Thursday 15 December 2011
You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > Education > Education
Session 2010-12
The Child Protection System in England
Written evidence Submitted by John Hemming MP , Justice for Families
1. I founded the Justice for Families campaign in 2006 in a response to the number of people contacting me with problems which arose from care proceedings in England. Justice for Families assists people facing problems with the care system by offering advice on taking cases though the domestic courts and to the European Court of Human Rights. Justice for Families currently has over a thousand cases. These are my personal views.
2. England’s child protection system is in crisis. Perhaps the most obvious symptom of this is in the large numbers of vacancies in the profession and the anecdotal reports of burnout amongst practitioners. At the same time families have left the country to get away from the system and increasing numbers of children are dying from suspected child abuse and neglect. Ofsted’s records of serious childcare incident notifications went up from 47 baby deaths in 2008 to 75 baby deaths in 2009. This was accompanied by a substantial increase in the numbers of children being taken into care.
3. The problem is that the system takes the wrong children into care. Inherently the quality of practice will vary. Some practitioners may be very cautious before taking a child into care – particularly given the outcomes for children in care. Others may take a more gung ho approach. If, however, the care system gets overloaded with children resource constraints will inevitably have an effect. The costs are also an issue. Similar sums could provide a lot more support.
4. Haringey, like many authorities, had a target for the number of children in care which was kept for budgetary purposes. The target for March 2007 was 365 and for March 2008 352. In part the objective of reducing numbers in care is laudable as well of that of trying to reduce the weekly costs which have run at higher than £800 per child per week. On 3rd October 2006 it was noted that the deficit forecast for Haringey Local Council was £4.6 million which included a forecast overspend for Childrens Services of £2.3m – including a figure of £500K for Looked After Children. The Executive Member for Finance said "I will be working closely with the services concerned and I will be looking to them to identify ways to bring the budget back on target". It was recognised at that time that the placements budget was running at 381 children and was very tight. The figure then crept up to 392 by November 2006.
5. By March 31st 2007 the financial situation had improved although there had still been an overspend of £500K on legal fees. The numbers of children in care had reduced and a new target was set of 352. In March at the end of the 2007-8 financial year, however, the numbers of children in care had increased back up to 373 (21 more than budget). It appears that controls on the number of care proceedings were tightened up in November 2006 with the 12 month rolling number from November 2006 going below 40 for the first time they were released in August 2007 and the number then went back up above 50 (where historically it has been in recent years) in September 2007.
6. From this can be seen how the care system can be influenced by budgetary constraints. At a senior management level the details of cases are not considered. Managers are instructed to get certain numbers to change. Whilst BV163 was in operation managers were instructed to increase the numbers of children adopted. This was a pressure from central government that occurred not taking into consideration what effect this had on children and families. Managerial success was determined on the basis of the numbers rather than how well children had been cared for.
7. The child protection system in England is particularly obsessed with adoption. What is worse is that not only was the system driven by financial targets for increasing the number of adoptions, but also that it was driven by a mathematical error in the calculations as to what proportion of children were adopted.
8. There are many reports that show the error made by the government, but a good example is Alan Rushton’s paper "Outcomes of adoption from public care: research and practice issues" published in Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2007) 13: 305-311. In this paper he says "Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all looked after children in England (Department for Education and Skills, 2005) and so remains a relatively uncommon solution to the needs of these young people."
9. The mathematical error made by the department is that they are comparing the number of children adopted (3,800 in 2004-5) to the number of children in care (about 63,000) rather than the number that came into care in that year (7,700). Of the 7,700 taken into care in 2005 1,700 were aged over 10. Those children are normally taken into care because their parents cannot cope. Hence of the 6,000 that could potentially be adopted some 3,800 are actually adopted. That is more like 60% than 6%.
10. Unsurprisingly a large number of these adoptions break down. Research by people such as Alan Rushton finds disrupted adoptions run at around 20-25%. These fail often because the children that are adopted exhibit very difficult behaviour. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that many adoptive parents are not given full understanding of the child's background and behavioural difficulties before the adoption is completed. There also seems to be a perception among some adoptive parents that once they are abandoned by both CAMHS and the LA being left to cope alone with these behaviours.
11. What is particularly sad is that a large proportion of the children who are adopted are removed at a very early age from their birth family. Research by Professor Michael Rutter points to the key months for a baby being 6 to 18 months. In 2004-5 1,770 babies were taken into care before this period.
12. The evidence in terms of attachment disorders and particularly reactive attachment disorders, therefore, for these children is that this is caused by the way they are treated whilst in care. Professor Rutter’s research demonstrates that the children can recover from difficulties from a lack of love and attention in the first 6 months of life, but not so readily from that in the following 12 months.
13. Reactive Attachment disorder is often misdiagnosed as autism. Children who have this problem have difficult behavior that the authorities provide little support for and then when the children get old enough their behavior is so difficult that their adoptive parents cannot cope and they go back into care.
14. A figure of 20% of adoptions failing would give some 800 children every year who are coming back into care. What I find particularly dreadful is that a number of those are children whose problems are caused by their treatment in care.
15. At the same time we have children removed at birth for inadequate causes. It is obvious from the figures as to increasing numbers of deaths (sent to Ofsted) that the crystal ball used by practitioners to predict the future (such as likely emotional abuse) is not spotting the children at risk of dying as a result of abuse.
16. Before going into the issue of potential changes I will look specifically at the issues raised by the committee.
Whether the child protection system allows for effective identification of, and early help to, children at risk of different forms of abuse and exploitation (including, but not restricted to: neglect, sexual and physical abuse, domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child trafficking and online exploitation);
17. The current system has low thresholds that allow a very large number of interventions. The interventions that actually happen, therefore, tend to be driven in part by a mixture of budgetary limits and chance.
18. The phrases "neglect" and "physical abuse" are far too vague. One constituency case I have relates to a debate as to whether or not a child has been smacked. The damage that has been done to the family as a result of the intervention goes much further than any potential harm to the child.
19. If low thresholds are allowed for intervention then this places a strain on the system and does not allow a proper triage system to operate.
20. "Emotional abuse" is far too much of catch all category. Children suffer some psychological trauma from being taken into care. Hence before a child should be taken into care for "emotional abuse" there has to be a very high threshold. It would be useful to have a longditudinal study of cases of children removed from families for emotional abuse to identify if this benefits the child.
Factors affecting the quality of decision-making in referral and assessment, and variations across the country;
21. There are far too few guidelines for decision-making. This gives rise to a wide variation in thresholds. One mother who has had over 9 children removed by one authority has recently been allowed to go home and look after her child by a different authority.
