Love for Life

Women ONLY victims? Men ONLY perpetrators? Gender Discriminative?
Correspondence Between Victims & Campaigners

from David Currie 12a Keymer Avenue, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN108NG, UK.
Tel: 01273 579480.

Women ONLY victims? Men ONLY perpetrators? Gender Discriminative?

Notice - you are ONLY seeing a male on female DV/DA example with a child witness. (see below)

With respect, Do you have a problem with showing examples of female perpetrators assaulting gentlemen who they know will not retaliate because she knows he would hurt her and does not assault women or children.

Female on Male DV/DA/False Allegation/PA victims, ALSO pay taxes, are EQUALLY DESERVING of equal support/protection/media exposure and would have paid for at least half the cost of this NSPCC Newsletter.

Please reply,
David Currie

1.Without Prejudice;
The West Mercia Constabulary did have a ‘Duty of Care’ for all victims of domestic abuse in 2000, as they also do today. However in practice, the police DA/DV training was/is focused on the female allegation(s) (her word accepted as reliable truth).

That she claimed she was a DV / DA victim (not investigated for truth) was enough, police training ‘kicked in’, supporting/protecting female victims from male perpetrators, police training influenced by; ‘women only victims, men only perpetrators’.

The alleged male perpetrator would be warned/removed from the home/family.

"Even when a large strong man had called the police for help when he was being violently abused in his home, - had, under extreme provocation, - kept his self discipline/self composure, did not use, or, try to use violence, even in self defense, because he could not bring himself to hit women and violent teenage children".

I made this point during The INSIDE JUSTICE event at Hereford Town Hall, St Owen Street, Hereford on Wednesday 13th October 2004 and was invited by the Justices ‘Chief Executive of West Mercia Magistrates’ Courts Service, to discuss the issues with the police delegates attending; Not one police delegate had attended male/female DV/DA victim/perpetrator training. In their ignorance, due to the discriminative police awareness training/policy/practice, all voiced their strong reluctance to remove an abusive/violent - woman / wife / mother from the home! - but were not reluctant to remove the man.

In December 2000 all DV/DA information on police station notice boards and booklets available for victims to take away to read, offered helplines, to only women as victims of male perpetrators (Women’s Aid). There was no such support for male victims of female perpetrators.

The claim by a female abuser who made false allegations of DA/ DV was/is taken as true fact - and - NOT INVESTIGATED FOR TRUTHFULNESS.

This Police policy/practice to focus training on supporting/protecting female victims of DA/DV, but, not equally supporting male victims of female on male DA/DV to the same degree, was/is clearly, to any reasonable, intelligent human being, sex discrimination against male victims, but in favor of the female victims of male on female DA/DV. This clear imbalance, did not/does not, conform to; ‘An Equal Duty of Care for All Victims’ and also does not include; ‘A Safe Working Practice to Support/Protect All Victims’. Leading to further abuse /damaging mental trauma / of male victims by the police policy/practice removing the men from the home/children, or, warning the men they would be removed and thereby giving the wrong messages to all concerned, the lifelong painful mental damage, feelings of confusion, hopelessness, injustice, suicide, male victims made homeless/familyless’, no police ‘back-up’, children seeing their Father abused, then witnessed, him, the victim, being futher abused removed from the home/family, PERHAPS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

The female abuser; UNCHALLENGED - REWARDED - with NO DISCIPLINE, NO POLICE CHARGES, the UNCHALLENGED FREEDOM TO PRACTICE PARENT ALIENATION by the mother, now in possession of (with the assistance of discriminative police policy/practice), - the home/family, - flawed police reports/records, also leading to, flawed Robust British Crime Surveys, Incorrect Media information and Inadequate Government funding to support/protect male victims, their children, their wider family, to the same degree as they do for female victims.

This is nothing less than GENDER APARTHEID.

No different than not allowing a Black Skinned man/woman sit on a park bench marked for white’s only.

No different than not allowing a black to sit down on a seat of a bus only white’s sit on.

No different than not allowing black’s to be educated alongside white’s.

No different than the killing and burning of Jew’s in WW 2, however, when you are such a male victim, you may as well have been killed, you see when you have lost so much, so unjustly, you and your children are damaged, for the rest of your life.

