family courts put an emphasis on contact with both parents, but many have told us that presumption is putting their children in danger. my children have come home with bruising and other injuries. i've had to take them to a&e. they're telling you this stuff, and you still have to put a smile on your face and hand them over to their abuser. also, we can reveal that over 100 mps from all parties now think it's time to open up the family courts system to proper scrutiny. they want an urgent independent inquiry. i think there is a culture of secrecy and all the practitioners — lawyers, social workers, cafcass, thejudges, all of them, they're kind of operating with impunity, i would suggest, and that leads to inconsistent decisions, bad decisions. that's why i've asked for an independent inquiry, because we need to know what's happening at the heart of our justice system. also today we'll bring you a rare interview with the organisation tasked with putting the welfare of children first in the family courts — cafcass. their assistant director is live in the studio, and we'll also hear from people who say the courts are right to try ensure that in nearly every case children have contact with both mum and dad, and they believe some are deliberately alienating their children from the other parent. we are spending the next hour talking about the family courts, but brighter news about the jeremy talking about the family courts, but brighter news about thejeremy kyle shell, itv say they are cancelling it for ever. they say it has a loyal audience and has been made for m yea rs by audience and has been made for m years by a dedicated production team, but now is the time for the show to end. everyone at itv‘s thoughts and sympathies are with the family of steve diamond. given the gravity of recent events, itv say we have decided to end production of thejeremy have decided to end production of the jeremy kyle have decided to end production of thejeremy kyle show. more reaction on the bbc news website. this morning, the secret world of the family courts and the sometimes tragic consequences of the rulings they are making. clearly this is a massive issue judging by the messages i have been receiving since last night. one says, thank you so much for talking about this, this is a silent epidemic. syriza says, thank you for covering this. another says, a domestic abuser should not be allowed to abuse a child further by contact. and at last, the further abuse of perpetrators using the family courts will be brought into the open and the truth will be exposed. there are many more of these. an investigation by this programme has found that in the last five years four children have been killed at the hands of a parent who'd been granted access to their child by the family courts. and in each of those cases, that parent, the dad, had a known history of domestic violence. the children who died were aged four, six, nine and 12 years old. we've also spoken to dozens of parents who say their ex—partners have been granted unsupervised access to children even if they have a known history of abuse. as a result of our shocking findings, we can also report today that more than 120 mps are now calling for an urgent independent inquiry into the family courts system. in a special programme this morning, we're going to scrutinise the family courts, exploring how it can be that a court that claims to put the interests of the child first is sometimes ordering regular, unsupervised, overnight contact with a parent with a history of abuse. plus, we'll talk to this mum whose two sons — 12—year—old jack and paul, who was nine — were killed by her ex in a house fire in october 2014 on a weekend access visit agreed by the family court. telling these stories isn't easy. there are strict restrictions on what we can report, quite rightly, to protect a child's privacy and safety. we can't report anything said inside the family courts, anything from documents submitted to the court. to do so would be breaking the law. and technically, if our guests today — politicians, lawyers, campaigners — repeat anything that's been said in the family courts, they too could be in contempt of court, punishable by a fine or even jail. this morning we want your own experience of the family courts. i'm going to ask you not to tell us anything that's in breach of a court order. get in touch in the usual ways. first, let's hearfrom three mums who were brave enough to speak out to us about the impact of the family court decisions on theirs and their child ren‘s lives. and a warning that they are describing incidents of domestic abuse and sexual assault which some of you might find distressing. this is emma ailes‘ exclusive film. the family courts — a secretive world where decisions about children's lives are made out of sight and behind closed doors. the law requires courts to put the welfare of the child first. but this programme can reveal that children are often being forced to spend time alone with a parent with a known history of abuse, putting their safety and even their lives at risk. everyone thinks no court is going to send a child to spend time with a criminal drug addict. but yeah, they do, and it's just a contact at all costs. when parents separate and they can't agree arrangements for their children, they can end up in the family court. it's a place of last resort, where a judge decides what contact each parent should have. there is a fundamental presumption in law that a child should have contact with both parents. but dozens have told us the courts have ordered unsupervised contact with a violent ex—partner, including some with serious criminal convictions. this is the story of three women. they can't tell us what happened in court or they could be prosecuted. but they can talk about the devastating impact of the court's decisions. rachel suffered years of extreme violence by her ex—partner. she became pregnant after he raped her. my home was my prison. he said he'd... he said he'd kill me and my son from a previous relationship if i told anyone. and i knew he meant it. he punched and kicked me in the stomach. i went to the hospital and they said, "there's no heartbeat." a few months after that, he did the same thing again. i got pregnant again. after the baby was born, he tried to strangle me while i was breast—feeding my baby, whilst my newborn was in my arms. police assessed rachel and her children at being at high risk of homicide. she managed to take kids and flee her home. he then applied to the family court and won access to their child. for now, it is supervised, but that could change. look at his criminal record, and you will see he is a massive risk. threats, stalking, convictions. and at one point, i thought i might turn suicidal, because he came out of the courtroom smirking and then threatened to kill me in the car park straight after. i found out that my older son had googled, "how long will a teenager get in prison if he kills a man?" i had to say to him, "no, we're not going to do that." "we're going to keep you and your brother safe somehow." it is horrifying that even in proven cases of sexual assault, severe