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

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

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 

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 19, 2010 6:32 PM

human rights act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42

The Children Act 1989

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

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

Family Courts and the Human Right Act

Family Courts and the Human Right Act

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

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

1. 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

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

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 




 

follow this blog to learn about the family court

follow this blog to learn about the family court

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

we will be placing all the details of our case on this blog in the future, naming names and leaving no details out.  we will name and shame every person in our case and provide all the reports from the court.  we will update at least weekly as to what is happening, if other in our position can gain any help from it , it will be worth it. 

also you can contact us on 07722 574005 or email us on witt36@hotmail.com  we will help free of charge

roll of shame

 

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

JUDGES:
HHJ Robertshaw   (has to be said was the best of a bad bunch, yet mismanaged the case at times leading to long bouts of no contact
HHJ Wildblood  no clue on earth what he was doing and just put everything off to another judge as he simply couldnt handle it.
HHJ Tyzack 
CAFCASS
Ms Val Reeve   found to be playing dirty in our case and chucked out of the case.  This woman is the most manipulative and evil minded minipulator we have ever come across in this 4.5 year case.  if you come across her never and we mean NEVER trust her.  she told us for over a year she was working against the father and would be reccomending the children return to us, she was doing the same for the father.  liar, there is no other word for her.
Mr Steven Williams  involved in the case for 1 year after the liar was removed (jumped before pushed at the request of HHJ Robertshaw) , the man never spoke to us or met us, yet still provided a report to the court stating he knew about us and our family life.  Never met us!!
Mr John Ingham   This is the 3rd guardian in 4.5 years and is the most evil person we have met in our lives, he is a liar and in our opinion a real piece of work.  In the 9 months he has been the guardian he has used the evidence previously assessed and known by the court to say we now pose a significant risk to the child.  He has met and spoke to us once for 30 minutes in total.  therefore in 28 months Cafcass have had a total of 30 minutes listening and hearing our side of the case.  This man is pure evil, a real parents nightmare, he has his eyes on the younger children and has attempted to name them in the hearings about 8 times.
please, if you have this man in your life, contact us asap on 07722 574005 so that we can advise you.
Solicitors From Hell
Mr Mark Williams, Hooper Woolen Solicitors the childrens solicitor   this phrase 'childrens solicitor' is a joke, he is the guardians solictor and he is a liar too,  he had us believe he realised the court and the guardian were colluding against us in private conversations, only for us to find out later he was simply trying to gain our confidence to provide the guardian with more amunition.  Further there is a clear conflict of interest in the case as Hooper Woolen Solicitors represented my wife in this exact case, and represented my wife in her divorce agaisnt the other party in my case.  yet they represent the guardian and see no problem with conflict of interest.
Social Workers From Hell
Mr Matt Woolly  of Torquay Social Services  this man is not to be trusted, he is a liar, and again will reel you in to simply gain evidence against you under false confidence, this man is wuite happy to accuse us of emotional harm because we refuse to partake in yet another assessment, but does not see the father telling the 9 and 12 year old that their mummy and myself had died of aids, and that their mother was a prostitute, and their names were now different to what they actually were.  This is all on tape.  The man has been sectioned 7 times and has been taking the 12 year old boy at 14 stones and 5.10 tall to his own bed in the middle of the night, and has been  doing so for 3 years, the court understand this as normal behaviour, we believe the father is a paedofile.  However he gets away with every thing he does because of his illnes.  The guardian wants the children back with this man as soon as possible.  as does the social worker.
The Consultancy - apparently specialist psychologist  honestly these 2 women were supposed to put in a balanced report ..   lets just say that they were that bad even a court 100% against us wouldnt give it the time of day.  A real pair of idiotic and over reactive and totally unprofessional persons.  We spent weeks laughing at them, strangely enough they dissapeared from our case.  dont worry if you come across these poeple they are no risk to anyone and the court doesnt take them seriously at all.
Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence  We have to say these poeple were in the first report very good and provided a report that for once was a true reflection and we finally had balance.  However they have been got at, we believe by the guardian or a certain police officer, and the mini report they have submitted this time around seems to be the complete opposite to what they said in their last report,  They met us for 2 hours this time around.  We would advise caution, they are very clever doctors but there is a strong rumour and evidence that they are deeply into putting children into care.
When the so called experts and so called professional all refuse your calls, refuse to reply to your emails and your letters, and the court staff refuse to forward your applications, and refuse to provide you copies of other parties papers/applications/letters to the judge you know there is collusion.  They work together agaisnt one party in the case when they identify at the very begining where the children should be placed.  If this is happening to you contact us on 07722 574005

