in their grandchildren’s lives, especially in the absence of one or both parents. There is an urgent need to have this as legal protection for children because of the failings of the professionals dealing with their welfare and to ensure children have the best and fairest treatment by Social Services or professionals that is humanly possible.

We have a petition on line to make 'The Charter for Grandchildren' Mandatory for professionals working in the welfare and protection of children to ensure children have the best care and protection available.

Please sign? http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TCFGRA/ Hard copies are also available for signatures.

For all the Governments of the UK to adopt and make the ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ mandatory for all professionals to be answerable in law for not working “In the Child’s best interest” especially in today’s society where it is everyday headlines in the media about their failing our children.

Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

'The Charter for Fathers'

‘The Charter for Fathers’
(Dealing with Conflict, protecting children)

Separation and divorce can be a nasty and bitter experience for every one concerned especially the children. It appears to be that 90% are fathers that lose out but it can happen to mothers too.. You would not believe your new loving sweetheart, presently telling you that “I will always be yours”, could be anything else but loving and gentle.

In our experience in dealing with grandparents that are prevented from contact with their grandchildren is that there is at least one parent involved too. We have come to the conclusion that both are inseparable and in the end it is the children we feel for in the conflict of hatred, spite and revenge that ruins their lives.

We just hope you will not experience any of these horrors but! Some of you certainly will.
Too often we have heard “I just can’t believe it, that she/he could go to these extremes like telling lies about domestic violence and using the children for revenge and blackmail to get back at me for their own selfish means”.

If you are experiencing marital problems or thinking of separating get in touch with a family group for advice. Do not delay and do not try to work it out yourself or force your will on anyone. Contact any of us listed on the contacts list before you do anything, and we mean anything. If we can’t help we will know a man that can.

1. Urgent! Firstly contact an outside family agency, someone not involved with the family and keep contact throughout. You must resolve the situation without any aggression or incidents or you will lose. If you don’t heed this you will possibly lose your children as well.

2. Speak to someone in a help group before contacting anyone you are in conflict with.. You will be too emotional to handle this on your own.

3. Do not swear or raise your voice or obstruct in any way. if you do come in contact with your ex-partner or their family.

4. If the police become involved move away as directed immediately. The police have no stomach for family problems. Do not argue or try to reason as you will get removed and possibly charged with breach or harassment and it will never be removed from your record, even if you are innocent. It could be used against you if courts or Social Services get involved. Don’t give any excuse or you will be indefensible and not even we can help. You have been warned!

5. You will have to fight for any rights you do have regarding your children. It is equal on paper but don’t be fooled by this, in reality if you don’t live with your children, in the eyes of Social services, schools and the police you have no rights at all. Always have witnesses to everything you do and record everything in a diary.

6. If you need a solicitor make sure they are family law specialists as others could possibly take your case and lack the expertise. Be prepared to do most of the case work yourself, they are your children, make sure you get things right, you will only get one chance.

7. Mediation has resolved many disputes before a molehill becomes a mountain, before it goes into the real slanging match with accusing and condemning in court. You don’t want to be the cause of them saying, “you are angry and aggressive so I won’t attend mediation”. Give no excuses to refuse to attend. Make sure that the mediation is provided by an independent organisation like Family Mediation. They ask for donations only. You will find them in your local phone book or computer.

8. There also appears to be a standard template used by the parent with residency so do not be alarmed to find yourself falsely accused and branded as:-
a) Violent b)Controlling c)Abusive d)Aggressive c) Sexually abuse.
All of these will be used to alienate you from your children.

9. Above all try and gain agreement through mediation without involvement of lawyers, courts, police or Social Services. If you gain a court order for contact it is not always complied with and is often not enforced making a mockery of our family laws. Your children have nothing to gain by these agencies involvement and very real significant harm can come of it.

10. Seek help as soon you can from a help group and keep in touch with at least one of their members or/and their meetings.



http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/
Jimmy - 0141 882 5658 - UK
Jim - 01389 874 095- Clydebank and the west
Charlie - 01324 410 064- Larbet
Bill - 01563 821 869- Ayrshire
Richard - 01224 297 175- Aberdeen & the north
Eamonn - 0141 580 0102- Barrhead & the west
Frank- 01492 874 395- Wales
Elton - 01253 341 659- Blackpool area.

The Ten Commandments of Family Law.
(What we feel needs to change for our children’s best interest?)

1…Our motto is “Bringing Families Together” so we think the best interests of a
child starts with Equal parenting when there is no factually proven reason not
to.

