Sunday, 30 September 2012
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Re K (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1169
Application by mother and stepfather for permission to appeal against an interim care order and special guardianship order in respect of a child, placing him with his maternal grandparents. Application granted.
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Civ 1169
Case No: B4/2012/0430
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL EXETER COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Tyzack
EX11C00009
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
30/08/2012
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE WARD
and
LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE
____________________
Re: K (Children) ____________________
The applicants Mr and Mrs B attended in person
Hearing dates : 20th April, 9th July 2012
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice McFarlane : 1. By a notice of appeal dated 3rd February 2012 Mr and Mrs B seek to appeal a range of orders made between December 2010 and January 2012 in the Exeter County Court by His Honour Judge Tyzack QC. The orders relate to two boys. I shall refer to the boys as "Tok" and "Tun". Tok was born on [a date in] 1997 and is therefore aged fifteen years and Tun was born on [a date in] 2000 and is now twelve and a half years old. Mrs B is the mother of both boys and their father is Dr K. Mrs B and Dr K separated many years ago and Mrs B is now married to Mr B, who is therefore the boys' stepfather.
2. Both boys have been the subject of private law proceedings between their two parents since 2006. For a substantial period of time the boys resided with their father in Devon and there were ongoing entrenched difficulties over the arrangements for contact to their mother who lives in the Midlands. As time has gone on, two children have been born to Mr and Mrs B, a girl, I, who is now aged six and a boy, W, who is aged four.
3. Matters have been complicated by periodic collapses in Dr K's mental health. In particular, in April 2010 Dr K suffered a mental breakdown and both boys moved to live with Mr and Mrs B in Leicestershire. From the start Toc's behaviour was extremely challenging and a stage was reached after some two months which resulted in Mrs B writing to the court on 7th June 2010 saying that Toc's behaviour was such that he could not stay any longer in her home with the other children. Dr K's mental equilibrium had apparently been re-established and in July 2010 Toc returned to his care in Devon, leaving Tun in the care of Mr and Mrs B.
4. The private law proceedings continued in Exeter and it is clear that during the second half of 2010 the rule 9.5 children's Guardian appointed to represent their interest in the proceedings was asking judges (HHJ Robertshaw and HHJ Wildblood QC) to make a direction under CA l989, s37 requiring the social services in Leicestershire to undertake an assessment of Tun's welfare in the home of Mr and Mrs B. The judges declined that invitation and, by position statements dated 24th August and 19th November, Leicestershire County Council, who had knowledge of the family, stated that there were no issues that would lead that local authority to apply for a public law order to enable Tun to be removed from Mr and Mrs B's care.
5. Matters came to a head in early December 2010. On 3rd December Dr K suffered a further mental breakdown. Toc was removed from his care by the police and placed with the maternal grandparents, who also live in Devon. On 6th December HHJ Tyzack QC made a section 37 direction in relation to Toc and granted an interim care order with respect to him in favour of Torbay Council.
6. On 10th December Tun's case came before Judge Tyzack. Mrs B was represented, but not apparently in attendance. On that occasion the judge made a section 37 direction to Leicester County Council, he held that the criteria necessary to establish jurisdiction to make an interim care order under CA 1989, s38 were established on the basis of emotional abuse in the home of Mr and Mrs B as a result of Mr B's alleged bullying and intimidating behaviour. On that basis the judge made an interim care order with respect to Tun in favour of Leicestershire County Council.
7. Mr and Mrs B take serious issue with the hearing on 10th December 2010 and the orders that were made. Whilst these orders were not subject to appeal at the time, it is Mr and Mrs B's case that from that date onwards their ability to have a fair hearing was fundamentally compromised. The interim care order was made on the basis that if Mr and Mrs B co-operated with the social services, Tun would not be removed from their care. Mr and Mrs B profoundly disagreed with the making of an interim care order and therefore refused to co-operate with the social services with the result that Tun was indeed removed from their care five days later on 15th December.
8. Matters apparently cooled down around the turn of the year and by mid-January Mr and Mrs B were prepared to co-operate with the social workers and in a position statement dated 28th January 2011 Leicestershire CC stated that, following an assessment, their conclusion was that Tun could be returned to Mr and Mrs B's care after the next hearing, which was on 31st January. At that hearing, however, HHJ Tyzack expressed dissatisfaction with the local authority report. He made a further Section 37 direction, and renewed the interim care order on the basis that he did not sanction Tun's return to Mr and Mrs B's home.