My name is David Currie, I am 60years old, a father of 2 children now aged 20yrs(M), the other 22yrs(F).

I divorced my then wife after 24yrs in 2001 after many years of misery, I wanted to bring up our children and give them all security.

The female I married was extremely abusive to me, violent, sexual, mental, emotional, destructive, be-littling me in front of other people including our children, psychological, untruthful, manipulative, selfish, an expert at PAS alienating both me and my side of our family, - and more - I find too difficult to write.

She taught them well over time, and in their teen's, they to began to copy her. I did not understand
parental alienation was mental abuse, I just realized it hurt.

I wanted to protect my children from knowing the misery I suffered as a result of her abuse on me, that I have kept secret to this day. I did not want to harm their minds with that knowledge of their mother.

I also knew that as a married man / father, I could not trust the British Courts, or services, or grant me, a male, the custody of our children, our home and also for her, the abuser, to work and support us as do men have to support women.

When I could no longer cope with the abuse and was being violently assaulted in my home, I dialed 999, in the hope of police assistance as do female victims of DV. on 25th December 2000, Hereford.

The phone was snatched out of my hand when they realized I was making a 999 call and asked for the police.

I would like to point out that, both men and women pay taxes, council rates and for services, the police included, therefor as a male I am entitled to the same support / protection as do females, - Equal = Equal.

There is a 'DUTY OF CARE' element in LAW, - that is if the policies / practices are Not 'SEX DISCRIMINATIVE', against a male / father and home owner.

The police arrived approx 3 minutes later, even though I had not time to tell them our home address, before the phone had been snatched out of my hand.

When the door bell rang, inside the house, our daughter had snatched my glasses off my face while screaming at me saying, " I am going to stamp on these". She had dropped them to the floor at her feet and was just going to stamp on them.

I did not retaliate.

I cannot read very large letters, or work, or drive safely without them, and she knew that.

Again I feel I must also say; on TV programs such as 'Brat Camp', Kilroy Show, Jeremy Kyle Show, Trisha Show, ect, all show evidence that women and teenage children are violent to both fathers and mothers, - it's not just a female problem.

I said to her, "That must be the police". She then stopped screaming at me and did not stamp on my classes on the floor at her feet. I quickly picked up a damaged, out of shape pair of glasses and went to the front door to open it, hoping it was the police as I needed their help.

The same hope a mother would have if she was I victim of DV Crime, and had phoned the police, needing their help.

The same hope children would have if they were victim's of DV Crime, and had phoned the police, needing their help.

I would like to say here that when I confirmed, to the policeman standing at our front door, that "yes there was a 999 call from this house, I made it". He said "you made it". I said "yes, would you please come in". I would like to say, that the policeman listened to me, let me tell him, why I had, tried to phone the police and aloud me to give him a full account of what had happened to me.

Then I would like to say that he then had investigated, then, at very least, given 'a warning' to my abusers, in support / protection of me, the victim of violent Crime. A male victim of DV in his own home, by his family, evidence ( damaged glasses), an emergency 999 call, cut off, follow up by police even though an address had not been given when the phone had been snatched out of his hand.

But that did not happen. Does it ever happen?

My then wife and teenage children were now 'a pack', together attacking me. I was to learn that if you are the male victim of DV, Equal = Equal means nothing. I experienced something different to that, I think I was to experience, 'gender apartheid'.

My then wife and our son, joined ranks to cover the abuse they had put me through, told lies making 'false allegations against me', when I started to tell the policeman what had been happening, and also showing him the damaged glasses.

The policeman’s total lack of victim / perpetrator training, or, will to accept that a father was asking for back up when he was being assaulted in his home, is surely, to any reasonable adult human being, an inadequate ‘Duty of Care for male victims of DV / DA’.

Is that something new, for male victims of DV / DA / PAS? - was this a 'one off' experience'?

Was it discrimination of a male victim of DV / DA?

To logically determine discrimination I looked at :

(1) The Health and Safety at Work Act. - Men in a relationship with a female has equal protection in law / policies / practice.