2....The ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ to be Mandatory for Professionals working in
Children’s welfare and answerable in law.
3…Children are human beings. Stop treating them as Commodities like a
business deal. Cost only criteria and can ruin children’s lives
4.....If adopted, where appropriate, child contact maintained with birth family in
line with article 8 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child. (Should only
be stopped in the worst case scenario)
5 ...Kinship care before strangers to be the first choice.
6. ..All below accountable to law. (a)--..False accusations. (b)-..Erroneous reporting by social workers.
(c)…Flouting of court orders (d) Social Services Orchestrating “cover up’s”,
when children are failed
7…Proper recording of all social work meetings and discussions E.g. Dual tape
recording similar to police proceedings (to prevent and combat section 6 b+d)
8….More “transparency” and especially “accountability” for Social work and their
managers
9….Specialised training for social workers in the best interests of children. (Only
the most highly experienced social workers to deal in child protection)

10…. Accusations removed from record, when not proven.


Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent , Glasgow G52 1PJ, 0141 882 5658. http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

Public Communications Unit

Thank you for your emails dated 1 April about child contact. I am sure you will appreciate the Ministers receive a vast amount of correspondence and are unable to reply to each one personally. Your emails have been forwarded to the Department for Children, Schools and Families as this department is responsible for children's services. I have been asked to reply to issues that fall within the remit of this department. The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered all the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts. Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced. We do not see any need to change this law, but we do need to change the way parents settle disputes. In particular, we would like to see a reduction in the number of parents resorting to the courts, as this so often results in poorer outcomes for the children and greater dissatisfaction for the parents. Where cases do come before the court, we are promoting extensive use of measures such as mediation and in-court conciliation to divert such cases from a full court hearing. Linked to this, we also want to provide a wider range of levers to ensure the proper implementation of court orders. It is realised that there are cases where non-resident parents have difficulty in maintaining contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the children reside. Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that it is adhered to. If, at the end of a long and difficult dispute, the contact ordered by the court does not take place, then it has been a waste of time and energy but, more importantly, the child is not benefiting from what the court has decided will promote their welfare. The enforcement of contact orders is a sensitive area. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or imprisonment. The court also has the power to decide to transfer residence to the other (non-resident) parent if this is considered to be in the child’s best interests. However, penalties such as fines and imprisonment may not always be appropriate in a child contact case because of the effect that this may have on the children at the centre of the dispute. The Children and Adoption Act 2006 gives courts additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. For instance, in addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. The courts will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts in any contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. The Government does not believe that an automatic 50:50 division of the child’s time between the two parents would be in the best interests of most children. In many separated families, such arrangements would not work in practical terms, owing to living arrangements or work commitments. Enforcing this type of arrangement would not be what many children want and could have a damaging impact on some of them. Children are not a commodity to be apportioned equally after separation. The best arrangements for them will depend on a variety of issues particular to their circumstances: a one-size-fits-all formula will not work. The assumption that both parents have equal status and value as parents is enshrined in current law. The actual arrangements made by the courts start from that position. Mediation can offer advantages in relation to family disputes in some cases although none of the major family mediation providers in England and Wales believe that it is possible to make family mediation compulsory. The court may adjourn a case for people to consider the benefits of mediation, but it has no power to compel people to take this route. Although the number of cases referred to family mediation is growing, it is not suitable for all family disputes. It is not normally appropriate to attempt to use family mediation in cases where there has been domestic violence. Regarding your concerns about the court system, I have forwarded your correspondence to the Ministry of Justice. They will reply to you directly concerning these issues. Yours sincerely Anita Dixon Public Communications Unit

AGM Report and Newslatter

Grandparents Apart UK
A.G.M. Report. Newsletter.

Dear Friends/members,

This year our AGM is on Tuesday 2nd June 2009 7pm 8.30pm at The Pearce Institute Govan Cross Govan Glasgow G51.

Our main concern today is, the membership is not being renewed and at the rate it is falling it will be a question of just how much we can do to further our cause. A lot of enquirers who have and still receive help and support do not pay membership fees. This is unfair and limits what we can do. If you want us to keep campaigning (See what we have achieved) you must contribute your fees. Because of this we had to increase the fee to £10.00p with our free book ‘Grandparents Speak out for Vulnerable Children’ for every membership renewed this year. As you will know we are all volunteer workers and don’t have the staff to cover everything. So we ask that you check your membership card and then please act accordingly

It cost a fortune to get 600 odd letters to our contacts (all we could afford in stamps) and 4000 in emails out for people to send in to their MSPs the request for them to raise the question in parliament for ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ to be made mandatory.