9. Records that this court has now seen, but which were not available to HHJ Tyzack, indicate that in early February (see pages A131 and 132) social workers and a probation officer who was supporting Mr B, continued to express the view that Tun should be returned to Mr and Mrs B's care on the basis that there were no substantial concerns.
10. The case was once again before HHJ Tyzack on 4th March. Contrary to their apparent earlier intention, Leicestershire CC had changed its stance two days before the hearing and before the judge agreed to a further adjournment and a continuation of the interim care order. This court has now seen LCC counsel's note of that hearing (page C1).
11. This change of stance by the local authority had the consequence that Mr and Mrs B once again withdrew their co-operation with the social services in Leicester and, indeed, stated their intention to take judicial review proceedings against them (see probation officer's log for 9th March at A134).
12. So far as Toc is concerned, he had continued to reside with the maternal grandparents and, on 12th April 2011, a residence order was made in their favour supported by an interim supervision order to Torbay.
13. In Tun's case, following its change of stance, Leicestershire CC issued care proceedings in the Exeter County Court. At a contested hearing on 12th April 2011 HHJ Tyzack made a further interim care order with respect to Tun and sanctioned Leicestershire's plan which was for Tun to move from his foster carers to be placed, with Toc, in the home of the maternal grandparents. Mrs B was represented at that hearing and attended for part of the day, but following the luncheon adjournment did not return to court. As a result of the judge's order Tun moved to live with his grandparents and has continued to remain in their care since that time.
14. By their notice of appeal Mr and Mrs B seek to challenge the orders made on 12th April 2011.
15. Following the April hearing Mr and Mrs B seem to have withdrawn from engagement in the court and social work process but, by an e.mail dated 24th October 2011 (C29), Mrs B indicated that she was "now resuming my involvement in the case" but stated "I am not available for a final hearing in January 2012". Following that the local authority filed their final documents and in early December Mrs B filed detailed responses to the local authority case. However in an e.mail to the court dated 16th December 2011 Mrs B stated that she "is not seeking residence or contact with Tun" (page C90). In a further e.mail dated 28th December, following an occasion where Mrs B had in fact spoken to Tun over the telephone during the Christmas period, she stated that she had no intention of attending the hearing, which was booked for January, as she could predict what HHJ Tyzack would do and she would, instead, concentrate on appealing (page C96).
16. At the final hearing on 13th January 2012 HH Judge Tyzack secured the placement of Tun with the maternal grandparents by making a special guardianship order in their favour. This final order is the third of the three orders that Mr and Mrs B seek to challenge in their proposed appeal.
17. As I have indicated, the notice of appeal was filed on 3rd February 2012. Whilst it specifies the three orders to which I have made reference, the appeal is in fact against the entire process that has been undertaken from December 2010 onwards. Mr and Mrs B seek a complete re-hearing of all the issues in the case. In addition to raising matters in relation to the court process and the orders made, they also express extreme concern for Tun's welfare in the care of his grandparents both before and, more particularly, since the special guardianship order was made in January.
18. The grounds of appeal are detailed but may be summarised as follows:
a) Neither the interim threshold criteria in s 38 nor the full threshold criteria in s 31 could be established on the evidence in relation to their care of Tun.
b) In any event, placement with the maternal grandparents was not in Tun's best interests.
c) A "no contact" order was not justified.
d) The judge abused the s 37 process by making a series of interim care orders which were not justified by the evidence and not supported by the local authority.
e) The children's guardian failed to carry out a proper assessment.
f) Torbay Council failed to carry out a proper assessment.
g) The four separate assessments conducted by Leicestershire CC all concluded that there was no evidence of significant harm. The judge's conclusions went against the weight of this evidence.
h) The judge has never given reasons for holding that the threshold criteria were established.
i) Any alleged bad behaviour by Mr and Mrs B towards professionals was not witnessed by the children and should not have been given weight.
j) Tun's behaviour, and the grandparent's ability to control it, is a real cause for concern. HHJ Tyzack was not given a full and correct account of this and/or chose to downplay or ignore it to the extent that his decision to make a special guardianship order was plainly wrong.
