Dear Scottish Government,
Per FOISA please supply information contained in your records as follows:
The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee published its Stage 1 Report on the Children (Scotland) Bill on May 1st, 2020, whereby it is stated:
“The Scottish Government consulted on the inclusion of a specific factor relating to parental alienation but ultimately decided against it. Scottish Government officials told the Committee that the term parental alienation is ‘much disputed’ and therefore the Government concluded that it would not be appropriate to include it in the Bill.”
Therefore, there was a “specific factor” used in the Consultation document Review of Part 1 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and creation of a Family Justice Modernisation Strategy A Consultation the section Turning a child against a parent starting on page 64 the list of PA behaviours is quite accurate and you do use a specific factor (of sorts) in the consultation question namely:
Question 28): Should the Scottish Government take action to try and stop
children being put under pressure by one parent to reject the other parent?
Please advise what was the specific factor relating to parental alienation that was considered not appropriate to include the recognition of parental alienation in the Children Scotland Bill?
Ms S J Kerr
Scottish Government Response i.e. don’t actually answer the question.
Internal Review to Scottish Government by requester Ms S J Kerr
Dear Scottish Government,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Scottish Government’s handling of my FOI request ‘Specific factor relating to Parental Alienation’.
I am dissatisfied with this response, as I submitted a public petition to the Scottish Parliament in January 2019. This was ignored until the consultations and stage 1 of the Children Scotland Bill was passed. My petition went live too late in January 2020.
Given that the charity Families Need Families (now known as Shared Parenting Scotland) were “key stakeholder” recipients of the letter ‘Review of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)’ dated 17 June 2017 then the Scottish Government must be aware of the online article ‘Scottish blind spot-on Parental Alienation’ by Ian Maxwell dated May 5, 2020.
Similarly the Scottish Government must know that the term Parental Alienation is not “much disputed”, it is a known phenomenon and has been legislated against in some countries.
The Scottish Government must know that on 25 May 2019 the Code QE.52 was been recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in the ICD-11, the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision, with ICD-11 coming into effect on Jan. 1, 2022. Code QE.52 covers a Caregiver-Child Relationship Problem.
The Scottish Government must know that children are not informed of a prosecution case judgement against a parent and are therefore completely ignorant of the parental alienation processes that are occurring by the other parent (and/or other family members) by filing false reports in an effort to distance the child/children from the alienated parent. The Scottish Government must know that the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service (SCTS) have no statutory responsibility to pass criminal case judgements to children and similarly there appears to be no statutory responsibility on social workers to inform children who have been alienated from a parent on the processes that have been used, even when that local authority knows that false information is held on a parent on there own systems (sourced from Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) and/or Inter-Agency Referral Discussions (IRDs)).
The Scottish Government should reasonably know that Parental Alienation occurs at Relationships Scotland child contact centres that are funded by the Scottish Government and information in the public domain indicates that this is facilitated by Citizen’s Advice Bureau staff.
The Scottish Government should reasonably know that social workers recommend the termination of child contact arrangements at child contact centres and record this on the social work system i.e. parental alienation is enacted through CoSLA organisations.
The Scottish Government should also reasonably know that at present there is nothing to stop a Family Law solicitor from representing their client at a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC), filing false police reports at that MARAC, those false police reports being recorded on the interim Vulnerable Persons Database (iVPD), those false police reports being passed from the iVPD to the Children & Families social work system, those false police reports not being checked by social workers (or just “rubber stamped”) and then that same Family Law solicitor representing the alienating parent in Family Court proceedings and acting as a Child Welfare Reporter (CWR) and passing the same false information to an alienated child. In short the voice of an alienated child cannot be heard by a Family Court because the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 does not give statutory obligations to the public sector to give that child/children the truth on how they have been alienated from a parent.
The Scottish Government must therefore know that Parental Alienation is not “much disputed” as was reported to the Justice Committee. This appears to be yet another example of how the Scottish Government are releasing misinformation.
Please confirm whether the “single factor” that was NOT used by the Scottish Government was the overarching term “Parental Alienation” or whether it was the overarching term “Caregiver-Child Relationship Problem” (that will be part of ICD-11 in the future).
As parental (and familial) alienation is NOT recognised it therefore cannot be considered in the CWR consultation, although I have a Police Scotland recording of a call handler admitting it exists, there is also an FOI disclosure from Police Scotland stating they do not recognise the term Parental Alienation.
Also, the reason for my dissatisfaction regarding your response is that you did not disclose the answer to a very simple request, one had to question the reason why?