domestic abuse, rape, murder in some cases, men are still being encouraged and granted access to their child, and itjust seems to me that that presumption is all wrong. that contact is being presumed as the absolute best outcome, no matter what the circumstances, and we need to flip that, and we need to make sure the presumption is if they are a known abuser, if they are a known risk to mother and child, then we need to assume that contact probably isn't best for the child. when a child is killed or seriously injured as a result of abuse, the authorities are required to conduct what is known as a serious case review. we have analysed serious case reviews for england for the last five years and found that at least four children have been killed during contact with a parent with a known history of domestic abuse. and that contact had been ordered by a family court. in one case, professionals including a teacher, a social worker and a cafcass officer, the body that assesses parents for the court, said they were too scared to be left alone with the father because of his aggressive behaviour. but that did not stop the court granting him unsupervised contact with his children. he went on to kill them both. other cases referred to what's known as a toxic trio of addiction, mental illness and a history of abuse. lucy says she knows all about these toxic trio. she says her ex had a 20—year crack addiction and would become violent if she refused to give him money for drugs. while they were together, she felt she could protect their little girl. but after they split, he applied to the family court for contact. he's got numerous convictions. it's just not safe in his flat with drugs everywhere. assault and battery, possession, he was jailed for drunk driving, and everyone thinks no court is going to send a child to spend time with a criminal drug addict. but yeah, they do. and itjust defies all logic. it is just contact at all costs. lucy's ex—partner‘s drug—taking appeared to reduce, but not stop altogether. thejudge decided that there is no reason why you can't have unsupervised overnight contact. like addiction is no longer an issue. so all he had to do was sign a piece of paper that says he won't use for 2h hours prior to or during contact. it's ridiculous. he's not even sticking to it. i have to send her there and abide by the court order, or i am breaking the law. but when i pick her up, she has been really vacant in her expression. it happened a couple of times and then i realised, "oh, my god, is it because she's stoned?" and i can smell cannabis on her. but another time she told me that her dad got her up in the night, put a coat over her pyjamas, and they went out in a white van to buy sweets, but they weren't sweets for her. but from the way she described it, that was a drug deal. but i have got no proof except the word of a toddler. every time something happens, i report it to all and sundry, the police, social services, gps, so there's a trail. but again the court confirmed the unsupervised access. it's like they see the greatest risk to my daughter is emotional damage because her parents don't get along. but that's not the greatest risk. you are sending my daughter to outside contact with a drug addict. whenever there are allegations of abuse, the court is required to hold what's called a fact—finding hearing. there are no official statistics, but parents and lawyers have told us anecdotally that those hearings are not always been done. in family courts, unfortunately, we still see quite a lot of examples of misogyny and sort of sexist views and attitudes towards mothers and indeed sometimes fathers. and there's this, i think, perception that mothers are preventing contact with fathers and they are doing that unilaterally without good reason. and this idea that even though there is domestic violence, she just needs to get over it. i've heard judges say, "0h, it'sjust a little bit of dv." it's minimised rather than seeing the significance of that. that's why in many cases you don't have fact—finding hearings. mary's ex—partner was physically and emotionally abusive and has numerous criminal convictions for violence and drug offences. she spent more than £100,000 on legal fees fighting his application for contact. i was completely naive about the family courts. i assumed that they would see to enable a violent man to have a relationship with his children, the contact needed to be supervised. i mean, i'd already seen him being physically aggressive to our child when he was a toddler. but that's not how the family court sees it at all. he was on the domestic abuse perpetrators programme, but he has always just denied abusing me. my solicitor told me unless he has beaten you black and blue, he will be deemed a good enough father, so don't even bother trying. the court ordered mary's ex—partner to have regular unsupervised overnight contact with their children. she says they have been coming back from visits with unexplained injuries. my children have come home with bruising and other injuries, and i've had to take them to a&e. but it's not enough for them to tell me. they have to say, "my daddy did this," to an independent party before anyone will listen. my children wake up sobbing, and i just sit there with them and reassure them that no—one is expecting them to stand up to their dad. they tell you this stuff, and you just have to put a smile on your face and then hand them over to their abuser. nobody is saying that a child shouldn't have a relationship with their father. itjust needs to be healthy and safe. there are many cases i have come across where children have said, "i am not going to contact with my father." and in those cases, where there is a court order specifically specifying contact, the mothers can be at risk of going to prison or being fined, serving a community order of some type, because they have failed to comply with that court order. the government has promised some changes to the family court system, such as stopping victims of abuse being cross—examined by their abuser. but those calling for changes say far more needs to be done. they argue the lack of transparency is preventing scrutiny of the system that is failing parents and children with potentially fatal consequences. i think there is a culture of secrecy. and all the practitioners, lawyers, social workers, cafcass, thejudges, they are kind of operating with impunity. we need to know what's happening at the heart of ourjustice system. at the moment, i don't know how bad the problem is. the minister doesn't know how bad the problem is. i don't believe the president of the family court knows how bad that problem is. currently, there is no independent research on contact orders being made — only stories such as those we have heard that suggest things may be going wrong. emma ailes reporting. let's hear now from politicians, lawyers, and campaigners, including families need fathers. we are going to hearfrom we are going to hear from you because you have so many messages, i wa nt to because you have so many messages, i want to ask you for your reaction first of all to our investigation that four