Filed under: Babies and the law — Alan @ 7:51 am
Ministers have abandoned a plan that would require unmarried mothers to name the identity of the father of their baby.
The new rules leave loopholes that allow months to refuse identifying the father, which frees the father from being forced to pay child maintenance.
The Government has decided to abandon a proposal that would force men to take a paternity test if there is any dispute about who the father of a child may be. Instead, such tests will only be allowed if both parties agree that a paternity test is needed.
The announcement comes five months after Labour stated that all mothers would have to name fathers on baby’s birth certificates.
Children’s minister Dawn Primarolo stated that the Government hopes to promote responsibility by forcing both parents to register their names on birth certificates, but noted that such exemptions may make it possible for a mother to deny naming a father on a birth certificate.
One reason for a possible exemption may be the fear of violence if a man is named on a birth certificate. Mothers will also be able to state that they are not sure of who the father is or where he may be.
Filed under: Babies and the law — Alan @ 7:47 am
Social workers have slowly moved the children of an overweight household to ensure that all the children will receive adequate care in the future.
Two of the children were taken out of the family yesterday, another today, and by the end of the week another two will be taken out of the home. One of the children that were taken was removed within 24 hours of her birth.
The seizure of the children came after the completion of a panel ruling that it was best to take the children from the home.
The father of the family said that the entire family is devastated and that he feels utterly powerless especially after losing the newborn after just 24 hours.
A spokesman for Dundee Council social services who were responsible for removing the children said that obesity is not the only cause of removal, and that while they cannot comment on the reasons for removal, a child would never be taken from their family simply due to weight problems.
Social services councilor Jim Barrie stated additionally that the responsibility of social services is to look after the welfare of the children in the home, and that in this case the action was taken to protect the best interests of the family and the baby.
The lawyer of the family Kathleen Price stated however, that the family was not given a fair hearing, and the question remains if the family was given their rights in full accordance with the law.
Price stated that once social workers make the wrong decision, it is hard for a family to receive a fair hearing, which is what happened in this case.
Filed under: Babies and the law — Alan @ 8:25 am
Two police officers are having their conduct reviewed by the Government, surprisingly for the offence of babysitting each other children, a task they have been told they must discontinue, unless they want to face prosecution.
The Milton Keynes Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd was told by Ofsted, that she had an ‘illegal’ agreement with another officer, DC Lucy Jarrett.
Both 32 year old women have watched each other’s daughters two times a week over the last few years, while each were on different ten hour shifts at the Aylesbury police station, to make their work schedules more compatible with their family lives.
Ofsted launched an investigation due to the fact that government legislation dictates anyone who baby sits over two hours at one time, or over 14 days a year, must register as a child minder and take a class in first aid training, if the children are under five.