The Mobile Information Centre we did with the Big Lottery grant is finished. Margaret and I did our best but with no real help we had to return around £3000.00p We covered as much of Scotland (The grant was only for Scotland) as we could and I think we done very well. The Charter for Grandchildren and Parenting Agreement is far more widely known now than ever it was.

‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ being made mandatory for all professionals of all UK countries who work in the welfare of children has become our war cry and we need to keep writing to our respective members of parliament to make it happen. There is no valid reason for not making it mandatory as a government created it (with our help) and not to do this is leaving gaps and is not in the best interests of children.

We have created a Petition (enclosed) for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland said they work on the English one. Please help to get as many signatures as possible filled in and return it to us before the 6th July 2009 to Grandparents Apart UK 22 Alness Crescent Glasgow G52 1PJ. Also we need your story for evidence to present to the petitions committee to back our claims. We have a few but we need more. And it needs to be very quickly. We need to know how grandparents have been ignored by professionals regarding their grandchildren. If you phone us and tell us how it happened to you. It will be treated in the strictest confidence by us and the government.

The demonstrations in Glasgow and Dundee went really well in getting tremendous coverage from local TV, Radio and newspapers. One of our members is planning to hold a demo in Aberdeen. It would appear demos are the best way to bring our cause to the media’s notice. Nationally Jimmy and Margaret appeared on GMTV in London and their story has appeared in several papers of the national press. Jimmy done a 30 minute BBC interview with the well known. Radio Scotland Battle Lines Interviewer. Shareen Nanjiani

GRANDPARENTS APART INTERVIEW PART 1,2 ,3.http://www.youtube.com/v/o7YBPu3QurY http://www.youtube.com/v/UFkj5LJX8CE http://www.youtube.com/v/QqvpRdl6Q4s

I have enclosed a letter for you to send to your respective member of parliament for them to adopt ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ as mandatory for professionals. Please send it to them if you have not done so already.

N.B. It is not us that gets the job done. It is you the constituent by your support and putting pressure on your Members of Parliaments.

Jimmy Deuchars (manager)
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/

Grandparents Apart UK.
Petition.

Grandparents Apart UK request the petitions committee to urge the government to make ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ mandatory for professionals who work in the welfare of children.
More info:- http://grandparentsapartuk.blogspot.com/

Name Address Tel; Signature

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/TCFGRA/



‘The Charter for Grandchildren’

It is important that parents, grandparents and other family members, speak to, and treat each other, with respect. You may not get on, but you can still be civil, for the sake of the children. Try to avoid arguing with or criticising family members in front of the children. It can be very upsetting for them.

On occasions professional organizations such as social work departments or the courts can become involved and may have to make decisions that will have a lasting impact throughout a child’s entire life. In these circumstances it is vital that the loving and supportive role that the wider family, in particular grandparents can play is respected and protected for the child…

FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN
Grandchildren can expect:

To be involved with and helped to understand decisions made about their lives.
To be treated fairly
To know and maintain contact with their family (except in very exceptional circumstances) and other people who are important to them.
To know that their grandparents still love them, even if they are not able to see them at the present time.
To know their family history.
The adults in their lives to put their needs first and to protect them from disputes between adults - not to use them as weapons in quarrels between adults.
Social workers , when making assessments about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
The Courts, when making decisions about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
Lawyers and other advisers to encourage relationship counseling or mediation when adults seek advice on matters affecting them and their children.

Along with others, Grandparents Apart UK put a lot of hard work into “The Charter for Grandchildren” by demanding to be heard about the gaps in family law concerning their grandchildren. Why? Because we really do have the best interests of our grandchildren at heart, if it was not for our love of them why would we bother?

.............................................................................................................................................................

We are happy to promote the Charter for Grandchildren and the Parenting Agreement because they are in the best interests of children if they are used right.




letter to your member of Parliament.


Dear ……………………..,………………………

The Scottish Parliament or The House of Commons or Welsh Assembly GovernmentEdinburgh London. Cathays Park EH99 1SP SW1A 0AA Cardiff CF10 3NQ ...
I have contacted Grandparents Apart UK for support regarding losing contact with our grandchildren. With their nine years experiences and what has happened to me I feel justified in supporting this proposal and would be obliged if you would make it an issue in parliament. I believe A Government created this Charter and therefore they should ensure its effectiveness.

The Proposal:- We therefore propose that ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ ‘ The role grandparent can play in their grandchildren’s lives’ be made Mandatory for Professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and it could be worthwhile attending mediation focusing on the best interests of the children.

