Justice For Families

So its been set up so mk's can get their expenses and maybe legal fees can be paid if challenging the government ?

A corporate entity is needed if we are going to look for ways in which to develop the service. It also gives limited liability for people who offer advice through JFF as well as giving limited liability for cases such as the Jersey case.

how much do you want individuals to put in. An ideal amount!

The objective is to have a legal entity for JFF. Hence generally only one share will be available at a price of £1.

how do you do this then? Where do you register and pay.

This is one of the things that is being sorted out. Emily WG is going to administer it.

When my wife left me apart from being devastated, I found that there was nowhere to turn to, unless of course I had money...
that was the reason behind cgfap, to assist people that had nowhere else to turn.
I had a friend who is a life coach, she charges £1 a minute for the benefit of her advice, basically she gives out near enough the same information that we give out.
because she charges for this advice, she has to have her liability insurance, as if a person decides that the information that they have been given is incorrect and decides to take court action then she is fully covered..
So is this what JFF ltd is about, are you intending to build a company full of life coaches.
Will you eventually be charging individuals for the time that you are giving them? which will then put you onto the same status as life coaches and ultimately solicitors, will you attempt to gain legal aid for individuals to assist with your costs?
I am not criticising the idea but I am wondering where you are going with it.
The point of these individual groups is to assist people in trouble, to attempt to change the family courts and the way that people are treated, not just another business venture to make money out of their misery...

It is just a way of having what someone might consider a proper entirety, in an aim to further the organisation.

Potentially a MF is at risk of being sued or face a host of other problems especially from LA’s, Liability insurance is a good idea but you can’t offer protection to a group of ‘nobodies’ under your policy, unless they work under a umbrella / organisation that you own, hence they buy a share & they are covered.

Like John said it will cover costs for court actions too, to some extent.

okay I understand what you are saying, but at the same time you are taking the McKenzie thing to a whole new level...
the original intention for a McK was to offer someone support should they not have the means to have legal representation.
therefore going LIP...
by turning it into a limited company, you are turning the role of McK into a profession and we will be in danger of losing that status and having all MK friends removed from all cases across the entire family court spectrum...
it is NOT a right to have a MK in court it is still a privilege, it is at the judges discretion and IF the opposing team do not object.
there is no way can an MK be sued by the LA, they are only there in a supporting capacity to the LIP...
They do not enter into it contractually they can walk away at any time, just the same as a judge can throw an MK out of the court at any time during the proceedings.
you refer to this as an organisation, have you changed your initial policies where you are committing yourself to helping people having problems with social services.

John-from-cgfap wrote:okay I understand what you are saying, but at the same time you are taking the McKenzie thing to a whole new level...
the original intention for a McK was to offer someone support should they not have the means to have legal representation.
therefore going LIP...
by turning it into a limited company, you are turning the role of McK into a profession and we will be in danger of losing that status and having all MK friends removed from all cases across the entire family court spectrum...
it is NOT a right to have a MK in court it is still a privilege, it is at the judges discretion and IF the opposing team do not object.
there is no way can an MK be sued by the LA, they are only there in a supporting capacity to the LIP...
They do not enter into it contractually they can walk away at any time, just the same as a judge can throw an MK out of the court at any time during the proceedings.
you refer to this as an organisation, have you changed your initial policies where you are committing yourself to helping people having problems with social services.

John said earlier:

"It will cover court It also gives limited liability for people who offer advice through JFF as well as giving limited liability for cases such as the Jersey case."

I don't think it changes much at all, it just gives a level of protection to MF, not that it changes their status or anything & also it enables JFF to be more effective, in helping people who are involved with the SS, I don't think John would start charging for advice or turning it into a business venture.

I think it's a really good idea.

Obviously John knows the in's & out's better, I'm just commenting on what I've seen him post on the forums.

CGFAP John,

It is an LIP's right to have a MF with them in court.
If a judge refuses, then the LIP can then appeal.
Having an MF refused by a judge is very rare because this then brings the LIP straight into an appeal situation.
All parties do not have to agree to the MF being there. It's the judges decision and the LIP's right.

Thanks for the response Andrew,
with over 400,000 cases a year going through the family courts I am just concerned that the role of the MK friend will be outlawed, which will leave a lot of parents helpless...

John-from-cgfap wrote:Thanks for the response Andrew,
with over 400,000 cases a year going through the family courts I am just concerned that the role of the MK friend will be outlawed, which will leave a lot of parents helpless...

No problem

I see where your coming from & your concerns, I wouldn’t envisage it would cause any problem though.

With all due respect Fassitangel
"It's the judges decision and the Lip's right."
it cant be a right, if it is the judges decision...
the judge over rules everything and if he has good reason for not allowing an MK friend in the Court with the LIP then all the appealing in the world wont get you anywhere.
However I am no expert in this field and would welcome a link that shows that the LIP has the right...
I do know there is an entitlement...

This I believe is the latest info:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/ ... 140408.pdf