k) The judge was in error in proceeding with the January hearing rather than granting Mrs B's request for an adjournment so that she could be present on a later date.
b) In any event, placement with the maternal grandparents was not in Tun's best interests.
c) A "no contact" order was not justified.
d) The judge abused the s 37 process by making a series of interim care orders which were not justified by the evidence and not supported by the local authority.
e) The children's guardian failed to carry out a proper assessment.
f) Torbay Council failed to carry out a proper assessment.
g) The four separate assessments conducted by Leicestershire CC all concluded that there was no evidence of significant harm. The judge's conclusions went against the weight of this evidence.
h) The judge has never given reasons for holding that the threshold criteria were established.
i) Any alleged bad behaviour by Mr and Mrs B towards professionals was not witnessed by the children and should not have been given weight.
j) Tun's behaviour, and the grandparent's ability to control it, is a real cause for concern. HHJ Tyzack was not given a full and correct account of this and/or chose to downplay or ignore it to the extent that his decision to make a special guardianship order was plainly wrong.
k) The judge was in error in proceeding with the January hearing rather than granting Mrs B's request for an adjournment so that she could be present on a later date.
19. It is also to be noted that in a letter to the Court of Appeal Mrs B seeks to appeal an order made on 17th April 2012 regarding contact. No Notice of Appeal has been filed with regard to this order and no leave has been given to amend the current Notice of Appeal in this regard. It is not therefore a matter that is currently before this court.
20. The case came before me for an oral permission to appeal hearing on 20th April 2012. At that stage the paperwork that Mr and Mrs B had been able to supply to the court was almost non-existent. It was plain that there was a substantial history to the proceedings. In particular, the watershed hearing on 10th December 2010 was plainly of importance, yet there was no transcript before the court. Mr and Mrs B made a general complaint that, despite, they said, many requests, the parties and the court had failed to give them copies of many relevant documents. It was therefore impossible for me to conduct any informed assessment of the merits of the proposed appeal. I therefore adjourned the application and directed that the entire court file from Exeter should be delivered to the Court of Appeal so that I might extract a clip of particularly relevant documents which would be copied to Mr and Mrs B. Finally, in view of the unusual course of the proceedings and the scale of proposed appeal, I directed that the adjourned oral hearing should be listed before two members of the court.
21. The adjourned hearing took place on 9th July 2012. In accordance with my direction two large boxes containing files from Exeter County Court had been received and I had provided copies of the key material to Mr and Mrs B. For their part Mr and Mrs B had provided an additional bundle of material for the court. Unfortunately the Court of Appeal office had assumed that that was a replacement for the original appeal bundle, and my Lord, Lord Justice Ward, and I were only provided with the original appeal bundle during the course of the hearing.
22. We heard extensive oral submissions from Mr and Mrs B over a video link. It is right to record that much of the early part of the hearing was dominated by Mr B who allowed his anger and frustration to manifest itself to the extent that it was difficult for us to focus on the substantive points that the couple wished to make. Mr B sought to prevent Mrs B from addressing us at all. It was only when Mr B was persuaded to subside and Mrs B was permitted to address the court in more measured tones that we came to see more clearly the potential merits of their case. At the conclusion of the hearing my Lord, with characteristic bluntness and charm, advised Mr B in no uncertain terms to control his anger and frustration at any subsequent hearing and to allow Mrs B, who is after all the mother of these children, to be the principal advocate of their case.
23. Having considered all of the matters that were placed before us we concluded that there was sufficient merit in the points raised to justify the entire process that has been undertaken since December 2010 being examined by the full court. We therefore extended the time for appealing and gave permission to Mr and Mrs B to appeal the orders of December 2010, April 2011 and January 2012. The purpose of this judgment is in part to set out an orderly chronological history, which I have already attempted to do and to summarise the reasons that have led us to grant permission to appeal.