Failure to implement this is criminal and neglect in providing all the possible protection for children in need and in many ways is actually encouraging child abuse I understand this statement will not be discussed or shown to anyone outside the theatre of government and will be completely confidential. I look forward to your reply.

Name…………………………………………..Address……………………………………….

Town…………………………………………..Post code…………………………………….

Phone number………………………………

E-mail…………………………………………(If you have one)

Signature……………………………………….


Grandparents Apart UK. 22 Alness Crescent, Glasgow G52 1PJ
A Scottish Registered Volunteer Charity No. SC 031558
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/


There is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and there is reckoned to be a million children in Britain today living in a home with one or both parents addicted to drugs or alcohol and fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse from different partners in a child’s life

Our new proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their
Grandparents in child abuse cases are criminal neglect by the authorities and not in their best interests. Every means of protection should be used. It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all being irrelevant persons. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who cares for them. What we find overall that needs to change for our children’s best interest? 1…Our motto is “Bringing Families Together” so we think the best interests of a child starts with

Equal parenting when there is no factually proven reason not to.

2....‘Charter for Grandchildren’ to be Mandatory for Professionals working in Children’s welfare.

3…Children are human beings. Stop treating them as commodities like a business deal

4.....If adopted, where appropriate, child contact maintained with birth family in line with article 8 of the un convention on the rights of the child. (should only be stopped in the worst case scenario)

5 ...Kinship care before strangers to be the first choice.

6. …All below accountable to law. (a)--..False accusations. (b)-..Erroneous reporting by social workers. (c)…Flouting of court orders (d) Social Service Orchestrating “cover up’s”, when children are Failed

7… Proper recording of all social work meetings and discussions E.g. Dual tape recording similar to police proceedings (to prevent and combat section 6 b+d)

8….More “transparency” and especially “accountability” for Social work and their managers

9….Specialised training for social workers in the best interests of children. (Only the most highly experienced social workers to deal in child protection) 10….Accusations removed from record, when not proven.

Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/







Grandparents Apart UK 2009
What we and you have achieved.

We have had a great write up in the Daily Mail, the same week we appeared on GMTV full VIP treatment. Also a radio interview on Radio 2 with Jeremy Vine. Now we are doing a Christmas show with The Sunny Govan Community Radio 103.5 FM which is fun.

Previously we have had a documentary made about us by Grampian TV and The Scottish Politics Show been on BBC radio Newcastle Radio Scotland, STV and BBC news bulletins. We must try and keep this publicity going if you want the law changed.

Please ask at your Scottish Libraries, Social works, community centres, doctor’s surgeries if they have ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ or ‘The parenting Agreement’ in fact anywhere concerning families the more we ask the more popular they will get.

In our relatively short period of existence, because we have lobbied Westminster and the Scottish Parliament and produced constant press releases through television and radio and of course with your membership and donations we have -

1. Dispelled the myth that grandparents have a right of contact with their grandchildren. Now that the problem has been identified and accepted we have attempted to raise the profile of grandparents all over the UK and show the benefits and protection they can offer grandchildren.

2. Provided a helpline service for grandparents that was not available before in Scotland. And is proving to be very successful in England too. We are very proud of our helpline‘A listening ear’ for devastated grandparents, which we know has comforted some grannies that were suicidal

3. Worked in a Stakeholder Group with the Scottish Government as a result the ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ and the ‘Parenting Agreement’ were created to help families and children in particular.

4. Shown that ‘Bridge building’ is our speciality. The more grandparents that is aware of our existence the more we can fulfil our motto of ‘Bringing Families Together’

5. Became tired waiting for further improvements, we decided to take the matter into our
own hands and proposed to open an independent Family Information and Education Centre so we asked for a £½ million Big Lottery Grant but were knocked back, instead we were awarded £10, 000,00p to develop our idea as a Mobile Family Information and Education Centre and toured Scotland promoting the Charter for Grandchildren and The Parenting Agreement. See;- http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/

6. highlighted the unfairness of our legal aid system and it has now been announced that new proposals from the legal aid board and the Scottish Government are to change the way solicitors are to be paid for legal aid work.

7. Risen from being seen as a complainer to the Government to being a respected source of information to allow them to gather information about families, being invited to meetings and our opinions sought.

8. Recently we have got Children 1st (NSPCC) agreeing with us on 3 points.

a) They are urging the government to give grandparents the right of information on their grandchildren's welfare.

b) That the Charter for Grandchildren and Parenting Agreement must be publicised more.

c) Family Information Centres should be available throughout the country. And for children's protection in drug and alcohol homes.

