Dear Scottish Commission for Human Rights,

It has come to my attention that the family Panel does not consider Human Rights when deciding to remove children from their birth families and place them with strangers.

1. To remove a child from a parent where there is no evidence of abuse or neglect causing significant harm is torture for both parent and child.
2. For the government to claim against a civilian in a civil court with 'balance of probability' standard of proof and allowing hearsay, with no requirement for evidence results in an unfair trial, especially where the judge only directs disclosure on behalf of the government applicant and not on behalf of the respondent.
3. For a government paid Judge to decide alone on facts and law where the applicant is local government is a conflict of interest and will result in an unfair trial.
4. For parents to be found guilty of child abuse or child neglect, both of which are crimes, without a criminal trial with a Jury without any evidence as to their guilt results in punishing for crimes that have not been committed.
5. To issue media injunctions threatening parents with prison if the parent discloses information relating to their children being unjustly taken from them inhibits their freedom of expression.
6. To state that the children's welfare is the court's paramount concern which welfare is decided by CAFCASS who have a conflict of interest with BAAF - British Agency of Adoption and Fostering - results in Human Rights not being considered.
7. To force parents to be psychologically assessed by 'experts' without their consent, which experts require the parent to divulge their entire history and thought processes upon which the expert infers a personility disorder without diagnosing a personality disorder interferes with the parents right to a private family life.
8. The 'finding of fact' exercises where unsupported allegations are coupled with the reports of highly paid 'experts' who depend on instructions from applicant Local Authorities and CAFCASS results in false findings that cannot be challenged due to Judge finding the allegations 'probably true'.
9. To remove children from families due to 'lack of insight' into their problems (ie. the parent denying the false allegations) or because parents are "not conducive to therapy within the children's timescales", results in no privacy of family life and is inhumane.
10. To provide social workers with financial incentives for removing children from their birth families and permanently placing them away from their parents results in an incentive for social workers to make false allegations.
11. To not investigate allegations of sexual and physical abuse of 'looked after children' in the care of Local Authorities despite clear evidence from the child and physical evidence of abuse is inhumane.
12. To authorise surveilance of a parent's email, facebook, twitter, telephone in order to find examples of a parent disobeying a Court Order which is to be used as evidence that the parent's denials of the false allegations cannot be relied upon is inhumane.
13. To Order that a parent will lose their children if they continue a relationship with their chosen partner, particularly where the partner has not been convicted of any criminal offence against the parent or the children and evidence that the relationship is continuing does not exist beyond the surveilance of facebook and phones etc is inhumane.
14. To Order that parents are not allowed to consume alcohol particularly where there is no evidence that the parent has an addiction to alcohol with the result of losing their children if surveilance of their private messages reveals they have shared a bottle of wine with a friend on their birthday is inhumane.
15. To adopt children away from their birth families against the wishes and feelings of the parent and child is totally inhumane.
16. To permanently remove children from families as a direct result of parents making an official complaint against a government body, in the absence of evidence of significant harm to the child is inhumane.

For all records reasonably accessible, please can you state;

A. How many times have the public notified the Human Rights Commission of breaches of human rights

i. through the decisions of the family Panel?
ii. through the actions and inactions of Social Services?
iii. through the assessment By Psychologists / Psychiatrists?

B. When was the Family Panel authorised to operate in breach of the Human Rights Act?

C. Please disclose all records and data that would assist parents and children opposing the destruction of their human rights in the secrecy of the family Panel.

Yours faithfully,

LS Palmer