24. Without expressing any concluded view as to the ultimate merit or otherwise of these matters, the points that particularly justify a full hearing are as follows:
20. The case came before me for an oral permission to appeal hearing on 20th April 2012. At that stage the paperwork that Mr and Mrs B had been able to supply to the court was almost non-existent. It was plain that there was a substantial history to the proceedings. In particular, the watershed hearing on 10th December 2010 was plainly of importance, yet there was no transcript before the court. Mr and Mrs B made a general complaint that, despite, they said, many requests, the parties and the court had failed to give them copies of many relevant documents. It was therefore impossible for me to conduct any informed assessment of the merits of the proposed appeal. I therefore adjourned the application and directed that the entire court file from Exeter should be delivered to the Court of Appeal so that I might extract a clip of particularly relevant documents which would be copied to Mr and Mrs B. Finally, in view of the unusual course of the proceedings and the scale of proposed appeal, I directed that the adjourned oral hearing should be listed before two members of the court.
21. The adjourned hearing took place on 9th July 2012. In accordance with my direction two large boxes containing files from Exeter County Court had been received and I had provided copies of the key material to Mr and Mrs B. For their part Mr and Mrs B had provided an additional bundle of material for the court. Unfortunately the Court of Appeal office had assumed that that was a replacement for the original appeal bundle, and my Lord, Lord Justice Ward, and I were only provided with the original appeal bundle during the course of the hearing.
22. We heard extensive oral submissions from Mr and Mrs B over a video link. It is right to record that much of the early part of the hearing was dominated by Mr B who allowed his anger and frustration to manifest itself to the extent that it was difficult for us to focus on the substantive points that the couple wished to make. Mr B sought to prevent Mrs B from addressing us at all. It was only when Mr B was persuaded to subside and Mrs B was permitted to address the court in more measured tones that we came to see more clearly the potential merits of their case. At the conclusion of the hearing my Lord, with characteristic bluntness and charm, advised Mr B in no uncertain terms to control his anger and frustration at any subsequent hearing and to allow Mrs B, who is after all the mother of these children, to be the principal advocate of their case.
23. Having considered all of the matters that were placed before us we concluded that there was sufficient merit in the points raised to justify the entire process that has been undertaken since December 2010 being examined by the full court. We therefore extended the time for appealing and gave permission to Mr and Mrs B to appeal the orders of December 2010, April 2011 and January 2012. The purpose of this judgment is in part to set out an orderly chronological history, which I have already attempted to do and to summarise the reasons that have led us to grant permission to appeal.
24. Without expressing any concluded view as to the ultimate merit or otherwise of these matters, the points that particularly justify a full hearing are as follows:
a) Given the importance of the decision made on 10th December 2010 to make an interim care order in private law proceedings, where the local authority had on at least two previous occasions, one less than a month prior to the hearing, indicated that there were no grounds for seeking a public law order, the judgment given on that day is extremely brief and amounts to little more than an assertion that there is "really no doubt at all" that the interim threshold criteria in s 38 are met on the basis of emotional abuse, principally arising from Mr B's bullying and intimidating behaviour. The contrary stance of the local authority indicates ground for questioning if the s 38 threshold criteria were actually met.
b) The judge's stated justification for making an interim care order in December 2010 was to gain Mr and Mrs B's co-operation with the local authority assessment process. Once that had been achieved in January 2011 and in the light of the local authority's sustained assertion that there were no grounds for a further interim care order, the judge's decision to make two subsequent fresh s 37 directions, thereby maintaining the court's jurisdiction to make interim care orders, must be open to question.
c) In his judgment of 12th April 2011, HHJ Tyzack give a detailed account of the history to date. It is of note that, at paragraph 9, the judge summarises the social work evidence as follows:
b) The judge's stated justification for making an interim care order in December 2010 was to gain Mr and Mrs B's co-operation with the local authority assessment process. Once that had been achieved in January 2011 and in the light of the local authority's sustained assertion that there were no grounds for a further interim care order, the judge's decision to make two subsequent fresh s 37 directions, thereby maintaining the court's jurisdiction to make interim care orders, must be open to question.
c) In his judgment of 12th April 2011, HHJ Tyzack give a detailed account of the history to date. It is of note that, at paragraph 9, the judge summarises the social work evidence as follows:
"…up until quite recently professionals from Leicestershire County Council have been able to work with Mr and Mrs B so far as the care of Tun is concerned. Indeed Ms S's first two statements, which are comprehensive and thorough, attest to that fact, that, despite the difficulties that Leicester have had with Mr and Mrs B in achieving their co-operation, they have been able, up until recently, to work with them so far as Tun is concerned."