9. Adam Ingram MSP Minister for Children invited us to a meeting in June to hear our views on kinship care as we have been campaigning hard for this. On 4th December 2007 the Scottish Government announced they would be paying the granny grant of £119 to £199 to kinship granny carers. Details from our website http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/

10. This year 2008 our group has been invited once more to work with the Scottish Government on 'Making Contact Work'. Our first meeting was very encouraging and we did get across that the administration of family law have become blasé in the best interests of the child and need to be tightened up and monitored.

11. Due to a demo we arranged at the Scottish Parliament in February this year. Last month September 2008 Nigel Don MSP with the backing of 22 other MSPs arranged a debate in the Scottish Parliament on injustices in family law. The Scottish Justice Minister accepted that there are injustices. A huge step in the right direction. Our policy is to ask everyone who contacts us to also contact their MSP and keep on at them as it is you the constituent contacting them that changes will be made. - --

12. Scottish Woman's Aid:-
(Quote)"! totally agree that grandparents are often best placed to detect any kind of abuse or addiction that harms children and are often left picking up the pieces with no support when things fall apart. I think resolving that bit should be a priority (i.e. offering financial and emotional support) and then perhaps there's scope to move on to greater recognition of the role grandparents play and how this could be established in law".

13, Demonstration.
Our group organised a demonstration on 4th March 2009 in George Square, Glasgow City Centre Which attracted very good media attention from The Daily Mail, Sunday Express, Sunday Herald, Scottish GMTV, The Scotsman, Sunny Govan Radio Station, STV news, A BBC ½ hour program. due to be broadcasted on Radio Scotland Battle lines at 11.30, 27th March 2009. This demo was calling for ‘The Charter for Grandparents’ to be made mandatory for professionals that work with the welfare of children and family to ensure children can have the best that grandparents can offer without treading on the toes of parents. To ignore this call is not in the best interests of children

14 Our campaign on 25th march 2009 in Dundee went very well. We were right outside the room where the directors were having registration and their morning coffee breaks and they could not help but see us as we for. waved to them. Someone heard them debating us being there so we have achieved what we came

Alan Baird the boss man in question has refused to resign over the Branden Muir case in Dundee and would not answer our phone calls to his office. His secretary refused to give us any information as to his whereabouts and even refused to speak to the media.

The media coverage was Brilliant, GMTV, STV, Radio Times, The Telegraph, The Courier and a few radio and newspaper reporters which i can't remember them all but will be posted on the blog above as they become available. We can't thank them all enough for their coverage and kindness.

Scottish Court of Session

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSOH194.html

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2006] CSOH 194


OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE

in the cause

N S A

Pursuer;

against

M A or N

Defender:


­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________



Pursuer: Scott; Russel & Aitken
Defender: Absent
15 December 2006

Introduction

[1] The pursuer and the defender were married in Lahore, Pakistan on 20 December 2001. It was an arranged marriage. The formal Rukshati, or sending off the bride, took place on 13 July 2002. Thereafter they moved to live in Scotland. They lived with the pursuer's parents at Bilston, Edinburgh. The pursuer is in regular employment in Scotland as a software engineer. While she was in Edinburgh, the defender attended a University. Their child M was born on 25 May 2004. He is now about 21/2 years old.

[2] In June 2005 the defender, with the consent of the pursuer, took M to see her family in Pakistan. She was due to return home on 18 August 2005. Having twice changed her travel arrangements, the defender did not return to Scotland. She is presently in Pakistan with M. The pursuer has not consented to her keeping M in Pakistan. He has attempted to persuade the defender to return to Scotland to live with him and to bring the child back to Scotland. Those attempts have so far been unsuccessful.

[3] The Summons in this action was signetted on 8 May 2006. In that Summons the pursuer concludes for an order ordaining the defender to return M to Scotland, for a residence order providing that M should reside with him, for an order for delivery of M into his care and control, and for interdict prohibiting the defender from removing M from his care and control or from Scotland. On 8 May 2006 Lady Smith made an interim Order (1) finding and declaring that M was born in Edinburgh and is, prima facie, habitually resident in Scotland and (2) ordaining the defender to return M to Scotland. Despite this, the defender has not returned M to Scotland. Nor has she returned.