(2) ‘ Duty of care ‘ - Men in a relationship with a female also has equal protection in law / policy / practice

(3) Males and females pay taxes, council tax / rates for services such as for the police, courts, therefor men are equally entitled to equal protection / support when they require it.

(4) To not have established equal protection / support for men in male/female relationships would be not just discrimination - it could only be described as ‘ gender apartheid’.

It has taken me all day to write this, my new wife wants me to do something else now, - to be continued, another day.

David Currie

--------

In 2001 Adelle Llewellin, Victim Support Co-ordinator Herefordshire, wrote this letter
a male victim of DV / DA / PAS / MA / SA

********************************************************

David,
Please find below a copy of the profile, which I hope to include in our annual report. As you can see the information is brief but to the point.

The police, local agencies, Herefordshire Council, volunteers, and the press read this document. I have changed your name and hope that the information given protects your privacy. If there are any changes you wish to make please telephone me and let me know as this will shortly go to print.
I feel that this is the start of action we hope to take to improve the situation for male victims of crime. I look forward to working with you in the future and support your commitment to this cause.

Thank you for your help and time.
Regards
Adele Llewellin.

--------------------

Peter is a successful middle-aged businessman, running his own firm in Hereford. He has worked hard to provide a lifestyle for his family that many would envy; however appearances can be deceptive.
Peter suffered an abusive childhood. He resolved never to be like his father, never to use violence against women or children. He has stuck to this resolve but has been the victim of domestic violence for the past eighteen years, mostly suffering in silence.

Things got progressively worse; he could see that his children were beginning to mirror his wife’s behavior.

Last Christmas Day things came to a head, an argument developed his wife and children became abusive. Peter dialed 999 and asked for the police, the phone was then wrenched out of his hand. The police arrived and incorrectly assessed the situation; they left after advising Peter that if they were called again he would have to leave the house.

The situation worsened, he had no one to turn to for help, and he left the house without any possessions.

He managed to find somewhere to stay on a temporary basis through one of his work contacts.

He had lost all confidence and could not return to work, his business failed leaving his employees and customers in the lurch.

------------------- Cut---------------------

from : David Currie 12a Keymer Avenue, Peacehaven, E. Sussex, BN108NG Email address : A1DAVEDI @ aol.com

Hi to all readers of this Email/Letter,

Once again, thank you for your response.

I think the present abusive discrimination of male victims of DV / DA / FALSE ALLIGATIONS / PAS - ' fuels the fire of female / teenaged children abusers - on fathers / male partners '.

The female abusers and the teenage children - KNOW they can abuse a father/husband/partner - and get off ' scot free '.

This total lack of EQUAL ' DUTY OF CARE FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DV / DA / FALSE ALLIGATIONS / PAS ' - REMOVES THE RIGHT - FOR A MALE/FATHER - TO HAVE AN EQUAL ROLE IN THE FAMILY.

THEREFOR :-

THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DV / DA / FA /PAS

(1) FOR MEN/FATHERS ROLE IN THE FAMILY.
(2) FOR EQUAL SUPPORT.
(3) FOR EQUAL PROTECTION
(4) FUNDING FOR MALE VICTIMS
(5) FUNDING FOR MALE VICTIMS AND THEIR CHILDREN

" ENGLAND EXPECTS EVERY MAN TO DO HIS DUTY ".

THE PROTECTION OF OUR COUNTRIES - ( WHEN WAR IS DECLARED ) - FALLS ON MENS SHOLDERS. IN BLOODY CONFLICT A MAN FIGHTS FOR HIS FAMILY, HIS HOME, PROPERTY, HIS FREEDOM, A BETTER FUTURE FOR HIS CHILDREN.

" WHAT THE BLOODY HELL HAVE OUR YOUNG MEN GOT TO FIGHT FOR NOW "? - TO BE ABUSED ?

Best wishes,
David Currie.

False Allegations = False Alibi.

False Allegations against a MALE VICTIM of D.V. --- NOT INVESTIGATED.

False Alibi --- IS INVESTIGATED

Therefore : False Allegations v ROBUST BRITTISH CRIME SURVEYS

Where is the DUTY OF CARE?

Equal = Equal. Equal Support, Protection, Funding for M V of D.V.