The judge then goes on to record that "all that has fallen away" following the withdrawal of co-operation pursuant to the order of 4th March. Given the judge's conclusion that the previous social work reports were favourable to Mr and Mrs B and were "comprehensive and thorough", the court's grounds for nevertheless making s 37 directions at earlier hearings, in part on the basis that the social work assessment was incomplete, falls to be questioned.
d) Insofar as the threshold criteria are concerned, the 12th April 2011 judgment, in like manner to that of December 2010, does not refer to the evidence prior to those dates which would establish a factual basis for holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Tun is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. At paragraph 18 the judge simply says "I should say that I find the threshold criteria met, so far as this application is concerned, on a s 38 basis…."
e) In the judge's written reasons underpinning the order made 13th January 2012 more detail of the threshold criteria is given at paragraph 25 to 37. Put shortly, the judge found the threshold was crossed on two bases, firstly that "at the time Tun was removed he found himself living in a home where he was caught up in the bitter and hostile atmosphere which had by then developed and which was causing him emotional harm" and, secondly, that Mr and Mrs B would only co-operate with the social services on their terms and that was an unacceptable basis. Part of Mr and Mrs B's criticism of the judge's decision is that by making a special guardianship order to the maternal grandparents he had moved Tun from one home in this polarised dysfunctional family to another. The short background to this point is that there is apparently total antipathy between Mrs B and her parents. For example the judge at paragraph 43 quotes Mrs B describing the grandparents as "evil minded people who have for the past six years manipulated Dr K in order to eventually lay claim to the children". Mr and Mrs B's submissions, as I understand them, are that if the judge's motivation was to save Tun from exposure to the emotional fall-out within this family, placing him in another part of the family could not be justified and, on that basis, it would be better for him to be placed in a totally neutral environment. In this context it is of note that the expert psychiatrist, Dr Judith Freedman, upon whose opinion the judge relied in December 2010 in sanctioning the removal of Tun from Mr and Mrs B's home stated (page 62 of November 2010 report):
d) Insofar as the threshold criteria are concerned, the 12th April 2011 judgment, in like manner to that of December 2010, does not refer to the evidence prior to those dates which would establish a factual basis for holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Tun is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. At paragraph 18 the judge simply says "I should say that I find the threshold criteria met, so far as this application is concerned, on a s 38 basis…."
e) In the judge's written reasons underpinning the order made 13th January 2012 more detail of the threshold criteria is given at paragraph 25 to 37. Put shortly, the judge found the threshold was crossed on two bases, firstly that "at the time Tun was removed he found himself living in a home where he was caught up in the bitter and hostile atmosphere which had by then developed and which was causing him emotional harm" and, secondly, that Mr and Mrs B would only co-operate with the social services on their terms and that was an unacceptable basis. Part of Mr and Mrs B's criticism of the judge's decision is that by making a special guardianship order to the maternal grandparents he had moved Tun from one home in this polarised dysfunctional family to another. The short background to this point is that there is apparently total antipathy between Mrs B and her parents. For example the judge at paragraph 43 quotes Mrs B describing the grandparents as "evil minded people who have for the past six years manipulated Dr K in order to eventually lay claim to the children". Mr and Mrs B's submissions, as I understand them, are that if the judge's motivation was to save Tun from exposure to the emotional fall-out within this family, placing him in another part of the family could not be justified and, on that basis, it would be better for him to be placed in a totally neutral environment. In this context it is of note that the expert psychiatrist, Dr Judith Freedman, upon whose opinion the judge relied in December 2010 in sanctioning the removal of Tun from Mr and Mrs B's home stated (page 62 of November 2010 report):
"We think that it is time to address this chronic and worsening situation by moving the boys from the care of their respective parents. We do not recommend that they live with members of the maternal family, since in such placement the boys would continue to feel the pressure of the conflict between their parents."