[4] That Order and the Summons were both served on the defender in Pakistan on 13 July 2006. I am told that the reason for the delay in service was that the pursuer remained hopeful of persuading the defender to bring M back to Scotland voluntarily; and was concerned lest her knowledge that he had commenced legal proceedings in Scotland should jeopardise the prospects of an amicable resolution of the problem. Be that as it may, this delay in affecting service, though regrettable, does not render that service in any way defective. Service was acknowledged by the defender's lawyers in Pakistan. Furthermore, it is clear from letters which the defender has written to the court, as well as from proceedings which the defender herself has instituted in Pakistan, that the defender is fully aware of the proceedings in Scotland. Nonetheless, she has not entered appearance or lodged defences to the action. The action therefore proceeds formally as an undefended action. However, in any case concerning children, the court will be anxious to take into account the material presented by both parties, even if one of them has not entered the process and, as a result, his or her concerns are presented informally.

Is the defender's retention of the child in Pakistan wrongful?
(i) section 2(3) and (6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995

[5] In the Summons the pursuer contends that the defender's retention of M in Pakistan is wrongful having regard to the terms of section 2(3) and (6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Section 2(3) provides as follows:
"Without prejudice to any Court order, no person shall be entitled to remove a child habitually resident in Scotland from, or to retain any such child outwith, the United Kingdom without the consent of a person described in subsection (6) below".
Subsection (6) provides as follows:
"The description of a person referred to in subsection (3) above is a person (whether or not a parent of the child) who for the time being has and is exercising in relation to him a right mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (1) above; except that, where both the child's parents are persons so described, the consent required for his removal or retention shall be that of them both".
The relevant paragraphs of subsection (1) mention the right to have the child living with him or otherwise to regulate the child's residence and to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis. It is clear that both parents, i.e. both the pursuer and the defender, have such rights and, until the defender refused to return M from Pakistan, were exercising such rights.

[6] It follows that, subject to the question of whether the child is "habitually resident" in Scotland, the defender is not entitled to retain M outwith the United Kingdom without the consent of the pursuer.

(ii) the meaning of "habitual residence"

[7] The meaning of "habitual residence" was considered by the Inner House in Dickson v Dickson 1990 S.C.L.R. 692. That was a decision as to the meaning of those words in the context of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, but I see no reason for thinking that a different meaning should be given to those words under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The Opinion of the Court was delivered by the Lord President. At page 703, he considered what was meant by the expression "habitual residence". He said this:
"It is enough to say that in our opinion a habitual residence is one which is being enjoyed voluntarily for the time being and with the settled intention that it should continue for some time. ... A person can, we think, have only one habitual residence at any one time and in the case of a child, who can form no intention of his own, it is the residence which is chosen for him by his parents. If they are living together with him, then they will all have their habitual residence in the same place. Where the parents separate, as they did in this case, the child's habitual residence cannot be changed by one parent only unless the other consents to the change".
Applying that guidance, as I must, the position in the present case is as follows. The pursuer was living in Scotland before his marriage. After his marriage, he and the defender both moved to Scotland. The pursuer resumed his employment and the defender enrolled at a university course. It was, at the time of their marriage, their intention to live in Scotland. That this is so is confirmed by item 20 of the parties' Marriage Certificate, which contains a question as to whether any agreement has been reached regarding the guarantee and provision of food, clothing, etc. The answer given was: "This has to be in accordance with the British Law". That, no doubt, was because the parties intended to settle in Britain for some time at least. Given that the pursuer lived in Scotland, I can infer that the answer to question 20 reflected their joint intention to live in Scotland after the marriage. This is what they did. M was born in Edinburgh while the parties were living in Scotland. While they were all living together in Scotland, they all had the same habitual residence, namely, Scotland. The defender could not change M's habitual residence simply by bringing him to or keeping him in Pakistan. As it was put in Dickson v Dickson: "The child's habitual residence cannot be changed by one parent only unless the other consents to the change".

[8] I am therefore satisfied that M was at the time he left Scotland, and still is, habitually resident in Scotland.

[9] It follows, and I so find, that in keeping M in Pakistan without the consent of the pursuer, the defender is acting contrary to section 2(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

The welfare of the child - s.11 Children (Scotland) Act 1995[10] The fact that the defender is holding M in Pakistan contrary to the provisions of section 2(3) of the Act does not, of course, mean that the pursuer is entitled as of right to the Orders sought in the Summons. The power of the court to make an Order in relation to parental responsibilities, including a residence Order, is contained in section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Section 11(7) emphasises that, in considering whether or not to make an Order of that sort, and what Order to make, the Court:
"(a) shall regard the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration and shall not make any such order unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than that none should be made at all".
This is an obligation imposed on the court which the court takes seriously. Any Order made, indeed any decision whether or not to make an Order, has to be made with a view to the child's welfare.

The UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters[11] I should, at this stage, refer to the UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters agreed in January 2003 between the President of the Family Division in England and Wales and the Hon. Chief Justice of Pakistan, each in consultation with members of the Family Judiciary of the UK and of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan respectively. This Protocol has been supplemented by Supplemental Judicial Guidelines on UK-Pakistan Protocol agreed in Islamabad in September 2003, to which Lady Smith has put her name on behalf of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland. Although the Protocol does not have the force of law, nonetheless it represents an attempt by the judiciaries of United Kingdom and Pakistan to co-operate in matters concerning the welfare of children and, in particular, in trying to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal from one country to the other.

[12] Paragraph 1 of the Protocol states that:
"In normal circumstances the welfare of a child is best determined by the courts of the country of the child's habitual/ordinary residence".

[13] Paragraph 5 of the Protocol provides as follows:
"In cases where the habitual/ordinary residence of the child is in dispute the Court to which an application is made should decide the issue of habitual/ordinary residence before making any decision on the return or the general welfare of the child, and upon determination of the preliminary issue as to habitual/ordinary residence should then apply the general principles set out above".

[14] This is an important provision. I have already found that M is habitually resident in Scotland. That finding is consistent with the interim finding by Lady Smith on 8 May 2006.

[15] On that basis, the effect of Paragraph 1 of the Protocol is that in normal circumstances any questions relating to the welfare of M should be determined by the Scottish Courts. Nothing has been brought to my attention suggesting that this case should be viewed as an exception to that rule.

[16] Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Protocol give specific instances of circumstances in which a Judge of the court of a country to which the child has been removed, or from which he should have been but has not been returned, should not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over the child, save insofar as necessary for the Court to order the return of the child to the country of his habitual or ordinary residence. Both of those instances concern cases where the court of the child's habitual or ordinary residence has made a custody or residence order or a restraint or interdict order. They do not, in terms, therefore, apply to the present circumstances. Nonetheless the general principle in paragraph 1 applies to the present case; and it is, in any event, within the spirit of the Protocol that the Scottish courts, being the courts of the country of M's habitual residence, should determine what is best for his welfare.

[17] I must, therefore, go on to consider the applications before me.
The applications before the court

[18] There are two applications before the court.
(i) The first is an application made by the defender that the court should "stop", or sist, the proceedings in Scotland to await the outcome of proceedings in Pakistan. Although the defender has not entered the process, and although her motion was not formally enrolled with the court, I think it proper that I should deal with it. It is supported by a letter from the defender to the Court of Session dated 20 November 2006. This application came before me on 24 November 2006. The defender was not present at that hearing and I, therefore, continued that hearing until 13 December to give the defender a further opportunity of appearing or being represented. The interlocutor to this effect was served on the defender; and, indeed, in anticipation of the hearing on 13 December, she has sent a further letter to the court.
(ii) The second is an application made by the pursuer by motion heard at the same time as the application by the defender. By his motion the pursuer asks the court to make:
"a residence order limited to arrangements for the child M to reside with the Pursuer from 1pm on Friday to 1pm on Monday each week, or such other periods as the Court shall order or the parties agree, and otherwise to reside with the Defender, on the basis that the Pursuer undertakes that he will make no objection to the Defender lodging a Minute for Variation of said arrangements (if so advised) on her return to the UK".

[19] It is implicit in the pursuer's motion that the Court is being asked also to make final the interim Order made by Lady Smith on 8 May 2006 ordaining the defender to return M to Scotland. Only on this basis, and on the basis that the defender chooses to come back to Scotland, can the proposal of shared residence be made to work.

The defender's motion to sist the proceedings in Scotland

[20] Dealing first with the defender's motion to sist the proceedings in Scotland, I note that soon after the defender was served with the Scottish proceedings on 13 June 2006 she instituted proceedings in Pakistan in the form of a Guardianship Application. I understand this to be an application that she be appointed guardian of the child and, in effect, be awarded sole custody. I have been told that the Guardian Judge at Lahore passed an interim custody order in favour of the defender on 22 June 2006 restraining the present pursuer illegally removing the child from the present defender. Since the Order made by Lady Smith on 8 May 2006 was not complied with, the pursuer has filed an "Article 199 Petition" before the Lahore High Court. This appears to be in the nature of a habeas corpus application on the ground that the child is habitually resident in Scotland and has been illegally and improperly detained in Pakistan, and further that the Scottish Court has made an Order for the return of the child to Scotland. Pending the determination of that petition, the High Court in Pakistan has made an Order that "in the meantime, the minor, namely M shall not be removed from the jurisdiction of this Court".