THIS IS THE FATHER OF THE CHILDREN, PROTECTED BY THE JUDGE AND THE GUARDIAN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2207919.stm


YES AND THE SAME MAN WAS FOUND TELLING HIS CHILDREN THAT I AND THEIR MOTHER HAD DIED OF AIDS, WHILST REFUSING CONTACT,

THE SAME MAN WAS FOUND BY TORBAY POLICE SOME MONTHS AGO FOR STALKING A CHILD CARE WORKER

THE SAME MAN ONLY RECENTLY RELEASED FROM THE PSCHIATRIC UNIT OF TORBAY GENERAL HOSPITAL AFTER BEING SECTIONED UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT IN NOVEMBER 2011 ....  HIS 7TH BREAKDOWN AND 7 SECTIONING.

THIS IS DR ABIODUN HAKEEM KAZEEM ///  A GP AND PSYCHIATRIST.  WOULD YOU HAVE THIS DOCTOR ???  A STALKER OF A CHILD CARE WORKER?  TELLING HIS CHILDREN THERE MOTHER WAS DEAD FOR ABOUT 6 MONTHS SIMPLY SO THEY DIDNT HAVE CONTACT WITH HER?  THE JUDGE AND THE GUARDIAN WANT THE CHILDREN BACK IN HIS CARE...  QUESTION ?    WHO IS THE INSANE ONE?  THE LUNATICS ARE TAKING OVER THE ASYLUM

OH HOW THE SS CAN NOT BE TRUSTED!!!!!

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Jan 11, 2011 1:05 PM

The'yre coming after our two babys now

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

we have now recieved a letter from the SS saying they now want to do a section 47 assessement on our 2 year and 4 year old.  Reasons?  because

"lastly over over the past weeks CYPs has become increasingly concerned about Mr Baggaleys behaviour and perhaps risk to staff.  The information found has raised concern not only for staff but also for any children who may be living with or or having contact with Mr Baggaley.  A such CYPs has a duty under section 47 of the children act to include in the assessment process a thorough risk assessment of not only (the 10 year old boy currently in interim care) but that of your children.  As such it will be necassary for a social worker to spend some time with your children outside of the family home.  in order for us to agree a way of doing this that will best meet your childrens needs i ask you to meet with both me and my service manager on 13th January 2011 at 10am at the coalville office.

looks like they are intent on destroying everything we have.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Jan 11, 2011 12:26 PM

Day 27 Interim Care Order Diary

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

All very very quiet, still no contact allowed.  Yet at the same time the SS state they are not entirely sure as to the reasons the judge ordered the interim care order.  So whilst not knowing the reasons for the ICO they still deem us unfit to have the child live with us whilst a section 37 assessment takes place (without our involvment as we refused to partake on the basis the same local authority only 10 days before the ico was ordered placed a clear and precise section 7 report and position statement, in which they stated we were no risk what so ever in the past in the present or in the future). 
We dont bother calling them to chase them up on contact it is a complete waste of time, the social worker changes every 3 or 4 days and they admit they do not have the paperwork from our 4.5 year family case. 
What makes me laugh is how downright rude and aggressive these SS oficers are, one said to us last weekl that our boy will be in long term foster care not short term, when we asked her how she had come to that conclusion she said "i just think so" when we asked 'well have you seen the case bundle?  the answer was "no why would i need to".  To top it off we then asked her to explain to us the social services position on the reasoning for this and the refusal to allow unsupervised contact...  her reply "i dont know". 
so how or why would she be saying our boy will be taken from us long term?  ill tell you why, it is because some of these poeple are malicious nasty and pathetic little poeple whose only way of not feeling inferior to others is to break the hearts of parents by wrongly taking their children away from them.  it is disgusting what is happening to us, and we know there are many other parents out there being completely stiched up by the courts and cafcass and the social services. 