Appropriate thresholds for intervention, including arguments for and against removing children from their families;
22. This is a matter that requires detailed work as referred to above and formal guidance from the government.
Whether the child protection policies and practices of non-social work agencies and Government departments assist professionals to work together in the interests of the child.
23. There are far too many compulsory referrals which means that the childrens services departments have to do a lot of triage work. There needs to be clear guidance as to when intervention is warranted and this should guide both social work agencies and non-social work agencies.
Solutions
Firstly, there need to be some general principles
Design a system for real people
24. We need to move away from an approach that looks for scapegoats and aims to punish people for making errors. Child protection is a complex environment where subtle judgments need to be made. Too much pressure on the individual making the judgments results in a number of unacceptable outcomes. Firstly, people decide they do not want to do the job – hence lots of vacancies. Secondly, defensive decision-making occurs and finally there is a tendency to try to cover up mistakes rather than learn from them.
25. Care should add value to the child’s life and the parents are actually often the best people to monitor that even if they are not directly responsible for the care of the child.
26. The system should aim to be minimally intrusive with supervised parenting as a priority rather than to be avoided.
Have checks and balances that actually work
27. The system has many so called checks and balances. However, because of the pressures there is a tendency not to correct early mistakes. This creates a culture in which once a decision has been taken an overwhelming effort goes into implementing the decision and too little thought goes into reviewing whether the original decision was right. At the same time it is important that if a decision is changed that no effort goes into punishing the person or people who made the original "wrong" decision. What is needed is that people learn from the process rather than feel they must justify their original decision at all costs.
Operate on an evidenced basis with guidelines
28. There are no real guidelines or law as to what warrants intervention, when parenting is "good enough" or how people fail or pass assessments. This results in an overly wide individual interpretation which is only marginally evidence based. The large numbers of disrupted adoptions show that the main policy underpinning the English system is failing for large numbers of children every year.
Don’t have too much bureaucracy and targets
29. Numerical targets for subtle issues of judgment don’t help. Even having a simplistic target for a timescale within which to do an assessment really doesn’t help. The systems used for recording information should be driven by the job rather than performance indicators. Targets have done substantial damage to judgment.
Given the general principles there need to be specific changes.
Move away from a legally dominated system and strengthen the case conference
30. The case conference should be the key location in which decisions are taken. This should not require lawyers although parties may have advocates in meetings. The objective of the case conference should be to look inquisitorially for the best way forward for the children and the families with a view towards what potential solutions exist on a co-operative basis.
31. The practitioners of various disciplines should be allowed to cast a secret ballot as to the conclusion. There may be a merit in bringing in a small number of independent individuals as jurors to balance out the process. This could include members of the extended family. Furthermore proceedings should be video recorded and a copy kept.
32. The case conference, however, has to operate in a truly independent manner with a chair who is not financially dependent upon the local authority. It can also be used to control contact arrangements.
Independent has to mean truly independent
33. One problem area is that many individuals are described as being independent when they are in practice not independent. An expert appointed jointly by the parties depends upon all of the parties. The refusal of second opinions means that it is the decision as to which expert is appointed that generally the determinant of the outcome of the case. Contentious issues such as SBS are ones where specific experts are known to have specifi c views.
34. Social Workers regularly "advocate for the child" in lobbying experts as to what they expect the conclusion to be from a particular report. It would not be surprising if a local authority were to oppose the appointment of an expert with whom they had previously had difficulties. Hence experts have to keep the local authority sweet.
Have a merits review case conference
35. There needs to be one or two tiers of independent reviewing of the decisions of the case conference. This needs to occur outside the management of the local authority responsible for the original case conference.
36. The problem with the judicial processes is that they have substantial costs which do not exist and are not accessible for people without advice.
Scrap the adoption panels
37. It is unclear what added value arises from the adoption panels. Some evidence is needed as to whether they improve decision-making. Such a large proportion of adoptions are disrupted that it is clear that decision-making goes badly wrong. Adoption panels are made up of lay people who are presented with large quantities of often complex paperwork at a late stage. They normally rely on the social worker who wrote it to guide them through the report and although searching questions are asked this brings into question the true independence of the panel. Further the chair is usually an employee of the LAs children's department.
Scrap targets and improve case handling.
38. If the performance indicators are scrapped then some of the problems with the ICS are resolved. Record keeping needs to facilitate the process whereby matters are taken to the case conference and through merits reviews. It is important that the recording process identifies allegations that are agreed by parties to the case and also those that are contested. Too many cases are based upon shifting sands and shifting arguments.
Have longitudinal research and feedback
39. The current system has a database called SSDA903 that could be used for more effective research. However the previous government refused to research the numbers of adoptions that were disrupted. Independent audit of a small number of cases on a longitudinal basis is needed for feedback as to changes in practice.
40. There are quite a few cases where children continually run away from foster care to get back to their parents. Detailed review of these is needed to understand whether the actions taken by the state are really any benefit to the children.
Have better categorization of cases for budgetary purposes
41. There will always be budgetary problems. In the current climate questions should be asked as to whether cases based upon "emotional abuse" warrant intervention. However, there needs to be a finer analysis of cases so that when budgetary decisions are made there is some understanding as to their impact.
Facilitate independent scrutiny
42. There needs to be more independent accountability as to what is happening in care cases. Judges should not have control over what is released in respect of the cases that they handle. This should be handled by the information commissioner’s office. Material that does not identify any human parties should be assumed to be to general publication with the permission of a party as long as the parties are kept anonymous. The process should require parties to tell other parties that which they wish to publish and to copy this to the information commissioner. After two weeks they should have deemed consent.
Replace "risk of significant harm" with Article 8.
43. The question as to when intervention is handled is better phrased in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights than Section 31. Article 8 builds in a balancing act that is not built into Section 31 of the 1989 Act.
Review the merits of forced adoption
44. The existence of forced adoption as an option creates a major tension between parents and practitioners. Those countries with forced adoption also have higher levels of deaths from child abuse and neglect. Removing the option of forced adoption could align the interests of parents and practitioners and in doing so improve the outcomes for children.
Use standard of proof between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Many practitioners use the "real possibility" standard of proof which is basically to try to disprove an allegation and if you fail to disprove the allegation then it is considered proven. This is a disastrous approach as it results in many matters being accepted as fact for which there is no evidence. Training needs to be given to stop this from happening.
Don’t increase the levels of qualifications
46. There is no evidence that requiring degree level qualifications in social work has improved the situation more important than qualifications are life skill gained over a number of years bringing to the practitioner a rooted common sense approach which is lacking in the current system. What may improve the postion is extra on the job training before becoming fully qualified. There has been a deficit of suitable places available to degree students over the last few years and if the degree is going to continue as a necessity, then this needs to be addressed.