children have been killed in the last five years at the hands ofa in the last five years at the hands of a parent known to be abusive after contact was ordered by the family courts. jess phillips, how do you respond? i feel bereft that this is not something that we are discussing for the first time, this is something that has been before parliament for many years, and lots of research has been done about... previously it was 19 child homicide, to sit here today and here that since all that work are trying to highlight that, four more children have died, it is just so depressing, what is it going to take to change this? how many children are we going to let die while the lack of scrutiny, and it is such a delicate and important institution, is allowing children to be murdered, and it is as simple as that, and if i was thejustice secretary, this would be my single and top priority, yet it just seems would be my single and top priority, yet itjust seems constantly like we are pushing out a closed door. we obviously did ask for an interview with somebody from the ministry of justice, we will come to that statement later. rachel williams, you are a survivor of domestic abuse. it makes me feel sick to the call, ijust said, this is nothing new, but how many more kids need to die until this country wakes up and takes these serious? and let's not forget children who commit suicide because of these perpetrators, i mean my son committed suicide because of one man's action, and i know two other women whose sons have committed suicide because of an abuser in the household. how do you react to the stories we brought you there, rachel's children were granted supervised contact with her ex, despite the fact that police said she was at high risk of being murdered by him. you are a former children's minister, you are the chair of the all—party parliamentary group on children, how do you respond? there is a much bigger problem here. but respond to that in particular. the cases we have heard about, although children should not be given contact to parents who have got that sort of record, drugs, domestic violence or whatever, if it we re domestic violence or whatever, if it were the residential parent, they would be good grounds for taking the child into care or another parent, so it is crazy that a judge would consider allowing contact with somebody with that record. you have got to put it into context as well, we are talking about a relatively small number of parents who are dangerous, and the vast majority of pa rents a re dangerous, and the vast majority of parents are safe, responsible and wa nt to parents are safe, responsible and want to do best by their children. of course. we mustn't penalised them because of the experiences of those who shouldn't be allowed near children at all. you are right, but thatis children at all. you are right, but that is zero consolation to the surviving parents of dead kids. absolutely, but at the same time, the law is right, i was responsible for bringing the changes to the law that a child's welfare is best served by, wherever possible, having maximum contact with both parents, together and apart. at paramount, and this goes back to all the legislation, the consideration is that it must not be contrary to the welfare of the child, and the law in 2014, when it changed, made clear a presumption of involvement with both pa rents presumption of involvement with both parents unless there was a clear danger to the welfare of the child. in these cases, there were clear danger is and it shouldn't have been granted. so it is not working. it is not working in those cases, but it is not a new problem. but it is not working, that is cause for alarm. absolutely, we still have not got it right, but before the law changed, 70 or 80 children died at the hands of pa rents 70 or 80 children died at the hands of parents or carers. any majority of parents or carers. any majority of cases, actually, it was at the hands of mother or a new mother, or mother's new partner as well. so there are two sides to this as well. we must not exclude children from having contact with parents which is in their best interest... two sites, what do you mean? we have only focused on men here. actually, our focused on men here. actually, our focus was dead children, that is where we began our investigation months ago. absolutely, and it is a real problem. what i have said to you, though, is the figures for many yea rs you, though, is the figures for many years show that the majority of children who have died at the hands of pa rents children who have died at the hands of parents and carers have been at the hands of a mother or a mother's new partner, in many cases. and the partner is usually a man? obviously not the mum's fault if i knew mother murders the child. and not the dad's fault in the majority of cases. what iam fault in the majority of cases. what i am saying is the right of children to have maximum time and enjoyment when they are being brought up with both parents, unless there is a threat to their safety. we need to pa rents to step threat to their safety. we need to parents to step up to the mark and do right by their children in the majority of cases. those who are incapable, those who would do harm to the children need to be locked up or completely excluded from their lives, and in the cases where it did not happen, the system is not working, and that has had tragic consequences. lucy hadley from women's aid, is the system working? we have seen far too many cases of domestic abuse in the family courts that this culture of contact at all costs isjust that this culture of contact at all costs is just too often a feature, and domestic abuse, children don't just witness domestic abuse, they experience it, and it has long—term and devastating impact on their well— being and development, and devastating impact on their well—being and development, but far too often this very strong presumption in our law that a child should see both parents is overriding those concerns and those welfare concerns of domestic abuse, and the statistics in the report as you have highlighted today showjust so you have highlighted today showjust so clearly that has to change. michae lewkowiz, families need fathers, do you agree it has to change? we have to see if we can do anything about these horrendous cases that are coming up. at the same time, i don't relate to... thousands of people come to us, and we don't relate to the notion that courts are applying a contact at all costs approach, and i am sure cafcass will tell us they have a lengthy period of safeguarding checks which they take before someone making an application to court, and if there is a subsequent allegation, they take a precautionary approach. if no order is made, it is only by consent at that point, they will ask for evidence to be presented to the court, and a judge will weigh up, on the balance of the evidence, what the balance of the evidence, what the risks are, and whether in the interim or permanently, they might require supervision and contact to be supervised, so something clearly has gone wrong in these cases, but the picture that is