No seriously this is not some line from a politically correct Panto, although someone should consider shouting “she’s behind you” when Ms Emmerson walks in a room.
God help us with people like this, heading up Government funded projects.
We all accept that there are potential risks to children and the best way to protect children is by keeping both parents actively involved in their lives, which seems odd given that the Government is hell bent on excluding fathers from all roles except that of cash point.
There have always been risks to children, it is not a new problem, but the way Ms Emmerson is talking you could be mistaken for thinking we have an out of control child abuse epidemic in this country and Granny is the Head of a local paedophile club rather than Head of her local knitting club.
We already know that ALL fathers are now risk assessed before they can have contact with their children after separation and divorce. But fear not, mothers are not routinely risk assessed nor are mums new boyfriends.
Which makes it all perfectly ok!
Look at the case of “Baby P” – Dead because of his mother and her new boyfriend. If only “Baby P” had been able to have a kiss from his father or grandparents and a cuddle on their knee as they read him a story or tucked him into bed at night.
One wonders why Ms Emmerson holds such extreme prejudicial and bigoted views. One explanation for her views could come in the shape of her boss.
Lucy Emmerson is the Co-ordinator of the Sex Education Forum which is run by the National Children’s Bureau. The President of the NCB is non other than Claire Tyler (Baroness Tyler of Enfield). Claire Tyler became Chair of CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) in February 2012.
Cafcass routinely deny fathers relationships with their children based on the prejudicial views of the Cafcass Officers (many of which are former Social Workers). Cafcass consider all fathers to be a risk to their children and it is down to the father to prove other wise. But even when they do it is rare that Cafcass will accept the evidence. After all mums word, or rather “soft” evidence, is enough for Cafcass and what better way of denying contact than by saying Dad and the paternal grandparents abuse the children.
Ms Emmerson has now given thousands of vindictive mothers, who’s sole intention is contact denial, another feather to their bow.
In a case that I dealt with a few years ago Cafcass knew that Mum was in a lesbian relationship with the Contact Centre Manager and that the child was sleeping in the same bed as the Contact Centre Manager. There is nothing wrong with a lesbian relationship, but the Contact Centre Manager ran the Centre where Dad was visiting to see his child. Cafcass kept this information from the ongoing Court proceedings for 6 months and even when they were eventually forced to reveal it by the Judge, they strongly objected. Why?
Because Cafcass knew that Mum and the Contact Centre Manager had been fabricating reports about the father after his visits, to discredit him and deny him further contact with his child.
Despite knowing this, and knowing that there was no basis to ANY of the allegations lodged against the father, the Cafcass Officer continued to recommend NO CONTACT with the father or any other member of his family, including the child’s siblings and grandparents.
I am delighted to say the Judge decided otherwise. This case was one of the worst I had ever dealt with, but it is sadly not unique in its illustration of the conduct of Cafcass and their idea of “child safety”.
So knowing this, I can see exactly where Ms Emmerson and her forum are heading and what dangerous policies they are peddling.
Ultimately if views and organisations like this are allowed to continue and become socially acceptable then more children will grow up in this country without a father or paternal grandparents. A fatherless society is undoubtably the aim of the fanatical feminists and our Mangina Government as it ensures that more women and children are state dependent and therefore subservient to the state’s policies and views to ensure votes.
Statistically children are less likely to face abuse when their father is actively involved in their life, whether within the immediate family unit or through substantial and meaningful parenting time after divorce and separation, but that is ignored by Cafcass.
We know that in cases of family breakdown Grandparents often play a vital role of offering children stability while their parents slog it out like starved rabid animals in the Court arena.
We also know that many Grandparents save the Government millions of £’s each year by carrying out unpaid childminding duties so parents can afford to go back to work.
So what next, Ms Emmerson? Risk assessing every family member before a child is allowed home after birth?
Or perhaps you will suggest all Grandparents are CRB checked and Ofsted Inspected so they can continue providing the country with unpaid child care facilities?
I for one wish my Granny was still around, firstly she would certainly put a few people straight on a few issues and secondly my children would be better off for it as most children would be.
I suggest that if she does have any more ideas that Ms Emmerson’s runs them past her own grandmother next time so she may benefit from a few pearls of wisdom that might just keep her grounded in reality.
Views like this Ms Emmersons are dangerous and the only people children in this country are at risk from, are people who hold these fanatical views.
CLICK HERE: for one of the many articles reporting the story