Don’t reorganize the departments
47. The initial Laming reform that completely reorganized social services has probably been counter productive, but reversing those reforms is probably not warranted.
Review specifically how to handle Domestic Violence issues
48. There needs to be a detailed review into how child protection issues are managed within situations which involve domestic violence.
Reading Parents their rights
49. Currently in care proceedings there is no vehicle for ensuring that parents are aware of their rights regarding the law and child protection. Nor are parents aware that when they have an argument with their spouse, then that constitutes "emotional harm" and can result in their child being adopted.
October 2011
©Parliamentary copyright
Prepared 15th November 2011
Footer links
A-Z index
Glossary
Contact us
Freedom of Information
Jobs
Using this website
Copyright
Thursday 1 December 2011
what makes a social worker lie and lie and lie and .......
what is it in the psyche of a social worker that makes them want to lie in the fashion they do? i ask is it a power thing? is it holding the lives of youngsters and their futures with their familys in the palm of their hands that they get off on or they simply pure evil, with a licence to destruct?
lets look at one particular social worker, i will call her angela snowbum. When Ms Snowbum took her degree in social work i bet you she thought she was going to do good for the community. I bet you she was a little different to the other students, not getting drunk, never considering drugs, never having sex unprotected or on a exciting 1 nighter! no you see these poeple are not normal types, they are persons with deepseated emotional problems, they feel a need to protect children from monsters and in my opinion from the types i have met the monsters are actually inside their own heads, it is they that are the monsters. My other opinion is a percentage of these CYPS officers is that they may have at one time in their lives been abused themselves. the third opinion is simply a person craving power and they will get it no matter what route that takes, these are the pure evil types the childsnatchers.
lets look at one particular social worker, i will call her angela snowbum. When Ms Snowbum took her degree in social work i bet you she thought she was going to do good for the community. I bet you she was a little different to the other students, not getting drunk, never considering drugs, never having sex unprotected or on a exciting 1 nighter! no you see these poeple are not normal types, they are persons with deepseated emotional problems, they feel a need to protect children from monsters and in my opinion from the types i have met the monsters are actually inside their own heads, it is they that are the monsters. My other opinion is a percentage of these CYPS officers is that they may have at one time in their lives been abused themselves. the third opinion is simply a person craving power and they will get it no matter what route that takes, these are the pure evil types the childsnatchers.
Sunday 28 August 2011
the war goes on
well we have complied with everything they want, we are simply waiting now for there confirmation that this is going no further so that we may concentrate on getting our lad back home. I have since my last blog here been arrested 5 times, all leading to nothing, strange this isnt it after our official complaint to police about a certain sergent making a false referral to social services. it is all coming out now, civil claim on its way soon i am sure.
i will update this blog in about a week, at the moment i am purpously being quiet so as to not upset someone whom is very important to the future we have.
i will update this blog in about a week, at the moment i am purpously being quiet so as to not upset someone whom is very important to the future we have.
Wednesday 15 June 2011
The CARE PLAN
so we recieve the care plan. Unbelieveably it states my wife must refer to womens aid, and we must both attend domestic violence units for courses. That I should seek a psychological assessment from my G.P, that i must attend a calm course and complete my probation sentence (too late they have already breached me!!).
The fact we are both saying there is no incident of domestic violence seems to go over these idiots heads.
The fact the evididence put in the report to conference was false means nothing these poeple, for example when we pointed out i do not actually suffer from bipolar and never have, they simply replied " THAT IS YOUR OPINION"
it is impossible to work with these poeple, they are hellbent on taking our children, we will not let that happen. The fight is on
The fact we are both saying there is no incident of domestic violence seems to go over these idiots heads.
The fact the evididence put in the report to conference was false means nothing these poeple, for example when we pointed out i do not actually suffer from bipolar and never have, they simply replied " THAT IS YOUR OPINION"
it is impossible to work with these poeple, they are hellbent on taking our children, we will not let that happen. The fight is on
Scumcial workers now taking us to court for our 3 and 5 year old
after a malicious referral from our landlord Mr Terry Buckingham Rampton, through his 'freind' sergent Chriss Huss, stating shouting could be heard from our house and a little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont push mummy over" social services attended our home, initally they stated the above but after a couple of weeks the wording of the referral changed to "shouting that resembled domestic violence could be heard from the house on the 19th May 2011. A little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont hit mummy again"
firslty we were not in the house on the 19th May 2011 we were away. Secondly the landlord lives 1 mile away so even if he had heard what he allegges he would have to have supersonic hearing. Whenour children were seen by social services we made it abundantly clear that this would only be able to take place if they only veiwed the children, did not speak to them other than niceites and not assessing, and that they did not veiw the children without an apropriate adult (grandfather) with them at all times.
The grandfather took the younger child to the toilet for a matter of 90 seconds, at the most, In that time social services state our daughter simply turned around and made statements that mummy and daddy argue millions and that daddy pushed mummy over. Our 5 year old daughter vehemently denies this, she says the social worker is lying and in fact she was asked is there anything at home you would like to change and her answer was yes, "i would like to have an elephant". However the social workers are adamant they assessed her under section 47 investigation in a total of 90 seconds. They are confirmed by the grandfather as not saying anything to the children other than hello and goodbye and asking them general questions about what their favorite toy is. On their way out of the house they told the grandfather there were no concerns and the children were obviously very happy and contenct children.
We are aware the landlord did this because he boasted of it to us in a phone call " ha ha ha your goping to lose your kids, thatll teach you to rip me off, its who you know not what you know", he then went on to make threats against me and my wife that in the end we had to inform the police who are investigating. I later called Sergent Chriss Huss at Hinckley police station who admitted the landlord and herself had passed the information to social services. ((this is the same officer who sat at the back of the court with the landlord for 8 hours in a trial where the landlord accused me of breaking his sink,.(criminal Damage) i was found not guilty) only 4 weeks previously))
Do social services takle any of this information into account ? NO
so there is a core assessment meeting, did we recieve the report to that meeting> NO
did we recieve the minutes from that meeting? NO
a child protection conference conference is then called. We arrive on time but the conference room is not ready, we sit and wait and at 2 minutes to 11 (11 o'clock being the starting time of the conference) Linzi English (head of the child protection unit) throws a conference report to each of us. With 2 minutes before the start of the conference we were certainly not prepared to consider the report at that time.