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Jan 3, 2011 2:14 PM

The fight back starts this week

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

ok so we are ready to go to court and fight this bullshit.  i will keep the blog updated with our attempts to sort it out.  First we are applying for a judicial review regards the decision of the ss to refuse unsupervised contact, second we are appealing to the royal courts of justice against the decision to place our child in interim care and third we will taking civil action against social services.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Jan 2, 2011 8:44 AM

The Social Services = Child Thieves, the scandal of Britains Adoption Scam

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIPSLWCVbQQ
forced adoption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_C75RO6LL4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iMdq_b9Qvg&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOM8TPSbWU&feature=related
cafcass and social services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyoS65Luuyg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckkho1lccj8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6qpXmv6L64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB7ABAZ0QT0&feature=fvsr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OOrhvWwwrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkCr2b05Isc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoajKgNU2k
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/lone_parents/730292-CAFCASS-Please-share-your-experiences/AllOnOnePage
significant harm
http://services.salford.gov.uk/sscb-manual/chapters/p_recg_sig_harm.htm
http://services.salford.gov.uk/sscb-manual/chapters/p_recg_sig_harm.htm

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 31, 2010 10:14 AM

Day 16 interim care order diary.

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

After 16 days we still havent been told the reasons or seen the order from the court hearing 15/dec/2010.  we are completely blind to the events that led to the 10 year old going into care, we know the judge ordered the section 37 report and then ordered a interim care order because we refused to partake in the assessment 37.  But we have no idea what the significant harm is that the judge ordered the section 37 on in the first place.

for 16 days we have emailed the other sides solicitors, and the court and the judge himself asking for a copy of the order and a copy of the court clerk notes so that we understand what took place in court when I could not appear due to illness. 

Everyone of them have completely ignores every email i have sent...  16 each.  4 Letters and for 16 days each one of them has refused to take my calls and refuse to call back.  The court office staff are even refusing to speak to or take a message from any 3rd party about the case including the CAB.  They have all decided to do this together, on since the same day ...  now please tell me there is no collusion

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 30, 2010 3:54 PM

network blog

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

<div id='networkedblogs_nwidget_container' style='height:360px;padding-top:10px;'><div id='networkedblogs_nwidget_above'></div><div id='networkedblogs_nwidget_widget' style="border:1px solid #D1D7DF;background-color:#F5F6F9;margin:0px auto;"><div id="networkedblogs_nwidget_logo" style="padding:1px;margin:0px;background-color:#edeff4;text-align:center;height:21px;"><a href="http://networkedblogs.com/" target="_blank" title="NetworkedBlogs"><img style="border: none;" src="http://static.networkedblogs.com/static/images/logo_small.png" title="NetworkedBlogs"/></a></div><div id="networkedblogs_nwidget_body" style="text-align: center;"></div><div id="networkedblogs_nwidget_follow" style="padding:5px;"><a style="display:block;line-height:100%;width:90px;margin:0px auto;padding:4px 8px;text-align:center;background-color:#3b5998;border:1px solid #D9DFEA;border-bottom-color:#0e1f5b;border-right-color:#0e1f5b;color:#FFFFFF;font-family:'lucida grande',tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;font-size:11px;text-decoration:none;" href="http://networkedblogs.com/blog/family_court_child_thieves/?ahash=69150807a40c6dc4509f6b5a97aac569">Follow this blog</a></div></div><div id='networkedblogs_nwidget_below'></div></div><script type="text/javascript"><!--
if(typeof(networkedblogs)=="undefined"){networkedblogs = {};networkedblogs.blogId=662199;networkedblogs.shortName="family_court_child_thieves";}
--></script><script src="http://nwidget.networkedblogs.com/getnetworkwidget?bid=662199" type="text/javascript"></script>     