-------------------------

--- A1DAVEDI @ aol.com wrote:

Hi All who read this Email,
It is too long to be sent to the petition - is it possible to send it some other way?

Would you please send me the author's Email address - to enable me to send it as it is?

I will paste it below:-

Hi,
As a male victim who put up with DV / DA / SA / FA / PACK PAS, I have no > problem understanding the
reason for this petition, however I feel I must question the wording.

Why?

After many years I phoned 999 for ' back up support ' whilst being violently > assaulted in my home.
The ' back up support ' consistuted in that I was warned that if there was another call that day
' somebody had to go ' - NOT > THE ABUSERS - BUT ME - THE VICTIM. - I AM A MAN/FATHER.

A gentleman - big enough to knock someone’s head off but does not believe in hitting women or children.

THE MESSAGE the policeman gave to me was -

IF A MAN CALLS FOR HELP - HE - THE VICTIM IS REMOVED FROM THE HOME/FAMILY > HOME, - AND IS
FURTHER ABUSED BY THE POLICE FAILURE TO TRAIN POLICE IN VICTIM/PERPETRATOR INVESTIGATION.

THE MESSAGE THE POLICE GAVE TO MY ABUSERS WAS - IF YOUR VICTIM IS A MAN - WE DO NOT INVESTIGATE - AND HE HAS TO GO.

THE ABUSERS OF MALE VICTIMS OF DV / DA / FALSE ALLIGATIONS - ARE REWARDED - WITH THE POSSESION OF THE HOME/FAMILY HOME / CHILDREN.

IF A MAN IS THE ABUSER - I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS WARNED/REMOVED FROM THE HOME/FAMILY HOME/CHILDREN

WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR AGREE WITH IS THAT IF A VIOLENT WOMAN OR TEENAGE CHILDREN ARE ABUSING A MAN - THEY STAY IN THE HOME - THIS IS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR WORDING.

I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

ALL VICTIMS OF DV / DA SHOULD EXPERIENCE EQUAL PROTECTION/SUPPORT - THIS IS A VICTIM ISSUE - NOT A GENDER ISSUE.

BOTH MALE/FEMALE PAY TAXES, COUNCIL RATES TAXES FOR SERVICES SUCH AS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE - EQUALY DESERVING PROTECTING SUPPORT AND ' DUTY OF CARE '.

YOUR WORDING - DOES NOT REMOVE A FEMALE ABUSER FROM THE HOME/FAMILY HOME/CHILDREN - AS WOULD BE THE CASE - IF IT WAS A VIOLENT MAN.

THEREFOR IN MY OPINION - YOUR WORDING IS FLAWED AND SHOULD BE ALTERED - TO - THE ABUSERS OF EITHER SEX - SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME/FAMILY HOME.

IF THE MALE VICTIM(S) CHOICE - IS TO BE RE-HOUSED IN A REFUGE - WITH HIS CHILDREN - THAT SHOULD BE - HIS CHOICE AND - HIS EQUAL RIGHT.

IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO RE-WRITE YOUR PETITION ACCORDINGLY I WILL SIGN IT

PLEASE REPLY. asap.

Kind regards,
David Currie Men's Aid / UKFathers / MANKIND

--------------

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745
Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries @ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

A1DAVEDI@aol.com
Mr David Currie
12a Keymer Avenue
Pacehaven
East Sussex
BN10 8NG

Reference: T25729/6 28 July 2006

Dear Mr Currie,
Thank you for your e-mail of 15/06/06 regarding domestic violence.

I would first like to make clear that the Government is not and has never stated that it is opposed to offering support to male victims of domestic violence and their children. Our policies do not discriminate against male victims of domestic violence. The Government believes that any victim suffering persistent abuse should be treated equally.

I am sure that you are aware of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) which is gender neutral. Also gender neutral is guidance, such as that recently issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers to police forces on investigating domestic violence incidents, and that issued to Supporting People Administering Authorities. Coupled with the Government definition of domestic violence, there is clear evidence that domestic violence policy in the UK applies equally to both male and female victims.

The integration of domestic violence into the core work programmes of government departments and agencies, is part of the much needed culture change in ensuring that society clearly identifies and marks this crime and form of behavior as unacceptable. To consolidate this work further, there needs to be a much wider dialogue about the culture and expression of gender based violence with the male population. Such a dialogue needs to challenge the culture which allows such violence and intimidation to flourish.