Therefore we passed them back and refused to read them, Liar Linzi then said the report had been posted on wedneasday before hand, this was a blatant lie. I called her a liar, she took offence to this and an argument ensued, no witnesses were in the room, we actually walked out of the room to find the chair Sara Bosun Hayes, however Liar Linzi had asked the police to attend and they were sat in the foyer, SET UP!! we walked toward them and liar linai started histrionics demanding we leave the building. To be fair the police were unhappy and did try to negotiate with her for 15 minutes to allow us to attend but she refused as did the chairwoman. The conference took place without us.
No 1 person attending the conference was there to defend any of the information provided to the conference by the Liar.
Therefore she had free reign to make whatever allegations she wanted. Frightening the life out of the attendees at the meeting, school teachers, school health workers, council housing officers, invironmental health officer, and many other poeple. Some of these poeples attendances was dubious, Jo Wykes of Hinckley Council is a housing officer who made a referral against me in 2010 because she didnt like the "way he spoke to me on the phone". However they all had a part in the decision to place our children on a child protection plan.
It was some time later we recieved the report the conference recieved and the evidence relied upon.
Did we recieve the minutes of the conference? NO
The report itself was frighteningly misleading and full of inacuracies. The watered down version is the following.
Nigel suffers from Bipolar Disorder .. NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel suffers Tourettes Syndrome .... NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel has been diagnosed with explosive personality disorder ... NO I HAVE NOT
Nigel has many convictions for assaults against council officers, police officers, court officials and social workers............. I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONVICTION NAMED ABOVE
There is further inacuracies, that amount to a false and malicious character assessment.
when you consider the above and then align it with a apparent referral for what is alleged to domestic violence, from a man with tourettes, bipolar and explosive personaltiy disorder, Is it surprising the attendees at the conference were sufficiently concerned to support the child protection plan.
The problem is by taking away our right to defend and question these allegations in the conference the children now face care proceedings due to our refusal to co-operate with the care plan.
Why on earth would anyone co-operate with a plan that was made upon false information.
firslty we were not in the house on the 19th May 2011 we were away. Secondly the landlord lives 1 mile away so even if he had heard what he allegges he would have to have supersonic hearing. Whenour children were seen by social services we made it abundantly clear that this would only be able to take place if they only veiwed the children, did not speak to them other than niceites and not assessing, and that they did not veiw the children without an apropriate adult (grandfather) with them at all times.
The grandfather took the younger child to the toilet for a matter of 90 seconds, at the most, In that time social services state our daughter simply turned around and made statements that mummy and daddy argue millions and that daddy pushed mummy over. Our 5 year old daughter vehemently denies this, she says the social worker is lying and in fact she was asked is there anything at home you would like to change and her answer was yes, "i would like to have an elephant". However the social workers are adamant they assessed her under section 47 investigation in a total of 90 seconds. They are confirmed by the grandfather as not saying anything to the children other than hello and goodbye and asking them general questions about what their favorite toy is. On their way out of the house they told the grandfather there were no concerns and the children were obviously very happy and contenct children.
We are aware the landlord did this because he boasted of it to us in a phone call " ha ha ha your goping to lose your kids, thatll teach you to rip me off, its who you know not what you know", he then went on to make threats against me and my wife that in the end we had to inform the police who are investigating. I later called Sergent Chriss Huss at Hinckley police station who admitted the landlord and herself had passed the information to social services. ((this is the same officer who sat at the back of the court with the landlord for 8 hours in a trial where the landlord accused me of breaking his sink,.(criminal Damage) i was found not guilty) only 4 weeks previously))
Do social services takle any of this information into account ? NO
so there is a core assessment meeting, did we recieve the report to that meeting> NO
did we recieve the minutes from that meeting? NO
a child protection conference conference is then called. We arrive on time but the conference room is not ready, we sit and wait and at 2 minutes to 11 (11 o'clock being the starting time of the conference) Linzi English (head of the child protection unit) throws a conference report to each of us. With 2 minutes before the start of the conference we were certainly not prepared to consider the report at that time.
Therefore we passed them back and refused to read them, Liar Linzi then said the report had been posted on wedneasday before hand, this was a blatant lie. I called her a liar, she took offence to this and an argument ensued, no witnesses were in the room, we actually walked out of the room to find the chair Sara Bosun Hayes, however Liar Linzi had asked the police to attend and they were sat in the foyer, SET UP!! we walked toward them and liar linai started histrionics demanding we leave the building. To be fair the police were unhappy and did try to negotiate with her for 15 minutes to allow us to attend but she refused as did the chairwoman. The conference took place without us.
No 1 person attending the conference was there to defend any of the information provided to the conference by the Liar.
Therefore she had free reign to make whatever allegations she wanted. Frightening the life out of the attendees at the meeting, school teachers, school health workers, council housing officers, invironmental health officer, and many other poeple. Some of these poeples attendances was dubious, Jo Wykes of Hinckley Council is a housing officer who made a referral against me in 2010 because she didnt like the "way he spoke to me on the phone". However they all had a part in the decision to place our children on a child protection plan.
It was some time later we recieved the report the conference recieved and the evidence relied upon.
Did we recieve the minutes of the conference? NO
The report itself was frighteningly misleading and full of inacuracies. The watered down version is the following.
Nigel suffers from Bipolar Disorder .. NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel suffers Tourettes Syndrome .... NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel has been diagnosed with explosive personality disorder ... NO I HAVE NOT
Nigel has many convictions for assaults against council officers, police officers, court officials and social workers............. I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONVICTION NAMED ABOVE
There is further inacuracies, that amount to a false and malicious character assessment.
when you consider the above and then align it with a apparent referral for what is alleged to domestic violence, from a man with tourettes, bipolar and explosive personaltiy disorder, Is it surprising the attendees at the conference were sufficiently concerned to support the child protection plan.
The problem is by taking away our right to defend and question these allegations in the conference the children now face care proceedings due to our refusal to co-operate with the care plan.
Why on earth would anyone co-operate with a plan that was made upon false information.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Sunday 12 June 2011
Anyone else in leicestershire had dealings with Linzi English andrea Rowbotham contact me
if you have have had dealings with Linzi English, Andrea Rowbotham, Nicci Collins, Rachael Sutton or Darryl Clark contact me on witt36@hotmail.com
big hearing Tuesday
application to Not renew the interim care order for our lad. We have unmasked a morning hearings worth of evidence proving the social services lied to the judge, the guardian lied to the judge, and the judge has been misled for a total of 10 months, it is provable and we, for the first time in 8 months are fianlly getting a chance to put the evidence to the judge. I can not wait to watch the scum that are the social workers and the guardian squirm in their seats and listen to the bullshit they use to try and squirm out of the situation. Fully expecting the court to refuse the renewal of the Interim Care Order. We also have a card up our sleeve!