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 29, 2010 10:06 PM

Day 14 interim care order diary

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

well, after speaking to the social worker who was first involved in this matter, Rachael Churchman, it is clear she nor any other social worker in our area knows why our 10 year old boy is actually in care.  when asked :  do you actually know why our child is in interim care the answer was "because the judge ordered it"  i reminded her i was recording the call and asked her again why the judge ordered the ICO.   Her answer ?  "i dont know why".  So even though nobody knows why the order was made we are still not allowed unsupervised contact with him.  you simply can not trust one single word these asswipes say.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 29, 2010 9:16 AM

Diary of interim care order Day 13

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

well, it has been 13 days now, since our 10 year was unlawfully taken from our care.  we have just found out that certain proceedure was not undertaken by the social services, or HHJ Tyzack when ordering the section 37 and the interim care order.  so, we will be taking the matter to appeal.  According to the law in principle the re must be proportionality when considering what the risk is said to be to the child and the need to remove said child.  HHJ Tyazack simply removed the child because we refused to partake in a section 37 report ....  We wonder if the appeal judges will agree with us that simply refusing to partake in an assessment does not constitue significant harm.  especially where the local authority only 2 weeks before the interim care order stated there were no risks and no evidence in the future of risks.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 29, 2010 4:04 AM

Are you facing Interim Care Order? be sure to read the following

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

Before going on to consider the general case law on interim removal, it is worth noting the perhaps rather obvious point which has emerged from the Nottingham case - R v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 152 (Admin):  if there is no PPO and no court order authorising removal and any parent does not consent to removal, the local authority is not entitled to remove a child from the care of a parent.
An examination of the general case law continues to demonstrate that interim removal should very rarely be ordered and that very great care indeed should be taken to ensure that there is proper pre-proceedings disclosure and scrupulously fair procedure adopted at hearings.

1. In Re O (Supervision Order) [2001] 1 FLR 923, Hale LJ (as she then was) emphasises that ‘the court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach.  This should be considered to be in the better interests of the children … unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary …’

2. In Re C & B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611, (in which the author had the privilege and good fortune to be led by the late and sorely missed Allan Levy QC), the feared harm to the subject child derived from the mother’s personality traits which in stressful situations, including conflict with the father, led to her becoming irrational, aggressive, emotionally demanding and incapable of putting the children’s needs before her own .. (para 15)).  At the time of the interim hearing resulting in the child’s removal there was no evidence of physical harm; on the contrary, the evidence was that he was thriving.  Hale LJ (as she then was) said (para 17): ‘I am bound to comment about that.  On what basis could it possibly be appropriate to remove a 10 month-old baby from the only parents and home he had ever known, at a crucial stage in the development of his attachments, when there was no evidence that he was at immediate physical risk and, indeed, no evidence that he was at immediate emotional risk?  All the evidence was that he was doing well.  All the evidence was that there was no existing pointer to anything that might have been thought to indicate that he was not doing well at that time.  Any evidence of a risk of harm was to his intellectual and emotional development at a considerably later stage…. I do not, of course, wish to suggest that there are no cases in which one should intervene now to prevent future harm, or that none of those may warrant immediate pre-emptive action before the case comes on for full hearing.  But this was nowhere near a clear enough case of the former to warrant the latter.  It was a classic example of a situation where the case for intervention should have been proved by a full hearing in court before the intervention took place, and not after.’

3. Hale LJ went on to say (para 28) that the court had to look at the nature of the feared harm – clearly removal might be justified where there was a comparatively small risk but of really serious harm.  However, it was not so justified where the harm was not immediate and not of the gravest sort.  The nature and gravity of the feared harm must be highly relevant to the action taken in response to it.  ‘I also accept that there are cases in which the local authority is not bound to wait until the inevitable happens: it can intervene to protect long before that.  But there has to be a balance.  The cases where it is appropriate to do that are likely to involve long-standing problems which interfere with the capacity to provide even ‘good enough’ parenting in a serious way, such as serious mental illness, or a serious personality disorder, or intractable substance abuse or evidence of past chronic neglect or abuse, or evidence of serious ill-treatment and physical harm’ (para 30).  The response or intervention must be proportionate to the feared harm.