There have been initiatives undertaken by organizations, such as Amnesty, that have posed important questions raised by this debate. In 2006/07 the government will sponsor a number of conferences and seminars to push this debate further and develop an agenda where key issues which affect men such as education, equality diversity, race and sexism, are addressed. This work stream will begin this year and a timetable of activity will emerge in the new financial year.

Yours sincerely,
Vanessa Smith

------------------

On 13/2/08 19:50, "A1DAVEDI @ aol.com" wrote:

from David Currie 12a Keymer Avenue, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN108NG, UK.
Tel: 01273 579480.

Women ONLY victims? Men ONLY perpetrators? Gender Discriminative?

Notice - you are ONLY seeing a male on female DV/DA example with a child witness. (see below)

With respect, Do you have a problem with showing examples of female perpetrators assaulting gentlemen who they know will not retaliate because she knows he would hurt her and does not assault women or children.

Female on Male DV/DA/False Allegation/PA victims, ALSO pay taxes, are EQUALLY DESERVING of equal support/protection/media exposure and would have paid for at least half the cost of this NSPCC Newsletter.

Please reply,
David Currie

--------------

Dear Gary,
Thanks for copying me. I am incensed, to say the least, at what I see happening to Families once they are in the evil clutches of these so-called "Family" courts and agencies. It is a shocking global problem.

After wasting more than 21 years of my life in court in Canada, struggling through this horrific, corrupt, evil system, it has become abundantly clear to me that regardless of what measures we have all taken in the past to raise awareness and bring justice to our Families, we continue to be blatantly ignored.

Divorce courts and associated agencies are purposely, atrociously, maliciously and recklessly run for one reason only, and that is to make countless lawyers, judges and those in these related agencies, incredibly rich. They continually create and encourage hostility to constantly feed their insatiable "piranha-style" financial appetite. Pathetic..

They don't give a damn if our Children wind up on the streets and become riddled with drugs and with many other problems. In fact it is their intention to do this as more criminals and problem people are created in this process, thus filling their deplorable Empire for generations to come. This is outrageously unacceptable.

As for any accountability, what's that? We have "Judges Judging Judges" and "Lawyers Judging Lawyers"...

I have added below the copy of a letter to me, dated 21st of October, 2003, from the UK government.

What on earth is required by all of us to get justice for our Families and our Children.....? This is a very real War..

Thanks again for copying me......

Terry Lear
Toronto, Canada
englishman @ sympatico.ca

PS. I personally met with our current Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and all I got was the usual "lip service" and "no action".. Shame on all of them..!

Canadian Links: http://canadacourtwatch.com/ http://www.fact.on.ca/

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

department for education and skills
creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence

Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW

Tel: 020 7210 8313
Mr Terry Lear
Fax: 020 7210 8681
PO Box 22604
Enquiries: 020 7210 8500
300 Coxwell Avenue
Toronto DX 117000
Ontario
M4L 3W7
Email: tempcb @ dca.gsi.gov.uk
Canada
www.lcd.gov.uk

21 October 2003

Dear Mr Lear,
Many thanks for your email and letter to the Prime Minister dated 3 August 2003 and 9 September 2003 respectively, these have been forwarded to me for reply.

You mention in your email that there are "extremely serious Human Rights violations" in cases involving parents and contact. Questions of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 are ultimately a matter for the courts to decide depending on the facts of any particular case in which the issue is heard. The HRA incorporates into UK domestic legislation the European Convention of Human Rights. The HRA was commenced in October 2000.

The United Kingdom ratified the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child on 16 December 1991. The UNCRC has not been incorporated into the UK's domestic legislation, though it serves to inform and guide relevant public authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities.

In family law, the Children Act 1989 introduced a single, consistent statement of public and private law in relation to children. Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Convention is reflected in the 'welfare principle' in section 1 of the Act. This says that the child's welfare must be the paramount consideration when a court determines any question about the upbringing of a child. Although it formally binds only the courts, the 'welfare principle' has set the standard for decisions made about children by other public authorities, and by private individuals and organisations.