Sunday 5 June 2011
home affairs committee enquiry damning of the work by social services and other agencies
Home Affairs Committee Enquiry
The Harm Caused By False Accusations
Abstract
As media hysteria and judicial activism have escalated, family life has increasingly become a province of the state. The highly selective cause celebre abuse cases are notable because the children have not usually been from two-biological-parent families. The justifiable outrage these incidents provoked has unfortunately led to targeting of two parent families.
The majority of all accusations (or referrals as they are called by the social services) turn out to be false. In 1995 [Child protection Messages from Research 1995 HMSO] there were a total of 168,000 referrals with 10,500 resulting in a child being taken into care. In other words in only 6% of referrals is care action taken.
No one can imagine the horror of a false accusation until it happens to him or her. This paper considers the consequences of these false accusations on families and on society in general. It will be suggested that the most serious consequence is the harm done to children as a result of these false accusations. Also of concern is the way in which case law is used to erode fundamental civil liberties.
The reasons for this situation have much to do with the mechanistic nature of modern law, which has little regard to whether changes made are actually beneficial to society. Gradual and piecemeal changes have been made by an unholy alliance of children’s charities, psychiatrists, police, social workers, judges, lawyers and the media. The burden of proof in children’s cases has been reversed so far that innocent families are actually being harmed by these agencies. The paper concludes with several recommendations on how the current unsatisfactory situation can be improved.
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/commons_select_comm
The Harm Caused By False Accusations
Abstract
As media hysteria and judicial activism have escalated, family life has increasingly become a province of the state. The highly selective cause celebre abuse cases are notable because the children have not usually been from two-biological-parent families. The justifiable outrage these incidents provoked has unfortunately led to targeting of two parent families.
The majority of all accusations (or referrals as they are called by the social services) turn out to be false. In 1995 [Child protection Messages from Research 1995 HMSO] there were a total of 168,000 referrals with 10,500 resulting in a child being taken into care. In other words in only 6% of referrals is care action taken.
No one can imagine the horror of a false accusation until it happens to him or her. This paper considers the consequences of these false accusations on families and on society in general. It will be suggested that the most serious consequence is the harm done to children as a result of these false accusations. Also of concern is the way in which case law is used to erode fundamental civil liberties.
The reasons for this situation have much to do with the mechanistic nature of modern law, which has little regard to whether changes made are actually beneficial to society. Gradual and piecemeal changes have been made by an unholy alliance of children’s charities, psychiatrists, police, social workers, judges, lawyers and the media. The burden of proof in children’s cases has been reversed so far that innocent families are actually being harmed by these agencies. The paper concludes with several recommendations on how the current unsatisfactory situation can be improved.
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/commons_select_comm
Wednesday 25 May 2011
LIAR LINDSAY ENGLISH
So we go to the meeting arranged bu this liar Lindsay English, and my god she lies for England. She was caught out lying about the so called "referral" which turns out to be "not exactly a referral". She lies then about the section 47 assessment and how it was used. First she says a sec 47 was completed, then it was a section 47 on a live file, then its a section 47 on another childs file. fact is she didnt have a fucking clue what she was talking about.
The lies kept coming and we were able to gather so much information from this meeting whist the liar just kept being clever.
we still havent been allowed the minutes of the child protection conference that the liar would not allow us to attend. we ahvent recieved the initial report that was used in the core assessment to decide upon a child protection conference.
We could not believe the evidence provided to the child protection conference, all very old and well investigated information the liar simply read from old files. SHE has NOT done her homework.
Anyway the liar has now told us they are going to court to obtain either a assessment order or a interim care order. Our answer to the liar is GOOD FUCKING LUCK. the judge will realise your full of fucking shit. No worries. Though she wont know our answer as there would be no way she would be reading my blog.
The lies kept coming and we were able to gather so much information from this meeting whist the liar just kept being clever.
we still havent been allowed the minutes of the child protection conference that the liar would not allow us to attend. we ahvent recieved the initial report that was used in the core assessment to decide upon a child protection conference.
We could not believe the evidence provided to the child protection conference, all very old and well investigated information the liar simply read from old files. SHE has NOT done her homework.
Anyway the liar has now told us they are going to court to obtain either a assessment order or a interim care order. Our answer to the liar is GOOD FUCKING LUCK. the judge will realise your full of fucking shit. No worries. Though she wont know our answer as there would be no way she would be reading my blog.
Friday 20 May 2011
CHILDSNATCHERS WONT LEAVE IT ALONE
Linzi English team manager of the child protection unit coalvile, leicestershire, what a fucking nightmare she is!! absolute nasty piece of work in my opinion. Held a child protection conference and refused to let us attend after i told her she was a liar 4 or 5 times. And what a liar she is. She tried her damndest to wind us up,... no report until 2 minutes before the start of the hearing,, yeah that old chestnut!. ..
then when arguing the liar says "you know what im going to court and im going to take your children away from you". Yes i felt like pulverising the dried up old liar but decided to keep my cool. She hated the fact we would not read the report and hated even more that she wasnt in control. Got to say her breath stunk too. lies lies and more lies.
Anyway, they can go to court we have got fuck all to hide. scum child snatchers
then when arguing the liar says "you know what im going to court and im going to take your children away from you". Yes i felt like pulverising the dried up old liar but decided to keep my cool. She hated the fact we would not read the report and hated even more that she wasnt in control. Got to say her breath stunk too. lies lies and more lies.
Anyway, they can go to court we have got fuck all to hide. scum child snatchers
Saturday 30 April 2011
they just cant fucking leave us alone
Andrea Rowbottom continues her campaign against us
more to come
re : Bullshit report by anonimous neighbour!! on a day we werent even in!!
more to come
re : Bullshit report by anonimous neighbour!! on a day we werent even in!!
WON MY APPEAL !!! BAD LUCK DEVON AD CORNWALL POLICE
Police officer harassment conviction overturned
Nigel Baggaley was found guilty of waging an 18-month harassment campaign against Det Sgt Steve Blair by magistrates in Torquay in 2009.
But he always denied knowing his actions had caused DS Blair distress and a judge at Exeter Crown Court yesterday overturned the conviction on appeal.
Recorder Nicholas Hall, sitting with two justices, said although DS Blair had suffered as a result of Baggaley making complaints about him the defendant had not set out to do so.
He said: "In our judgement we are far from convinced that the defendant knew his conduct was causing distress to DS Blair."
The original conviction was based on alleged harassment of DS Blair between July 2007 and October 2008.
The court was told Baggaley had made four complaints about the experienced officer who at the time was serving with Torquay's child abuse investigation section.