[21] The Scottish Court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of the habitual residence of the child, M. Further, in terms of the UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol, it is agreed between the judicial authorities of both countries that in normal circumstances the welfare of the child is best determined by the courts of the country of the child's habitual residence. That country is Scotland. On the face of it, therefore, it is appropriate and in the interests of the child that this court should be the court which determines the matters in issue in this case. Furthermore, it is clear that no proceedings were commenced in Pakistan until after the Scottish proceedings were served on the defender. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to sist the proceedings in Scotland to await the outcome of those currently underway in Pakistan.

[22] I reach this decision to refuse to sist the Scottish proceedings without any disrespect to the courts in Pakistan before whom cases are presently pending. But those courts have only made interim orders; and I do not consider that any Order that I make runs counter to the existence of those interim orders. I recognise, however, that before M can be brought back to the UK pursuant to this Order, it will clearly be necessary that the pursuer's representatives make appropriate representations to the courts and other authorities in Pakistan, directly and/or through the liaison judge appointed in terms of the UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol. I am confident that the Protocol will be an effective tool in helping to resolve the present difficulties.

[23] I should mention two matters which have come to my attention in the course of dealing with this matter.
(1) The first is that by letter dated 12 December 2006 faxed to the Court of Session, the defender has told the court that the pursuer's Article 199 Petition in the Lahore High Court has been dismissed. She goes on to say that the High Court ordered that the parties are free to contest the guardianship of the child in the action pending before the Guardian Judge in Lahore. Counsel for the pursuer told me that her agents had contacted their lawyer in Pakistan, and that she had told them that her enquiries did not reveal that the Petition had been dismissed. I cannot decide that. However, it seems to me that that question can make no difference to the decision I have made to refuse the sist.
(2) The second point is this. I have been shown various pleadings and other documents in the proceedings before the Guardian Judge in Pakistan. In her "Written Reply of Application for Issuance of Guardianship Certificate...", the present defender has told the Guardian Judge that she had been telephoned by a representative of the Court of Session in Scotland and told that "the proceedings being conducted [in Scotland] have been completely stopped until this Learned Family Court of Pakistan decides the matter". In paragraph 5(a) of that same document, the present defender says: "The Scotland Court of Sessions has accepted the stance of the Petitioner and hence stopped the proceedings [i.e. in Scotland]". I do not know whether the defender has misunderstood something that was said to her. However, I can state categorically that the proceedings in Scotland have not been stopped at any time. Indeed, the defender has been aware that the proceedings in Scotland were continuing, since she has written to the court in Scotland in relation to the various applications made or to be made in court in these proceedings. I would not wish the Court in Pakistan to proceed on a wrong understanding of the procedural status of the Scottish proceedings.

The pursuer's motion

[24] In his motion, the pursuer seeks a final determination of these proceedings, not to the full extent claimed in the Summons but in a modified form providing for shared residence.

[25] In support of the averments in the Summons, I have had presented to me an affidavit from the pursuer as well as affidavits from his mother, SB, and from a MW who works at a residential care home in Bilston and helps in the house where the pursuer lives with his family. On the basis of those affidavits I am satisfied that the welfare of M would be best served if I were to make the Order sought by the pursuer and I shall accordingly do so. Given the possibility that the defender will wish to apply to the court to vary or recall the Order, it is better that I say no more on this matter. The Order assumes that the defender will also return to Scotland. Unless she does so, then the part of the Order providing that M reside with her for half of each week cannot take effect.

[26] I should emphasise, if it were not already sufficiently clear, that since the defender has not entered the process I have not heard her side of the story except for the general comments made in correspondence and in the court proceedings in Pakistan. This is no doubt because the defender wishes to contest jurisdiction. I should, however, make it clear that if in the light of my decision the defender wishes to apply to the court for a variation or recall of the order I have made, she is perfectly at liberty to do so and the court will consider the matter afresh and make a decision having regard to the welfare of the child as a paramount consideration. There is express provision for this in the 1995 Act and in the Rules of Court: see Rule of Court 49.63. The defender will not be prejudiced in any such application by the fact that she has not taken part in the proceedings to date. The undertaking referred to in the pursuer's motion is an express recognition by the pursuer of the fact that, whatever Order the court makes in disposing of proceedings concerning children under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, that Order may be varied at any time on the application of either party. In offering his undertaking, the pursuer has made it clear through counsel that, if the defender applies to the court in Scotland to vary the Order, the pursuer will not advance any argument to the effect that a change of circumstances is required before the Order can be varied or recalled.