being portrayed here of contact at all costs is simply the opposite of what we are experiencing. we see thousands of pa rents experiencing. we see thousands of parents coming to us, who are struggling to get any kind of contact in the face of obstruction. you know, there are 6000 applications a year for the enforcement of orders which have already been made on the premise of them being in the best interests of them being in the best interests of the child. why can't the children have their own voice and be listened to, and their rights? we have pa re ntal to, and their rights? we have parental rights, what about the rights of their children, if they don't want to see the parent? why should they be made to see them. you are talking about assessments, what if that is too late? what if, in that period of time, that child is hurt or killed? except that there is already protective measures there, so already now... i am not saying that every case it works, but we have got a situation where injunctive orders are made, there are some 26,000 a year made, no molestation orders which prevent pa rents molestation orders which prevent parents or somebody from accessing a home, going to a partner, ex partner's home... but they are broken. in which case they will end up broken. in which case they will end up criminalised and be jailed. they are usually put in place where there is domestic abuse. indeed, or allegations of domestic abuse, because it is not always found to be correct. of course, ajudge has to rule on that, the same judges you are defending. judges take a precautionary approach, and if summary makes a statement saying, i have been abused, they will put an injunctive order in place. well, thatis injunctive order in place. well, that is not happening, anecdotally, but we have dozens of women saying this is not happening. i am going to bring ina this is not happening. i am going to bring in a family magistrate, rupert holderness, who has presided over similar cases, and the big question, rupert, why? because it is baffling to most people, itjust doesn't make sense, why would ijudge grand contact sense, why would ijudge grand co nta ct to sense, why would ijudge grand contact to a parent with convictions and a known history of serious domestic abuse? well, these are absolutely tragic cases. i can't comment on the individual cases... but let's talk about the possible reasons and explanations. the court will be looking, as well add at the record, at the risks, and they will have advice from cafcass on that. and there is the presumption that has been referred to, but it is not contact at all cost... that is what it feels like to some people. contact at all cost... that is what it feels like to some peoplelj contact at all cost... that is what it feels like to some people. i can understand that in an individual case, it may feel to the mother of the child that that right of the father has been given priority over what she thinks ought to happen stop in these disputed cases, then it is also inevitable that someone will feel that the court has got it wrong. it is absolutely tragic when you have a consequence of the kind that we have heard about in your film, andi that we have heard about in your film, and i can't believe any court would have made orders that allow that to happen, knowing that there was a significant risk that it would happen. the court in question must have been persuaded that there wasn't a risk. not because it is so secret, we don't know if the history ever came before the judge, secret, we don't know if the history ever came before thejudge, we secret, we don't know if the history ever came before the judge, we are not allowed to know the detail, we don't know if it was included in the cafcass report, the risk assessment. well, you will no doubt hear about the cafcass process, but when the application comes in in the first place, cafcass asked police for any information they have got on the family, and they also speak to the local authorities where the family may have lived, and information that comes back includes notjust convictions but any call—outs, including things where the police decide to take no action, or cautions were administered, and things like that. and despite that, contact is granted sometimes. things like that. and despite that, contact is granted sometimesm things like that. and despite that, contact is granted sometimes. it may be, it depends on the assessment of the risk. charlotte proudman is a barrister who represents alleged violence perpetrators in the family courts, what do you say to a judge to convince him that the abusive pa rent to convince him that the abusive parent should have contact with their child? so what i tend to do is i isolate the allegations of domestic violence, i will say, well, he may be a risk to the mother, but they have now separated, circumstances have changed, and therefore there is no reason why contact therefore there is no reason why co nta ct ca n therefore there is no reason why contact ca n ta ke therefore there is no reason why contact can take place in a safe environment away from the mother, and you can have a third—party neutral handover point and an individual that can assist with that, andl individual that can assist with that, and i will also argue that the allegations are historical, so if they happened to it years ago, they are no longer relevant because circumstances have changed, and therefore i will argue there ought not to be a fact find. ican i can feel your nostrils are widening. explain why. these are the types of arguments i will make before the court and they —— persuasive. i represent women and men in these courts on a daily basis and i've been doing this since 2011. only a handful of cases has seen a no orderfor contact. i only a handful of cases has seen a no order for contact. i was working ona no order for contact. i was working on a case not long... why is that? because you are good at convincing thejudge? because you are good at convincing the judge? i actually represent mostly women, but there is a rule that you cannot refuse any brief and that's why think it's important to represent both sides. as in a case recently, this highlights the situation and it's notjust me as an effective advocate, it's also about social workers are cafcass supporting contact, in my view, at all costs and judges are enforcing that. so a little girl, she disclosed that her father had been sexually abusing her and she discloses not only to her mother and otherfamily discloses not only to her mother and other family members but also disclosed it in a conversation with the social worker. because of her age, given she was only a few years old, the social worker still recommended contact and her words we re recommended contact and her words were that she will have probably forgotten about it by now. 0h, were that she will have probably forgotten about it by now. oh, my god. so contact ought to be ordered albeit in a supervised setting on thejudge endorsed it albeit in a supervised setting on the judge endorsed it before a fact—finding had even taken place. why is that happening? because there isa why is that