f) Mr and Mrs B point to documentary evidence relating to Tun's behaviour at the grandparent's home and at school prior to the January hearing. The records that we have now seen show that this, then eleven year old, boy had already been excluded from school on no fewer than eleven occasions prior to January 2012. He had been in trouble with the police on a number of occasions. Whilst this topic is referred to in the special guardianship report supporting placement with the grandparents (for example internal page 22), it is Mr and Mrs B's case that the court was not given anything like the full picture of the extent of Tun's troubled behaviour. The report speaks (again at page 22) of the "hope that Tun's behaviour will settle down once the pressure of the current proceedings has ended and Tun is clear about where he is to live". Mr and Mrs B's case on appeal is that the opposite has occurred. They assert that Tun has continued to be the subject of police intervention, he is now engaged with the Youth Offending Team, he attends a YMCA facility on two days a week instead of attending school and the family are said to be in receipt of a social services "intensive family support package". It is Mr and Mrs B's case that if the full extent of Tun's difficult behaviour had been known to the court in January 2012, a special guardianship order would not at that stage have been justified as being in the boy's best interests (at least without further assessment) and, in any event, the matter now requires re-opening in view of the significant deterioration in his behaviour since that time.
25. Having considered all of these matters we were sufficiently concerned as to the process adopted in the course of the proceedings in Exeter to grant permission to appeal. In addition to the matters which I have now summarised, Mr and Mrs B seek to make a range of other points. My summary is not intended to limit the appeal to the matters to which I have made reference and, if the case is now to be looked at by the full court, all of Mr and Mrs B's arguments will be considered, but the court, no doubt, will direct the focus of the hearing as it sees fit.
26. Before concluding this judgment it is right to record that that files received from Exeter are plainly deficient in that (a) they do not contain very much material at all relating to the private law proceedings between 2008 and the end of 2010 and (b) they do not contain all of the documents that will have been filed for the December 2010 to January 2012 process (for example reports from the children's guardian). It will be necessary for the parties to the proceedings to ensure that the Court of Appeal has all of the key documents available to it in a core bundle for the appeal hearing.
Lord Justice Ward27. I agree.
26. Before concluding this judgment it is right to record that that files received from Exeter are plainly deficient in that (a) they do not contain very much material at all relating to the private law proceedings between 2008 and the end of 2010 and (b) they do not contain all of the documents that will have been filed for the December 2010 to January 2012 process (for example reports from the children's guardian). It will be necessary for the parties to the proceedings to ensure that the Court of Appeal has all of the key documents available to it in a core bundle for the appeal hearing.
Lord Justice Ward27. I agree.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Monday, 30 July 2012
APPEAL DATE IS SET
ITS IN OCTOBER
we are really excited and looking forward to the day out at the Royal Court Of Justice. anticipating a few red faces of certain solicitors and other evil types of local authority staff. we will of course keep our blog friends up to speed
we are really excited and looking forward to the day out at the Royal Court Of Justice. anticipating a few red faces of certain solicitors and other evil types of local authority staff. we will of course keep our blog friends up to speed
Thursday, 19 July 2012
Janine Bond solicitor for Torbay Local Authroity- pure evil
so after the child is placed in a supervision order, and sgo... giving the local authority no powers at all we find the solicitor janine bond doing this!! the following is an email from our lads head teacher: i think it shows Janine Bond and Torbay Council for what they are: SCUM
Dear Mrs Baggaley.
I have been advised by the LA legal team to inform you that I am not permitted to enter into any further communication with you. I realise that is frustrating. We will of course respond to any legal instruction from the courts. To date we have received nothing despite your previous email.
Regards
Colin Kirkman
the dept of health have replied to this action by the evil Janine Bond
this is the education dept take on it: Dear Mrs Baggaley,
Thank you for your email, of 19 June 2012, seeking clarification on the effect of a ‘Special Guardianship Order’ (SGO) on your right to access information about your son from his school.
As stated in our reply of the 18th June 2012 to your previous enquiry, the Department does not become involved in complaints about the actions of schools unless the complainant has exhausted the school's complaints procedure, including any appeals process, and is dissatisfied with the outcome. Where we have established that this is the case and accept jurisdiction to deal with a complaint, we would undertake a process of establishing all relevant facts which, in this case, would seek information from the school and the special guardian before reaching any specific conclusion or giving advice. I am sure you will understand, therefore, that at this point, I am only able to provide advice in very general terms.
The legal requirements relevant to your complaint about your child's school are contained in The Education (Pupil Information) Regulations 2005 S.I. 1437. These Regulations impose obligations upon governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools to provide access by a ‘parent’ to their child’s educational and curricular record. The relevant definition of a ‘parent’ is set out in section 576 of the Education Act 1996. This provides that a 'parent' includes:
· all persons with parental responsibility for a child, irrespective of whether they are the child’s natural parents;
· all natural parents, whether they are married or not; and
· any person who has care of a child, irrespective of whether they are a natural parent or have parental responsibility.