4. In Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] 2 FLR 42, Munby J held: ‘The fact that a local authority has parental responsibility for children pursuant to s 33(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989 does not entitle it to take decisions about children without reference to, or over the heads of the children’s parents.  A local authority, even if clothed with the authority of a care order, is not entitled to make significant changes in the care plan, or to change the arrangements under which the children are living, let alone to remove the children from home if they are living with their parents, without properly involving the parents in the decision-making process and without giving the parents a proper opportunity to make their case before a decision is made.  After all, the fact that the local authority also has parental responsibility does not deprive the parents of their parental responsibility.’

5. In Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] 2 FLR 813, Thorpe LJ held: ‘the judge may not make such an order without considering the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 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.’

6. In Haase v Germany [2004] 2 FLR 39, the European court held (para 95 ff): ‘ The fact that  a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment  for his or her upbringing will not on its own justify a compulsory measure of removal from the care of the biological parents; there must exist other circumstances pointing to the ‘necessity’ for such an interference with the parents’ right under Art 8 to enjoy a family life with their child…before public authorities have recourse to emergency measures in such delicate issues as care orders, the imminent danger should be actually established.  It is true that in obvious cases of danger no involvement of the parents is called for.  However if it is still possible to hear the parents of the children and to discuss with them the necessity of the measure, there should be no room for an emergency action, in particular when, like in the present case, the danger had already existed for a long period.’

7. In X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341, in the course of setting out a number of guiding principles in relation to emergency protection orders, Munby J held that ‘separation is only to be contemplated if immediate separation is essential to secure the child’s safety: ‘imminent danger’ must be ‘actually established’.  Other principles that can be distilled from the case include:-

a) A number of gaps in the statutory scheme made it especially important that both the local authority and the justices in the family proceedings court approached every application for an EPO with an anxious awareness of the extreme gravity of the relief being sought and scrupulous regard for the human rights of both the child and the parents.
b) A delay in the appointment of a Guardian even of ‘only’ 10 days was wholly unacceptable in the context of an EPO case where removal was contemplated. In such cases a guardian must be appointed immediately upon issue of the proceedings (in theory this should be assisted by the new Public Law Outline (PLO) (see below) which aims to ensure the appointment of  a Children’s Guardian within two days of a case being set down for directions);
c) An EPO was a ‘draconian’ and ‘extremely harsh’ measure, requiring exceptional justification’ and ‘extraordinarily compelling reasons’. It should not be made unless the Family Proceedings Court are satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would promote the welfare of the child.
d) If the real purpose of the local authority’s application was to facilitate assessment of the child then consideration should be given to whether that objective could not equally effectively , and more proportionately, be achieved by a child assessment order under s43;
e) No EPO should be made for any longer then absolutely necessary to protect the child;
f) The evidence to support that EPO had to be full, detailed, precise and compelling;
g) Save in wholly exceptional circumstances, parents must be given adequate prior notice of the date, time and place of any application for an EPO, and of the evidence being relied upon;
h) An ex parte application was normally appropriate only if a case was genuinely one of emergency or other great urgency (and even then it should normally be possible to give some kind of notice to the parents or if there were compelling reasons to believe that the child’s welfare would be compromised if the parents were alerted in advance;
i) The FPC had to comply meticulously with the mandatory requirements of rr20 and 21 (5) (6) of the Family Proceedings Courts (CA 89) Rules 1991, keeping a note of the substance of the oral evidence and recording in writing not only its reasons but also its findings of fact;
j) The local authority, even after it has obtained an EPO, was under an obligation to consider less drastic alternatives to emergency removal. It would be prudent for the local authority to have procedures to ensure that both the required decision-making actually took place and that it was appropriately documented - s44 imposes on the local authority a continuing duty to keep the case under review day by day to ensure the parent and child were separated for no longer than was necessary to secure the child’s safety;
k) Arrangements for ‘reasonable contact’, required under s44 (13), subject only to any direction given by the FPC under s44(6), had to be driven by the needs of the family, not stunted by lack of resources.