happening? because there is a presumption of contact at all costs a nd is a presumption of contact at all costs and there is a view that women lie andi costs and there is a view that women lie and i see it time and time again. we are looking at cases where women make allegations of domestic violence and what we often see? they are not telling the truth. the reason for that is a new term which turns my stomach, and that is pa rental turns my stomach, and that is parental alienation, that women are intentionally alienating their children from their fathers and we have to remember in the majority of cases where contact cannot be agreed between mothers and fathers the reason is domestic violence. you are shaking your head when charlotte referenced parental alienation. the fa ct referenced parental alienation. the fact that people who are sometimes abusive might use parental alienation is a form of defence doesn't mean that parental alienation doesn't happen and it doesn't mean it is not prolific. more than half of the people who come to us have experienced an element of parental alienation in trying to get back in touch with their children. these are children who love them, who have always had a positive relationship, who have missed their dads and sometimes mums, mums get alienated too. and then, overa mums, mums get alienated too. and then, over a period mums, mums get alienated too. and then, overa period of time, sometimes under the very noses of the court and cafcass you see a transformation because what has happened is a child as in some cases been briefed against the father by the resident parent and in other cases they have simply responded, so every time they go and visit their dad, for example, mum burst into tears and the child begins to believe that actually they've got the responsibility, your six—year—old might feel they have a responsibility to protect their mum by expressing a distaste. when mum says did you have a nice time? they begin to say no, it was terrible, i hated it. but the question is whether the courts assume a trial saying i don't want to go and see my dad is, has been alienated by the mum. we would make no such assumption when parental alienation is raised we expect cafcass to look it -- is raised we expect cafcass to look it —— into it carefully. is raised we expect cafcass to look it -- into it carefully. but how would you know? you are a former director, elizabeth coe, so how would you know if you're being manipulated by a parent and indirectly by the child? it would be very difficult. i think it is rare, but i think it does happen. i think that parents are so distraught sometimes by the break—up of the relationship that they just cannot say anything nice about the other partner and therefore the child, and children like to have a happy life as well and they want an easy life, so they don't want to keep feeling guilty about seeing the other partner so they start to say i don't wa nt to partner so they start to say i don't want to see that person. you were fuming. i'm not fuming at charlotte, to be clear, i'm fuming that that argument could pass through a judge that anyone with even the most basic level of understanding about domestic abuse could never fall for the idea of an isolated incident. it is basically paint by numbers understanding of domestic abuse. there is no he lost his temper and bashed me around, it is part of a pattern of abuse that goes on for years and any judge pattern of abuse that goes on for years and anyjudge that could be so fulled by an excellent advocate such as charlotte should basically not be making decisions about anyone. my ten—year—old could give you a better understanding of domestic abuse than that. can ijust say understanding of domestic abuse than that. can i just say that understanding of domestic abuse than that. can ijust say that parental alienation is a form of abuse and it does tremendous harm to the children, so thejudge has does tremendous harm to the children, so the judge has to actually weigh up on the facts in front of them, and it could be... assuming thejudge front of them, and it could be... assuming the judge has all the fa cts . assuming the judge has all the facts. it does, but that is the job of the court and cafcass and others to investigate. it doesn't always happen. parental alienation is not just women, men and kate —— and women are equally capable of alienating children against their partner. one of the men who killed their children after contact via family court darren sykes to whom claire throssell was married for a decade and a half in an interim order meant that your two boys would have to do is see him regularly. they did limit access compared to previously. one day he effectively lowered your voice to their deaths by getting them into the attic of the place where he lived, and i know you want to let our audience know what happened. basically my two sons we re what happened. basically my two sons were frightened of their dad. they had been hurt by their dad and they did not want to see him. in the five months from april until october we went through a horrendous time of contact and they would hold onto me in tears and say i don't want to go and see my dad and i had to convince them to go. there was a court order in place for five them to go. there was a court order in place forfive hours them to go. there was a court order in place for five hours of access and the children were saying every timei and the children were saying every time i do not want to go. in my application, in july, i time i do not want to go. in my application, injuly, iwarned time i do not want to go. in my application, injuly, i warned the family courts that he was capable of killing both of my children. why did you think that? because he had said it before. i know and i understand why men do this to their children. and i said, how can you justify somebody taking somebody else's life? but he was a narcissist, he was an abuser and by that time i was looking in the mirror in the morning and not recognising the person looking back. when you feel like you're a piece of dirt underneath somebody‘s shoe you don't have the confidence, you are frightened of that person. the police were aware. he had got a caution from the next—door neighbour, because he had assaulted the next—door neighbour. people had said that they were frightened to be on their own with him, so how did they think that a 12—year—old and a nine—year—old could cope with him? i'm notjust people had said they were frightened to be on their own with him, a teacher, social worker and the cafcass officer said that they did not want to be on their own with your ex partner because of his aggressive behaviour. yes. and yet a report was given to a judge and the judge granted limited contact. what did darren sykes do to your two boys? it was october, 2014 and there was an access visit of two hours. he did not need to hours. 