You suggest that there should be an assumption of shared residence under the Children Act. An order for shared residence is one of the options available to the court. The court will decide on the facts of each individual case what is in the best interests of the child concerned.

Cases that reach the court arena may, for obvious reasons, have gone beyond the stage where this level of mutual co-operation can be achieved. The court will reach its decision after considering all the evidence with the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration. If the parties agree during the course of proceedings, an order for shared/joint residence is one of the options available to the court when considering the child's future. In those circumstances, in line with the principles of the Children Act, the court will also wish to consider whether it would be better for the children to make an order than to make no order at all.

I understand you believe there ought to be a legal presumption of contact between children and their non-resident parents. As the principles of the Children Act 1989 focus on the child, and what would be in his/her best interests, any such presumption would be in direct conflict with this principle. Any legal presumption of contact would also undermine the 'no order principle'.

In 2001 the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC) publicly consulted on the issue of the facilitation and enforcement of contact orders. The Sub-Committee published their report "Making Contact Work" on 8 February 2002. The report made a number of recommendations on the facilitation and enforcement of contact between children and a parent who no longer lives with them. The Government considered the proposals carefully and published its interim response on 6 August 2002. As part of the Government's work in responding to the CASC proposals, a stakeholder group on facilitation and enforcement was established comprising representatives from the judiciary, legal professionals, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), other government departments and the voluntary sector. The Government is publishing its full and final response to the CASC report in November. I can arrange for a copy of this report to be sent to you when it is published.

You also raise the issue of grandparents and access to their grandchildren. The Government recognises the valuable role that grandparents and the extended family play in supporting parents and children and providing stability. Many grandparents are already involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives. The court's role is to make a decision in cases where families are unable to reach agreement.

I hope this answers the questions raised in your letter.

Yours sincerely

SIGNED

Tim Porter
Families In Change Branch
Family Policy Division

-----------------------

THURS 22/05/2008 - Ofsted published a report today on its inspection of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services (Cafcass) in Kent, Surrey and Sussex.

Ofsted has found that, although Cafcass offers a good to adequate service for children involved in public law proceedings, its services in private law proceedings in the region are inadequate. The report makes a series of recommendations to help improve services in the region.

Christine Gilbert, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Education, Children's Services and Skills, said: "Some of the services being provided by Cafcass' south east region are adequate or better. But some failings are Serious and frankly, unacceptable. Overall the region has a number of inadequacies particularly in the handling of Private Law cases, where children may be left at risk due to delay in allocation of work, poor assessment of the impact of domestic violence and inadequate reports to the courts.

"Ofsted has made 10 recommendations which, if implemented, should help to improve services in the region. I am pleased to see that Cafcass south east has taken these on board and is acting swiftly to implement a recovery plan. We will monitor the implementation to make sure that the recommendations are followed, that the safeguarding of children's welfare is improved and that the region's services deliver better outcomes for children, young people and families."

Ofsted inspected the quality of service, front line practice and management in the region during November and December 2007.

Inspectors assessed 37 case files in public and private law and found an unacceptable number were inadequate. Many did not record the work that had been done and information did not appear to have been properly analysed in 33 case plans.

Ofsted found that allegations of domestic violence were a common feature in many cases. The impact of domestic violence on children was assessed adequately only in a minority of cases. The report concludes that 'good practice is the exception not the rule' in the south east region.

The inspectors found that priority given to public law has led to serious delays in providing services to children and families involved in private law proceedings, particularly in Kent.

In response to the report Anthony Douglas, Cafcass Chief Executive said: "Our public law work is good and the problems in our private law practice are being urgently addressed I can already guarantee significant improvements."

In February, Ofsted published its first inspection report of Cafcass since its new remit and found the East Midlands division to be inadequate and concluded 'front line delivery is inadequate and needs to improve urgently'. Brian Cantwell, a Private Law Consultant, has written an article, Ofsted, Cafcass and the Courts: The New Private Law Equation, examining this report in this month's (May) Family Law journal.

To read Brian Cantwell's article, log on to Family Law Online or request a free trial by clicking here: http://www.jordansonlineservices.co.uk/NXT/flj.asp