Among the complaints was that DS Blair had failed to investigate an alleged offence and illegally disclosed information to a social worker.
It was said Baggaley 'bombarded' DS Blair with phone calls and repeated complaints causing him to take time off work and feel undermined in his job.
This was despite the complaints being rejected by the policing authorities.
Recorder Hall said: "The personal insults and other material in the complaints was beyond what DS Blair might reasonably be expected to have endured
"He did suffer distress as a result of that course of conduct."
But Recorder Hall said the question for the court was whether the defendant knew his actions were alarming.
The defendant said he had never in fact met the police officer and had 'no idea' his complaints were causing distress.
Recorder Hall agreed saying the repeated complaints were in 'far from subtle terms different' from each other and involved other officers as well.
He said every public person had the right to complain and have the complaints considered on their individual merits.
The defendant felt he had not had his original complaint dealt with and so complained again with a different focus.
In reaching his verdict on the appeal Recorder Hall made it clear DS Blair had not breached any professional standards.
He added: "We are not satisfied the Crown have shown he knew or ought to have known by complaining about DS Blair he would cause him alarm or distress.
"The appeal against the conviction is allowed."
But he always denied knowing his actions had caused DS Blair distress and a judge at Exeter Crown Court yesterday overturned the conviction on appeal.
Recorder Nicholas Hall, sitting with two justices, said although DS Blair had suffered as a result of Baggaley making complaints about him the defendant had not set out to do so.
The original conviction was based on alleged harassment of DS Blair between July 2007 and October 2008.
The court was told Baggaley had made four complaints about the experienced officer who at the time was serving with Torquay's child abuse investigation section.
Among the complaints was that DS Blair had failed to investigate an alleged offence and illegally disclosed information to a social worker.
It was said Baggaley 'bombarded' DS Blair with phone calls and repeated complaints causing him to take time off work and feel undermined in his job.
This was despite the complaints being rejected by the policing authorities.
Recorder Hall said: "The personal insults and other material in the complaints was beyond what DS Blair might reasonably be expected to have endured
"He did suffer distress as a result of that course of conduct."
But Recorder Hall said the question for the court was whether the defendant knew his actions were alarming.
The defendant said he had never in fact met the police officer and had 'no idea' his complaints were causing distress.
Recorder Hall agreed saying the repeated complaints were in 'far from subtle terms different' from each other and involved other officers as well.
He said every public person had the right to complain and have the complaints considered on their individual merits.
The defendant felt he had not had his original complaint dealt with and so complained again with a different focus.
In reaching his verdict on the appeal Recorder Hall made it clear DS Blair had not breached any professional standards.
He added: "We are not satisfied the Crown have shown he knew or ought to have known by complaining about DS Blair he would cause him alarm or distress.
"The appeal against the conviction is allowed."
Wednesday 20 April 2011
the SCUM that is leicestershire social services lies lies lies
It seems Leicestershire social services, Andrea Rowbottom, Rachael Sutton and a complete woofter (in my opinion) just can not help themeselves when it come to bullshitting.
they walked into court and made sure we lost our 11 yr old by basically saying anything as long as it was untrue.
after 2 section 7 reports, 1 section 47 report, a section 37 report and 2 addendum reports to that section 37 the liars went from,, "the baggaleys present no risk whatseoever, the child is not at harm of risk now or in the future, there is no evidence of significant harm now or likelyhood of it in the future" to "the baggaleys are now deemed to be a risk" a complete turn around in a 3 WEEK PERIOD! why you may ask? what on earth did we do to wreck 8 months of good reports? why would they turn against us in such a nature?
well, believe it or not it is due to me asking a social worker to leave my home, because i felt he was being over intrusive and acting inapropriately. he refused to go. in the end i asked him in total 16 times to leave and took 2 - 5 minute breaks to cool down in between his refusals to leave, in the end i ushered him out of my home. That was it guys, they turned real nasty over night. All of a sudden it was "oh it is obvious you are not prepared to work with us etc!! we werent saying it .. they were! telling us what we want!
that was 5 weeks ago, since then they have stopped all contact between us and the child, they have succesfully moved him out of leicestershire to devon against his will, (they had to admit in court the child would rather have stayed in foster care rather than live with his drunken grandparents!) and the child is as you can imagine heartbroken.
Andrea Rowbottom has since dropped herself in it by making up stories about the childs school saying we would not leave the playground when asked, this is a total fabrication and the school have stated so. there are lots and lots of lies i could go on all day.
we wont give up, we will never give up. They made a big mistake picking on us.
they walked into court and made sure we lost our 11 yr old by basically saying anything as long as it was untrue.
after 2 section 7 reports, 1 section 47 report, a section 37 report and 2 addendum reports to that section 37 the liars went from,, "the baggaleys present no risk whatseoever, the child is not at harm of risk now or in the future, there is no evidence of significant harm now or likelyhood of it in the future" to "the baggaleys are now deemed to be a risk" a complete turn around in a 3 WEEK PERIOD! why you may ask? what on earth did we do to wreck 8 months of good reports? why would they turn against us in such a nature?
well, believe it or not it is due to me asking a social worker to leave my home, because i felt he was being over intrusive and acting inapropriately. he refused to go. in the end i asked him in total 16 times to leave and took 2 - 5 minute breaks to cool down in between his refusals to leave, in the end i ushered him out of my home. That was it guys, they turned real nasty over night. All of a sudden it was "oh it is obvious you are not prepared to work with us etc!! we werent saying it .. they were! telling us what we want!
that was 5 weeks ago, since then they have stopped all contact between us and the child, they have succesfully moved him out of leicestershire to devon against his will, (they had to admit in court the child would rather have stayed in foster care rather than live with his drunken grandparents!) and the child is as you can imagine heartbroken.
Andrea Rowbottom has since dropped herself in it by making up stories about the childs school saying we would not leave the playground when asked, this is a total fabrication and the school have stated so. there are lots and lots of lies i could go on all day.
we wont give up, we will never give up. They made a big mistake picking on us.