15 minutes was all it took to make my life end and my existence begin. it was an evening and i had a knock at the door and there was a policeman at the door. and as a mother you know, when you send them off to visit, you have a knot in your stomach and my mum said, that is the boys back early. i said, no, mum said, that is the boys back early. isaid, no, they would have run through the door and run onto my knee because they needed reassurance. every time they came back from a visit they would run back from a visit they would run back to me and tell me what happened. and a policeman said, you need to come with me, you need to come with me now. and i was taken to sheffield children's hospital and rushed through to resuscitation, and my younger son, they were doing cpr on him and they said now that you are here we are going to let him go, andi are here we are going to let him go, and i held him so tight in my arms. his hairwas and i held him so tight in my arms. his hair was wet with my tears and he passed away from smoke inhalation. he had lowered them up to the attic of our former marital home and said i have some new trains that need to new drivers. while they we re that need to new drivers. while they were in the attic he set 14 separate fires in the property, barricaded the property and went upstairs to join them in the attic. oh, god. what he did not bank on was the courage ofjack, what he did not bank on was the courage of jack, and what he did not bank on was the courage ofjack, and he tried to get his brother, save his brother. he could have run away but he didn't. he ran back to his brother and paul was on the floor from smoke inhalation and it was jack's hands that paul felt last, not mine, because he was beyond when i got to him. alli because he was beyond when i got to him. all i could say was, i love you, andi him. all i could say was, i love you, and i will keep you safe. jack pulled him to the edge of the attic but, unfortunately, he fell through the attic hatchway into the flames below. and as he lay on those flames and the firemen picked up, he said to the fireman, and then the doctor and the policeman, my dad did this and the policeman, my dad did this and he did it on purpose. i promised jack that his voice would be heard because he never had his interview with cafcass. paul had had an interview at school with cafcass but the day jack was supposed to have his interview was the day he fell asleep in my arms as well, five days later. he had suffered 56% burns and whilst under the jurisdiction of family law they had allowed this to happen. two days before the fire, the cafcass officer was barricaded in her office because she had said something to him that he did not like. she was afraid of him. she was afraid of him, yet. i am going to quote to you what the serious case review, which was the investigation into the deaths of your sons concluded. it said professionals could not have predicted what happened. the vast majority of the strange fathers would not consider such actions and there is no known way of identifying those who would consider such actions. i will talk to cafcass in a moment. what do you say about that conclusion? my responses, yes, they couldn't predict how he would do it but i told them in the beginning that he would do it and i was ignored. i tried to protect everybody in this situation. the only person that was protected was the judge. thank you. actually, it's worth saying as well, because our audience may not notice, your two boys are dead, your ex partner is dead, yet you could still be prosecuted and potentiallyjailed orfined if be prosecuted and potentiallyjailed or fined if you tell us the details of what went on in the family court hearings you were involved in. that just seems absurd, doesn't it? hearings you were involved in. that just seems absurd, doesn't mm hearings you were involved in. that just seems absurd, doesn't it? it is absurd. it is crazy. of course it is crazy. there is a strong argument of the family courts opening up. it may be that they cannot report in terms of the names of the individuals involved, but there needs to be more scrutiny and transparency otherwise cases such as yours and many others we are not even aware of. cases such as yours and many others we are not even aware of. particular when the victims are no longer alive. they do have the right to attend, but what they can report is so limited that they generally tend not to. and we are going to come onto that in a moment. i'm so sorry, claire, we are really grateful for you being so open and honest about what happened. and it'sjust horrific and shocking and vile and it's one of the reasons why we want to open this up today and shine a light on it. we are very grateful. thank you, claire. when i held them in my arms as they died i promised both of them were that no other pa rent both of them were that no other parent would have to hold their children in their arms as they died knowing it is at the hands of the other parent. two more have died since. and how many more are going to die before action is taken to stop this happening again and again? we are going to talk to cafcass now and ask that very question. cafcass is the children and family court advisory and support service. it represents children in family court cases and says it puts children's needs, wishes and feelings first. making sure that children's voices are heard at the heart of the family court setting, and that decisions are made in their best interests". it's rare to hear directly from cafcass, but today we can talk to the assistant director and principal social worker, sarah parsons, in an exlcusive interview. thank you for talking to us. thank you for coming on the programme. let me put that question straight to you. how many more children have to die before something changes? first of all i want to express the absolute horror of that kind of experience. clearly one child, any child, any family to be put through the same situation is abhorrent to think it could occur again. it could happen again though, couldn't it? the last year the family court in england processed 44, 000 england processed 44,000 applications, so it's absolutely vital that every system, every person involved in the family court, every magistrate, every lawyer, every magistrate, every lawyer, every cafcass person, every social worker has available to them, for instance, the convictions that have applied to people making applications. despite having the information, contact order still being made —— contact orders are still being made. the number of people so far who have talked about the level of scrutiny and the serious effort it has taken to undertake police and local authority checks to identify risks, and every one of those 44,000 cases to the courts, they are able to take that into account. i hear what you are saying, sarah parsons, but when that is taken into account in some cases unsupervised contact is being granted. yes, and if i'm able to explain a bit further what would happen after the cheques we have received. i'm sorry to interrupt. could you address why that is happening. there are some occasions where after all of the scrutiny has taken place, a decision is taken on balance having the feelings of the child taken into account. do you think you've got the balance wrong? i don't agree with that. it's clearly im porta nt to i don't agree with