8. In Re X: Emergency Protection Orders [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam); [2006] 2 FLR 701),   McFarlane J in reviewing  a case where EPOs had been granted on the basis of a misleading picture of the factual background, repeated and endorsed the summary of Munby J and added his own views as follows:

a) EPO hearings should be tape recorded or at least attended by a dedicated note taker, in addition to the clerk;
b) All magistrates should have available at any EPO hearing the judgment of Munby J;
c) The applicant should draw the court’s attention to that judgment;
d) Case conference minutes should be produced to the court (and the author would comment that in the interests of fairness it may be necessary to include any reports to case conference prepared by other agencies such as health visitors, particularly if a view favourable to the parents is expressed by them);
e) Social work evidence should come from the social worker with direct knowledge of the case;
f) Lack of knowledge or need for assessment does not of itself justify the making of an EPO;
g) Cases of emotional abuse will rarely, if ever, warrant an EPO, let alone an application without notice;
h) Cases of sexual abuse where the allegations are inchoate and non-specific with no evidence of immediate risk will rarely warrant an EPO;
i) Cases of fabricated or induced illness with no medical evidence of immediate risk of direct physical harm to the child will rarely warrant an EPO;
j) Justices must give detailed findings and reasons for making an EPO and should refuse the application in a proper case, leaving the LA to make an application for an ICO (and consider immediate transfer to the county court or High Court).  Justices should also give separate reasons for any decision to deal with the EPO on a without notice basis.

9. In Re L (A Child) [2007] EWHC 3404 (Fam) , Ryder J was considering a case in which it was argued by the LA & the Guardian that a child should be removed from the mother before the final hearing to protect from the undisputed risk of harm which the mother’s partner presented.  Her case was that she needed support to help her separate from him and she sought a residential assessment.  Ryder J granted the mother’s application.  In his judgment he was critical of the apparent assumption by the LA & the GAL that all that needed to be demonstrated was that the interim threshold were made out and that removal should follow as night follows day.  He commented: “That is a profound error of perception that regrettably on the facts of this case amounts also to an error of law.  Nowhere is there a recognition that removal is a separate consideration from the existence of the interim threshold or the need for an interim order”.  From his judgment the following principles emerge:

a) in approaching the issue of interim removal, the court must consider whether there is an imminent risk of really serious harm ie whether the risk to the child’s safety demands immediate separation (per Thorpe LJ in Re H (A Child) (Interim Care Order) [2003] 1 FCR 35);
b) if there is no such imminent risk, the question of a parent’s ability to provide good enough long-term care is a matter for the court at the final hearing and should not be litigated at an interim stage, effectively prejudging the full and profound trial of the LA’s case and the parents’ response;
c) professionals must take great care not to conflate the issues of the test to be applied to the issue of removal (an acute safety question necessitating the child’s removal) and the nature and extent of the risk of harm (which will only justify removal unless it is an imminent risk of really serious harm, not just a heightened perception of risk as evidence emerges if that risk can be contained by adequate arrangements). 

10. Applying the principles from the cases cited above, a local authority and a court should consider:

a) Is there any justification for an order interfering with this child’s right to family life?
b) If there are any concerns established which might justify some sort of order, the court should prefer a less interventionist legal regime than an EPO / ICO with a removal plan.  Is there a way in which the concerns of the local authority can be met without the need for removal?
c) Is there evidence of immediate risk of really serious harm or imminent danger actually established (and that cannot be contained without removal of the child)?  It will not necessarily be sufficient that there is growing evidence to suggest that the risk of really serious harm exists unless it becomes an immediate risk and there is not a way of containing it which avoids removal.
d) Have the parents been properly involved in the decision-making of the local authority or afforded the proper opportunity to make their case before a decision is made?
e) Are there extraordinarily compelling reasons which, exceptionally, might justify the draconian and extremely harsh measure of removal under an EPO?
f) Is the order being considered really aimed at ensuring assessment of the child (not in itself sufficient justification for removal)?
g) What evidence can be filed in support of the application? Is it full, detailed, precise and compelling? 
h) What proposals are there for contact the child and either of her parents?  These need to be clear and substantial;
i) Has a case conference been held and the minutes made available? Has the parent been given a copy of the CPC minutes?  Are there other relevant documents which the court will expect the parents to have seen?
j) Has the local authority carried out a meaningful assessment of the family and can it produce evidence of its conclusions?
k) Is the local authority concerned because it cannot get evidence or an agreement to an assessment?  This will not by itself justify the making of an EPO if other remedies can be implemented.
l)  Can removal be justified before a Guardian has been appointed?

