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

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"></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

HHJ Tyzack - the worst Judge in the UK - NOW RETIRED!!! OH YES HES GONE!!

Tuesday 29 March 2011