that. it's clearly important to recognise we need to continually improve and i'm not wishing at all to say that everything is perfect, however i would like to make sure that there is an understanding for people watching the programme that a great deal of seriousness and scrutiny does take place in the family court and that decisions are not taken lightly stop that children are listened to. do you know why it is still happening and why access is being granted? i do know. in some cases, after all of the scrutiny, a decision is taken on balance that the loss of the contact with the person and it might have been some domestic abuse which has been taken seriously and looked at, but the loss of contact for that child might be seen to be not in their interests. so worse than the risk of being harmed by that parent with a known history of domestic abuse? the law requires the courts and cafcass, if there is a risk to the child and it is known about, to take that into account and any order made must be safe. i am so sorry, but it's not happening. the evidence is that clearly all of the accounts we have heard today need to be listened to and that is absolutely the case and we keep learning from those. absolutely, the systems keep improving and we keep trying to find new ways of addressing it. can i ask you this and it was something claire throssell mentioned, but how can it be that a cafcass officer who was afraid to be alone with a parent and yet unsupervised contact was allowed ? yet unsupervised contact was allowed? in the situation with these children, the serious case review, as you explained, set out what could have been done differently and where cafcass for below the standards expected, that needs to be acknowledged and it has been done. would you not investigate afterwards ? would you not investigate afterwards? obviously there is a serious case review done by the local authority, but would you not investigate? you are accepting m ista kes investigate? you are accepting mistakes have been made. in that case and others, yes, and the 44,000 other cases. there are many stories which end happily. of course, of course, but how do you investigate when something goes wrong? what do you do? we are subject to the same scrutiny, serious case reviews and an independent investigation takes place and cafcass conduct our own internal inquiries and the lessons are put into policy in terms of improvements in referrals to local authorities where we are aware that abuse has occurred. if i could just add, the thing that cafcass champions and welcomes in terms of the scrutiny on domestic abuse is that we want to understand children grow past experience of what has happened. sometimes they are dead so they cannot tell you. many of children, thousands talk to us about their experience of domestic abuse and we help them through through games, apps, listening to them, talking to them independently to understand how that is affecting them and how they are internalising living in fear in that way and how it feels like walking on egg shells. cafcass absolutely champions and brings that to the court's attention. and then the judge makes whatever decision they make. cafcass has a legal duty to undertake a risk assessment whenever they suspect a child is a current risk of harm. can you say with 100% certainty that this is happening in every case? yes. a risk assessment takes place in every application made to the court. so that is going ahead. if someone wants to complain about their cafcass officer, they have to make the complaint to the cafcass officer. should there now be an independent body or organisation or ombudsman who individuals can go directly to? the cafcass complaints system is independent in terms of the fact that independent managers scrutinise the cases. but they work for cafcass. so they are not independent. it is separate to any kind of line management and it is a separately managed service. but you couldn't really call them independent. one final question, would you welcome an independent public enquiry into the family court system ? public enquiry into the family court system? that would be a matter for government. what would your own review be? i welcome, government. what would your own review be? iwelcome, as i've already said, that the more awareness brought to domestic abuse and how children are harmed emotionally, notjust and how children are harmed emotionally, not just through physical incidents but through coercive control and walking on egg shells, absolutely i welcome more scrutiny on that because we need to strive continually to make sure things improve and that's what we've been talking about this morning. thank you very much for coming and talking to us, sarah parsons, assistant director of cafcass. as we revealed earlier on the programme, more than 120 mps are today calling for an independent inquiry into the family courts. in a letter to thejustice secretary they praise parents who have spoken out and say: what would an independent enquiry change? it would establish the scale of the problem. the representative of the problem. the representative of cafcass spoke about evidence but we don't have any evidence. you've done this amazing research announced today and women's aid have done in the past but it should not take an independent bbc investigation or charities to establish how the most vulnerable people in our society are being treated at the heart of our justice system. i have constituents coming to speak to me about their experience in the family courts and they are told by their solicitors they are told by their solicitors they won't represent them anymore because they went to see their for help. we are caught in the heart of a kafkaesque system and nobody represents their interests or helps them and they are being asked to jump them and they are being asked to jump through ridiculous hoops. their children are being sent to have unsupervised contact with dangerous men and no one is standing up for them or helping them. this could be them or helping them. this could be the absolute tip of the iceberg. we don't know the scale of the problem, so that is what the enquiry is designed to establish. you are a family lawyer, jenny. would you welcome an independent enquiry? absolutely. why? what would it do? the whole justice system is letting children and victims of abuse down at the moment. there is not the funding in place to put the scrutiny in place to make sure children stay protected through the system, or victims of abuse. what about cuts to legal aid? that's had a major effect. in what way? 80% of legal aid? that's had a major effect. in what way? 8096 of family legal aid has been cut. but if you can show domestic abuse, and you have to show hard evidence, criminal convictions, can you still get legal aid? no, not always because the means test is broken. it's completely outdated and needs a completely outdated and needs a complete review and it means that people, even those living on the breadline or below the breadline cannot get legal aid to get themselves and their family protected. we have heard from one case that did not qualify for legal aid on the individual in