Sunday 3 April 2011
update
since our last blog we have been through costant assessments. leicestershire social services Racheal Sutton and Andrea Rowbottom completed section 37 reports and a section 47 report on our younger children who are not even involved in our family case.
these poeple made it clear to the judge HHJ TYZACK in the first section 37 report that we posed no risk what so ever tto the child. (our lad has now been in interim care for over 4 months) the judge was not happy with the report and order a addendum report, therefore the ss provided a further 29 pages (in their words to prevent the court from saying they havent provided enough information) again although they made it abundantly clear they found no evidence of us being any kind of risk to the child the judge again wasnt happy. so he ordered another addendum report,
this time because we have already answered the questions posed in full and have nothing further to add we made it clear to the ss that we would not answer any further questions, but would agree to continue to work with them re the childs educational needs, which was the original agreement.
they didnt take it very well, they automatically started making threats that if we didnt answer the questions they would say we havent complied with them. within a week we found out they have decided on a complete uturn and now say we are a risk to the child, based on the way in which i have spoken to the social workers on the phone.
now we hear they are recommending the child be placed with his grand parents in torquay, 180 miles away from us, his school and freinds. the social workers have severely shit on us and have now resorted to lying about us.
talk about power crazed
we are in court on 6th april, we expect nothing from the judge who despises us simply because we fight tooth hammer and claw, plus we have accused him of being naiive and inadequate. which he is.
over the weekend the childs grandparent turned up at his foster placement unanounced and tried to tempt him to leave with him ... the grandparent lives in devon,,, he told the child he had been passing by on his way to swindon ( take a look at the route to swindon from torquay) and he thought he would pop in for a cup of tea. (loughborough).. very strange route, anyway the child refused to go. obviously this was a ploy to remove him from leicestershire, if he had gone he would not have come back that is for sure. well done to our lad for not falling for the bullshit being fed to him. this aint over we have only just started the real war!!
these poeple made it clear to the judge HHJ TYZACK in the first section 37 report that we posed no risk what so ever tto the child. (our lad has now been in interim care for over 4 months) the judge was not happy with the report and order a addendum report, therefore the ss provided a further 29 pages (in their words to prevent the court from saying they havent provided enough information) again although they made it abundantly clear they found no evidence of us being any kind of risk to the child the judge again wasnt happy. so he ordered another addendum report,
this time because we have already answered the questions posed in full and have nothing further to add we made it clear to the ss that we would not answer any further questions, but would agree to continue to work with them re the childs educational needs, which was the original agreement.
they didnt take it very well, they automatically started making threats that if we didnt answer the questions they would say we havent complied with them. within a week we found out they have decided on a complete uturn and now say we are a risk to the child, based on the way in which i have spoken to the social workers on the phone.
now we hear they are recommending the child be placed with his grand parents in torquay, 180 miles away from us, his school and freinds. the social workers have severely shit on us and have now resorted to lying about us.
talk about power crazed
we are in court on 6th april, we expect nothing from the judge who despises us simply because we fight tooth hammer and claw, plus we have accused him of being naiive and inadequate. which he is.
over the weekend the childs grandparent turned up at his foster placement unanounced and tried to tempt him to leave with him ... the grandparent lives in devon,,, he told the child he had been passing by on his way to swindon ( take a look at the route to swindon from torquay) and he thought he would pop in for a cup of tea. (loughborough).. very strange route, anyway the child refused to go. obviously this was a ploy to remove him from leicestershire, if he had gone he would not have come back that is for sure. well done to our lad for not falling for the bullshit being fed to him. this aint over we have only just started the real war!!
Tuesday 29 March 2011
UPDATE : child in Interim care
we will update this blog in the next 24 hours.... we have had for legal reasons had to remove the contents of this blog, we have been taking part in assessments in the past couple of months so it was not appropriate to blog. however we are now not taking part in any assessment so we can update you.....
OUR CASE, AND HOW THE CAFCASS OFFICER LIES TO TAKE OUR 10 YEAR OLD AWAY
If you are about to start or are involved in a family court residence or contact case, read on and be failry warned
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass , was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass , was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 19, 2010 6:32 PM
The Children Act 1989
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2440124
Know the law, click on the link above if you are facing a family court case or the sicial services
Know the law, click on the link above if you are facing a family court case or the sicial services
Family Courts and the Human Right Act
Family Courts and the Human Right Act
If you are in the family courts, the following report is very important for you to read. Understand: they can not treat you you unfairly in Court, neither can social workers, article 8 right to life, here are your human rights and the childs human rights inside the family court.
Human Rights Act and Family Law
Relevant Provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 (1)
- Right to ‘respect’ for family and private life
- Any interference constitutes a violation of Article 8 (1)
- Implies both positive obligations on the State and a negative obligation
- Applies to the family unit and the individual members, including parents and children.
Article 8(2)
- Onus is on the state to demonstrate that the interference was justified – 4 steps
a. In accordance with the law
b. Necessary in a democratic society
c. In pursuance of a legitimate aim – i.e. protection of national security, public safety, economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of rights and freedoms. (Note the list of ‘aims’ is exhaustive)
d. Measures taken are proportionate to the pursuance of that aim.
- Subject at the ECHR level to the ‘margin of appreciation’ – not relevant in domestic case law – but there may be an measure of discretion given to public authorities
- Convention does not define who or what is a ‘family - includes the non marital family and protects a relationships between parents and children, siblings, children and grandparents and blood relatives generally - Limited recognition of same sex partnerships – fit under ‘private life’
- Johnson v Ireland (1986) 9 EHRR 203, importance of the blood tie – requires the State to provide de jure and de facto protection for the family relationship.
- Significant weight is attached to the ‘blood tie’ - Keegan v Ireland [1994] 3FCR 165– ‘family life’ exists between parents and biological children from the moment of birth – exclusion of parents from the life of the child can only be justified in exceptional circumstances.
- Johansen v Norway [1996] 23 EHRR 33 – obligation to work towards reunification – as swiftly as is possible while at the same time protecting the best interests of the child. “In carrying out this balancing exercise, the Court will attach particular importance to the best interests of the child, which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent”
- K and T v Finland [2001] 2FLR 707 – removal of the child from the parents must not be done in such a way as to destroy the natural bond – the State must consider the long term prospects – there should not be a presumption in favour of permanent separation – particularly important for very young children to maintain the family tie
- P, C and S v UK [2002] 3 FCR 1 – removal of a child at birth required exceptional justification – must be an immediate risk to the child and if removal is not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons will breach Art 8. Note the procedural issues in this decision also.
- .