Thank you in anticipation of your response within the statutory timescale.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s…
Ms S J Kerr
Response to the Internal Review from Scottish Government: Refer to the original response.
Appeal filed with OSIC:
I did not expect them to have recorded information regarding the “specific factor relating to parental alienation but ultimately decided against it. Scottish Government officials told the Committee that the term parental alienation is ‘much disputed’ and therefore the Government concluded that it would not be appropriate to include it in the Bill.”
That was the point of the appeal to obtain a legal decision proving that there was no specific factor relating to parental alienation and that although the Government officials told the committee that the term was much disputed.
Therefore, on that basis that there was a non-existent specific factor they were relying on to ensure parental alienation was not included in the new Children Scotland Bill.
This was not an appeal I expected to or wanted the Commissioner to award in my favour, it’s not about winning or losing it’s about getting veracity in a legally binding decision against a deliberately misleading statement to the public to conceal the non-inclusion of parental alienation within the Children Scotland Bill.
One specific factor they could have used is that the semantics of the naming convention of the phenomenon parental alienation is vague and that coercive control is a better suited naming convention, however the Scottish Government officials clearly did not want to draw attention to the term ‘coercive control’ as this highly used method of the social science theories of compliance with the government narrative, and as this was circa COVID lockdown era:
I will allow the reader to make an informed judgement on Scottish Government officials and the term coercive control or indeed the latest buzz word indoctrination.
After submitting my responses to the submissions made by the Scottish Government to the Commissioner’s office, which became exceptionally intense as the officials attempted to claim the statement actually inferred something completely different to what a reasonable person would interpret it to mean.
Ms S Kerr
Public authority: The Scottish Ministers
Case Ref: 202100377
Interpretation of the request
As outlined above, the Applicant submitted that her request should be interpreted as her seeking the “specific factor” relating to “parental alienation” that the Ministers had considered when deciding that it was not appropriate to include the recognition of “parental alienation” in the Bill.
The Ministers submitted that they had interpreted the Applicant’s request as her asking about the statutory checklist of factors in the Bill*, rather than a “factor” within the definition of “parental alienation” and, on that basis, had directed the Applicant to section 16 of the 2020 Act, where the checklist could be found.
The Commissioner accepts that the request, as worded by the Applicant, is open to
interpretation and was not fully clarified until during his investigation. During the
investigation, however, as outlined above, the Ministers fully considered each interpretation of the request and provided submissions to the Commissioner. He will consider both interpretations below.
If I had of wanted data about the statutory checklist of factors in the bill, then clearly in terms of K I S S keep it simple stupid, I would have ‘specifically’ asked for the statutory checklist of factors in the bill, so as not to confuse these government officials over what was a simple request.Samantha Kerr
While the Ministers acknowledged that in responding to the Applicant, they had not interpreted the request in the terms explained and clarified by the Applicant during the investigation:
They also considered the Applicant’s interpretation of the request afresh.
A reminder of the original request, based on the statement made by the Scottish Government Officials to the Committee:
Please advise what was the specific factor relating to parental alienation that was considered not appropriate to include the recognition of parental alienation in the Children Scotland Bill?samantha kerr
The Ministers confirmed that they did not hold information as to any “specific factor” within the terms “parental alienation”.
It did not believe the term could be broken down into specific factors.
The Scottish Information Commissioner had to uphold the decision in favour of The Scottish Ministers – They did not hold the information requested that they had used when they told the committee it was considered not appropriate to include parental alienation in the new Children Scotland Bill.
So why did the Scottish Government officials advise the committee that there was a specific factor relating to parental alienation that was considered not appropriate to include the recognition of parental alienation in the Children Scotland Bill?samantha kerr
I will leave the question to the reader to come to their own conclusions, I certainty have mine which if you investigate this thoroughly it is perfectly clear to a reasonable and articulate person, lest I be contacted by the new Scottish State Thought Police and charged with some kind of ‘hate crime’ for not adhering to the political narrative of nonsense.
The decision and the arguments laid out between myself, and the Ministers speak for themselves, and although I proved my case in a point of law being a legal decision from OSIC, that does not negate the effect of Parental Alienation and/or Coercive Control of Children when you and your family unit have been destroyed by this phenomenon and the very officials that purport to safeguard our children and our rights and liberties are the very ones, who aide, fund and wilfully allow this to continue unchallenged by their multi agency complicit consanguinity, as perhaps this is the real political agenda here, the decimation of the family unit and a generation of psychologically damaged children?
It was never going to be a sweet win, that was never the intention.