the case in legal costs has spent over £200,000 ina legal costs has spent over £200,000 in a private law family case. rachel williams, the book you have there has thousands and thousands of m essa g es has thousands and thousands of messages from people involved in the family court system who are saying it isa family court system who are saying it is a nightmare. it is, and some of the comments, i'm trying to look through them. i left an abusive ex—husband who regularly assaulted me and my two children up time and used cafcass as a tool to further haters. cafcass lied about what the children said about the abusive father and we were all treated as lawyers. another one, iwas father and we were all treated as lawyers. another one, i was forced to see my dad who was abusive and controlling and he did so much damage to my emotional health and i'm suffering nearly three decades later. this problem has been going on for years. this is nothing new. i was in an abusive relationship which took me a long time to leave. after leaving my ex partner to medical and i had leaving my ex partner to medical and ihad an leaving my ex partner to medical and i had an awful time with cafcass who told me i was influencing my son. my son told me he did not want to go to the contact, but he made out he had diarrhoea or made himself sick to avoid it. another lady contacted me to tell me that her eight—year—old child tried to open the door as a taxi was moving tojump child tried to open the door as a taxi was moving to jump out because she did not want to see her father. children have been bedwetting. another boy took a knife with himself to get his own dna. your petition is calling for what specifically? specifically to say that all those dealing with domestic abuse cases need to be domestically abuse cases need to be domestically abuse train. judges are supposed to have domestic abuse training and thatis have domestic abuse training and that is supposed to be updated every three years, but not necessarily. somejudges have had the three years, but not necessarily. some judges have had the latest guidance on the fact they are meant to have fact—finding hearing when a domestic abuse allegation is made. elizabeth, what changes would you like to see? with the family courts do you mean? well, one of the things they could do, and they will say the resources aren't there, but at the c100 stage they should be some sort of triage system where you can identify immediately where there is domestic abuse and start to filter out the 30% of people where there is no risk who do not need to come to court, and that would save the courts the resources, so they could spend the time doing what they need to do in terms of risk assessing where domestic abuse is an issue. what changes would you like to see, jess phillips? the presumption that if you are a domestic abuser that you have any right to see your child. quite a few of us have talked about the effect of domestic abuse on children. so the presumption should be changed, the presumption of no contact if there is a history of no contact if there is a history of domestic abuse. it doesn't just hurt your mum. if you think you are not harming your children by battering your wife or abusing your wife, then you are very, very blinkered. the fact of the matter is, if you look at the rising knife crime and even terrorism data, what you will see almost every background of every incident is somebody who grows up in a domestic abuse situation. we are damaging our children by not protecting them. all of the conversations about women making it up so they can get legal aid, ifi making it up so they can get legal aid, if i had a pound for every time aid, if i had a pound for every time a domestic violence victim said to me, he's not a bad dad, i know he's bad to me. women massively minimise the effect, do not overemphasise it. that is what i see in thousands of cases. i am so glad you have raised this says one programme. i cannot watch the programme as it is too painful as i get angry about the family court tore apart my family. i had three children with my abusive ex—husband and we have medical records to verify his violence. i cost —— i could not afford any more and my ex was still granted access and my ex was still granted access and my ex was still granted access and my youngest child would come home with bruises. it is good to see them exposed. kudos to you and your programme. so many choose —— atrocious rulings made in favour of the abuses and close courts. my ex partner strangle me and i had lots of evidence and there were convictions for racial attacks on past domestic violence. i got pregnant and got to a refuge after leaving with a close i was wearing. i was working as a nurse and forced to leave ourjob. he was awarded unsupervised contact by the judge. my unsupervised contact by the judge. my son has since disclosed that his father has been violent. thank you all very much. we will see what happens and see if anything changes and we will continue to report on this issue. we really appreciate your time this morning. thank you so much for coming on the programme today. bbc newsroom live is next. have a good day. we have lots of sunshine once again across the uk and some high—level cloud, cirrus cloud here and there but that's the scene in east sussex. not as windy down towards the south co “— not as windy down towards the south co —— so perhaps feeling warmer but temperatures temp —— tempered on the south of england. lots of blue skies elsewhere, some fair weather cloud across northern england and southern scotla nd across northern england and southern scotland and maximum temperatures will be higher than yesterday, 25 celsius in the north of scotland but temperatures generally around 19 or 21 degrees. we can see a bit of cloud moving north—east of scotland, the northern isles and one or two showers developing in scotland. overnight temperatures between five and 8 degrees and it will be a bright and sunny start for many of us but the cloud will gradually increase across parts of eastern england, the midlands, into the afternoon. temperatures not as high, between 16 or 19 degrees. you're watching bbc newsroom live — it's11am and these are the main stories this morning. itv axes thejeremy kyle show — following the death of a man who appeared on the programme. itv‘s chief executive said the broadcaster has decided to cancel production of the programme permanently — ‘given the gravity of recent events‘. the government announces another vote on the prime minister's brexit plan in earlyjune — but there's no sign of a breakthrough in cross—party talks. a bbc investigation finds four children have been killed by a parent with a history of violence in the last five years — after being granted access by a family court. i was completely naive about the family courts. i assumed that they would see. to enable a violent man to have a relationship with the children, contact needed to be supervised.

Related Keywords

East Sussex , United Kingdom , Northern England , Northumberland , Scotland , Jess Phillips , Elizabeth Coe , Emma Ailes , Lucy Hadley , Sarah Parsons , Rachel Williams ,