Article 6
- Right to fair trial in the determination of ‘civil rights or obligations’ – must be real and effective not theoretical and illusory – see Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR
- Article 6 (1) requires that decisions be made by a fair and impartial tribunal
- Decision making must be transparent, parents must be involved there must be disclosure to parents of all relevant documents
- Includes judicial and administrative stages of the proceedings
- There are procedural guarantees in Article 8 which can give rise to separate convention breaches – court has found due process to be implied under Article 8 given the importance of what is at stake
- When and Where to use HRA in Family Proceedings
Re V (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claims) CA [2004] 1 FCR 338
o Q of the manner in which issues regarding potential breaches of Articles 8 and 6 should be addressed during the care proceedings or whether the appropriate route was a freestanding claim under s.7 of the HRA
o CA found that any allegation pursuant to s.6 (1) HRA that the LA has acted contrary to ECHR arts 6 or 8 can and should be dealt with during those proceedings
o Applications to transfer the matter up to a higher court are to be strongly discouraged
Re M (Care Proceedings; Judicial Review) [2003] 2FLR 171
- Save in wholly exceptional circumstances it was not appropriate to bring a judicial review action to prevent LA commencing emergency protection or care proceedings – JR an action of last resort which should not be used where there was another remedy available – even if there were relevant HRA arguments.
Re L (Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claims) [2004] 1FCR per Munby J
- Para 22 “the substantive and procedural guarantees afforded to parents by Art 8 of the European Convention applies at all stages of child protection….not merely when the care proceedings are on foot but also after the care proceedings have come to an end…where the care proceedings have come to an end – the appropriate remedy may well be a freestanding application under s7 (1)(a) of the HRA 1998, the application should be heard in the Family division if possible by a judge with experience of sitting in the Administrative Court”
Re V (Care: Pre Birth Actions) CA [2005] 21 FLR 627
- Findings of a breach of Articles 6 and 8 should not automatically result in an award of damages – proceedings must be considered as a whole.
5. Is the HRA ‘value added’ in family proceedings
A. HRA in Public Law Proceedings
- Impact of the Act has been largely confined to procedural matters, focusing on parental involvement in decision making, disclosure
RE M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority [2001] 2 FLR 1300
- Holman J -LA decision quashed because parents were not sufficiently involved – LA decided to change a care plan after the care order was made – to place the children for adoption rather than rehabilitate them to parents – decision was made at a meeting which the parents were not invited to attend – amounted to an unlawful action under Article 8
- Possible to take a freestanding action under s6 and s7 of the HRA – and the court was empowered to grant relief if appropriate under s.8
- “This case has emphasised to me what a heavy responsibility and wide discretion the Human Rights Act 1998 has placed upon this court in considering, after the event, the lawfulness of a decision making process”
Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] 2FLR 42 per Munby J
- Article 8(1) guarantees substantive rights to parents involved in care proceedings but also afforded procedural guarantees.
- “The procedural protection offered by Article 8 was not confined to the trial process but extended to all stages of the decision making process in child protection process in child protection proceedings”
- Munby J at 44 para 2 – “the facts reveal what I can only call a ‘mindset’ and a ‘culture’ so seemingly oblivious to the imperative requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the ECHR) and so unwittingly careless of the need to treat parents with fairness, that I cannot let the matter pass without some comment.
- “Whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Art 8”
- “This is it seems to me is a classic example of the kind of case where, whatever may have been the case previously, the Human Rights Act 1998 gives parents treated as badly as the parents in this case appear to have been. …Effective remedies for the breach by a local authority of either the substantive or procedural requirement of Article 8”.
Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730
- Article 6 rights extend to all stages of the proceedings – which is potentially important – whereas Art 8 rights are inherently qualified – parent’s right to fair trial under article 6 is absolute – and cannot be qualified by reference to or balanced against any rights under Article 8
- Raised concern that the level of disclosure and parental involvement in proceedings – fell short of well-established principles of domestic law and the standards of article 8 and article 6
- Para 30 – Article 8 imposes positive obligations of disclosure on the local authority
- Article 8 guarantees fairness in the decision making process at all stages of the proceedings – see para 88
- Where the LA acts in a way which is unlawful or incompatible with the human rights act can bring a freestanding application under s7 (1)(a)
Removal of Children
Re H (A child) (Interim Care Order) [2002] 1 FCR 350 at 39 per Thorpe LJ –
- …”The Arts 6 and 8 rights of parents required the judge to abstain from premature determination of their case for the future beyond the final fixture, unless the welfare of the child demanded it.”
Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] EWCA 2 FLR 813 – per Thorpe LJ
- “Where the application is for a care order empowering the local authority to remove a child or children from the family, the judge in modern times may not make such an order without considering the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 8 rights of the adult members of the family and of the children of the family. Accordingly he must not sanction such an interference with family life unless he is satisfied that that is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential end of promoting the welfare of the children.”
X Council V B [2005] 1FLR 341 Munby J
- When dealing with emergency measures – the imminent danger should be actually established – if it is still possible to hear the parents of the children and to discuss the measures with them – there should be no room for emergency action
- Imminent danger must be actually established – an EPO is draconian and an extremely harsh measure – must be necessary and proportionate and court must be satisfied that no less radical measure will achieve the end of safeguarding the welfare of the child
- Evidential burden on the LA is very heavy …”it is important that both the local authority and the FPC approach every application for an EPO with an anxious awareness of the extreme gravity of the relief being sought and a scrupulous regard for the European Convention Rights of both the child and the parents
Hasse v Germany [2004] 2 FLR 39 at 90-95 –
- The taking of a newborn baby into public care at the moment of its birth is an extremely harsh measure. There must be extraordinarily compelling reasons before a baby can be physically removed from its mother…
- a stricter scrutiny is called for in respect of any further limitations by the authorities, for example on restrictions of parental rights and access
- At para 101 “it is incumbent on the competent national authorities to examine whether some less intrusive interference into family life at such a critical point in the lives of the parents and the child is not possible’
- See Munby in X Council v B – at 362 – “failure to comply with this requirement may expose the local authority to claims it has acted unlawfully notwithstanding the EPO”
Venema v Netherlands [2003] application for an EPO made without any notification to the parents and without any discussion with the parents breached Article 8 – parents were presented with a fait accompli without any sufficient justification
Assessments
Re G (Interim care order: Residential Assessment) [2004] 1 FLR 876
B. HRA in Private Law Proceedings
- Primary issue is enforcement
- Johansen – at para 88 – there is a need to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter’
- Hokkanen v Finland [1996] 1 FLR 289 at para 55 – ‘’right of a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take such action’
- Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania [22001] 31 EHRR – rights are illusory if the contracting state allows a final binding judgement to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party – decisive that national authorities taken all the necessary steps to facilitate execution
- See RE D (Intractable contact dispute: publicity) [2004] 1 FLR 1226
If the local authority are accusing you of something and take your child, yet you stand no trial, have no right to reply and are not given an opportunity to reply, they are guilty of article 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act. Take Action.
when the judge and guardian collude
when the judge and guardian collude
If you are about to start or are involved in a family court residence or contact case, read on and be failry warned
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass ( a liar and cheat, was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass ( a liar and cheat, was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)