The introduction of the Public Law Outline (the PLO) puts a duty on local authorities to carry out assessments and give clear information to parents about their intentions before proceedings have been issued.   The pre-proceedings checklist (PLO1)  sets out the documents which should be filed on the issuing of care proceedings (although it is recognised that this is not always appropriate) and they include the initial / core assessment, any other assessments, letters before proceedings, strategy meeting minutes etc.  The Revised Volume 1 of the Children Act Guidance and Regulations makes the pivotal role of the core assessment and its use in support of care proceedings plain.  Paragraph 3.34 also makes plain that the local authority should always obtain and consider legal advice on whether the court is likely to be satisfied that the s 31(2) criteria are met AND that an order is in the best interests of the child and that the section 1(5) ‘no order’ test is likely to be met. 
As part of the PLO initiative Cafcass is expected to appoint officers to deal with the case from the outset, ie within two days of the case being set down for directions (back to the good old days when Cafcass Officers / Guardians got to appoint the solicitors?).  Cafcass Officers will need to scrutinize the cases carefully to ensure that any gaps in the evidence are identified.  Generally the emphasis has moved towards a greater analytical and advisory role on behalf of Cafcass.  My earlier concerns  about whether this would be practically possible in relation to EPOs or interim removal applications arising from genuine emergencies have been borne out in some areas where there is considerable delay in the appointment  of Guardians.
Parents’ lawyers in receipt of a notice of intention to issue should immediately ask for confirmation of the local authority’s intentions as to interim removal if this is not clear, and extensive documentary disclosure, in particular of any instructions given to assessors and evidence in relation to immediate harm.   Non-disclosure by the local authority of key documents and lack of clarity about the evidence relied on will not assist them to meet the exacting test for interim orders which the courts have now identified.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 27, 2010 4:01 PM

DIARY ; CHRISTMAS EVE DAY 8 OF INTERIM CARE ORDER

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

So it has been 8 days and we although we have been lied to constantly by the ss in Hinckley, Coalville and Leicester we hadnt had any problem with the foster carer.  Until today, all of a sudden out of the blue she told our lad to tell us we could call in once in the morning on christmas day and then his phone will be switched off.  Why ??  we do not know, but with every day comes a new little problem, and it seems practised.  It seems that there is a conscious effort to turn the screw a little bit more each day. 

The social services in the country have a lot to answer to, they break up familys on the basis of rumour or / and speculation, they admit to us that they have no evidence whatsoever of any risk of harm or any other type of risk, yet there he is at the age of 10 in a strangers house (only in it for the cash) frightened, insecure and missing home.  Why because HHJ TYZACK is a nasty piece of work punishing us because we refused to appear in his court.  This is the same judge who took a shotgun and threatened a fathers4justice campaigner on his roof.  This judge is a disgrace to the profession and is hellbent on ruining the life of our 10 year old child.

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

Dec 23, 2010 6:10 PM

DIARY OF INTERIM CARE AND THE LIES SOCIAL WORKERS GIVE

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

Since our 10 yr old went into care last week, 16th December 2010 we have been told so many lies by the ss it is unbelievable.  Now out of the blue we are told we can not have a contact on our own without supervision with him, on the basis that apparently there is evidence we may Kidnap him, according to Susan Mosley of Hinckley Social Services.  This is a stupid allegation, why would we need to ???  how would that work in our favour.  

This was after we were told 7 other reasons by 4 or 5 other members of staff.  Though Ms Mosley was the decision maker.  In the 1 week our lad has been intemporary care our case has been passed through 3 different offices and 5 different social workers.  To say they havent got a clue would be a wild under exageration, while in the meantime we have a young lad who once again will not be spending christmas with us.  We Miss Ya T

Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags

You have no more items.

But wait! We have recommended items waiting for you to read.

Sweet!  Show me my recommendations