I have reviewed the Department’s reply of 18 June and I am sorry that it was not as clear as it should have been. As you are aware, the effect of an SGO is to give parental responsibility to the appointed special guardian. An SGO does not take away parental responsibility completely from a parent, but it may limit the extent to which a parent is able to exercise parental responsibility.
I note in your email of 19 June, that you state that the SGO does not limit your parental responsibility. I am not able to comment upon this statement not having seen the SGO. As a general principle, an SGO would not necessarily operate to release a governing body from their obligations under the Regulations I have referred to above.
In conclusion, I will reiterate the Department’s advice of 18 June, and ask you to approach the head teacher again to request that you are included in its communication activity about your son’s educational information. It may also help if you submit a copy of this letter.
If you continue to feel that the school does not respond appropriately, it is open to you to complete its formal complaint procedure and raise a complaint with the Governing Body.
As noted above, it is only if this formal process is completed and you remain dissatisfied, that you can raise a formal complaint with this Department. Please ensure that in doing so you include copies of all correspondence with the school and with the governing body, together with your reasons for remaining dissatisfied. We will also need your written permission to make the appropriate enquires with the school and other organisations as required.
I hope this information is helpful and I very much hope that you will be able to resolve this matter satisfactorily with the school.
Yours sincerely,
Mayuri Patel
Family Strategy and Engagement Division
Mayuri.PATEL@education.gsi.gov.uk
www.education.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2012/0041691.
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Good News - Appeal Allowed
after a hearing in the royal courts of justice, on 9th July 2012, before lord justice Macfarlane and Lord Justice Ward our appeal was allowed. we will keep you informed, the appeal has been allowed on 3 parts, the original threshold december 2010, the contesting of an Interim Care Order in April 2011 and the final order of January 2012. We are very much looking forward to updating you. thanks for the support everyone.
Sunday, 17 June 2012
letter to Lord Justice Wall-no reply yet
this is what we wrote August 2011. we were able to do this even without a crystal ball.
Collusion Conspiring Colaboration and Misconduct HHJ Tyzack Leicestershire Social Services
For the attention of Lord Wall Head of family division
HHJ Tyzack at the hearing Exeter County Court
22nd August 2011
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THE COLLUSION, CONSPRING, UNOFFICIAL COLABORATION AND MISCONDUCT OF HHJ TYZACK
OFFICIAL REQUEST TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TO REMOVE HHJ TYZACK FROM THE CASE
IN THE CASE OF
ANGELA BAGGALEY, V DR A H KAZEEM AND LEICESTERSHIRE SOCIAL SERVICES
· His Honour Judge Tyzack, the court, Mark Williams (solicitor for the guardian) and John Ingham (the guardian) have been colluding and collaborating in this case since 2010 to remove A (child) from the care of the mother. The mother is aware that outside of court meetings have taken place and the mother alleges that the above have conspired in order to make orders that would enable the court to place A in Devon. Orders that are in the majority of cases unfathomable and without any fact.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack, the mother alleges, has purposely ignored expert evidence and has forced Leicestershire County Council social services by way of constantly rejecting sound assessment reports unjustly, to give into pressure forced onto them by HHJ Tyzack to change their positive attitude toward the Baggaleys as good parents for the child. HHJ Tyzack bullied the social worker into changing perfectly sound 26 page and 16 page assessment reports simply due to their being in the Baggaleys positive favour.
· The evidence of this in particular was where on one statement from social services. His Honour stated that on every single page of a 26 page document there were issues raised that caused concern for the welfare of A. This statement was not just a gross over exaggeration but was simply untrue. The assessment was a full and thorough 26 page document that had no comments that would have raised any concern to any judge who was able to remain unbias. HHJ TyzacK has never explained what these concerns on “every page” are leaving the mother with no chance of appealing, which is a breach of the appeals act.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack contacted the Director of Leicestershire County Council and told him to make sure A was not placed in mothers residence whilst in interim care, even though His Honour had no legal right to state where the child lives whilst in interim care. This action alone is above and beyond the realms of a fair justice and caused harassment to the mother and child. The judge abused his powers to cause emotional harm to the child and harassment to the mother.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack was transparently discriminate against the mother when making unfounded allegations that the mother and step-father had emotionally abused A. No finding of facts has taken place and the professionals assessing the child were stating the complete opposite.
· In May 2010 His Honour Judge Tyzack was told by the guardian allegations made by the father regards A care whilst living with us in Hinckley. His Honour, at that time stated these allegations were not allegations that amount to a risk of significant harm to the child. Yet in November 2010, some 6 months on, with exactly the same allegations His Honour stated that they were issues of risk of significant harm. This is a clear mismanagement of the case.
· Since November 2010 His Honour Judge Tyzack has reacted to and accepted every word told to him by the guardian usually in a knee jerk reaction. This is without question, without finding of facts, without any evidence, factual or physical being presented to the court by the guardian whom His Honour knows has only met with the mother and step-father for a total of thirty minutes in a 17 month period and has never assessed A with the mother and family.
· Therefore His Honour is fully aware that the guardian has, is and always will provide a one-sided on-going assessment to the court. The mother alleges that that His Honour’s blinded acceptance of the guardian’s one-sided on-going assessment is not only mismanagement of the case but in fact proof of corruptness within these proceedings. The mother alleges the judge is not acting in the correct conduct. The judge must show the same justice to all parties, however by refusing to take action regards the guardian not assessing us and then simply taking the guardians word for everything and acting upon the words in a knee jerk reaction the mother alleges this is misconduct. This is because the reaction of the judge usually has a profound and lasting effect upon the child and the mother, in total HHJ Tyzack has taken 15 months to take both children away from both parents, The judge can not for one second say his work in this case has been of a positive nature for either the children or each birth parent, and the stepfather. It is the judges disregard for the Baggaleys and discrimination against them that has led to a family being wiped apart, yet this case for the previous 5 years was kept together by HHJ Robertshaw. The outcome so far alone shows a judge intent on wrecking the family life of these children.
· His Honour has consistently stated certain things in hearings and then at following hearings has refused to accept that he stated it or simply and wrongfully states that he did not say it, however the mother notes for the period that His Honour has been involved that this does not seem to apply to the other parties in the case.
· An example of this is where His Honour Judge Tyzack stated in one hearing that it is obvious that Nigel Baggaley should be made party to the case to enable him to question and answer to allegations that involve him directly yet at the following hearing where the actual application was made simply asked the other parties “do you agree to Nigel Baggaley being made party to the case”. They disagreed and His Honour simply ruled Nigel Baggaley could not be made party to the case, simply going against everything that was stated at the previous hearing. This was and remains an abundantly clear mismanagement of the case. The fact all allegations that have led to the child being taken into interim care are solely surrounding Nigel Baggaley for the umteenth time in this case shows the judge mismanaging this case. It is essential Nigel Baggaley is able to answer to and question the allegations made against him by parties who live 200 miles away from our home, consider the allegations were made once again by a (father) who was having his 7th mental breakdown at the time (and sectioned later) it is mismanagement of the case that no finding of facts hearing has been allowed. The mother alleges the judge is purpously avoiding a finding of facts hearing as he and the other parties in the case can not and will not be able to find fact on allegations made originally in May 2010 that the same judge staed catorgorically “these are not issues that relate to allegations of a risk of significant harm. When the judge is fully aware the issues are exactly the same in November 2010 when this time the judge states they are allegations of significant harm, the judge has used the time since the child has been in interim care (10 months) to witch-hunt the mother and family in order to shore up the case against the mother. The mother alleges the judge helps the other parties, in their case against the mother and family.
· Some of the decisions made by His Honour Judge Tyzack are simply non-understandable and below an expectable standard for a judge of the high vourt.
· in the light of the evidence before the court. A was placed in interim care in December 2010. The mother has consistently asked His Honour, face to face in court to provide her with the reasons and evidence for placing A on a section 37 order and secondly the evidence used for the welfare safety checklist calculator.
· On every occasion His Honour Judge Tyzack has refused to comment or bypassed the mother’s requests by either shouting at the mother or changing the subject, refusing to answer the questions. The fact is and the mother alleges this officially, the mother believes His Honour does not actually know why he made the original order or cannot remember why. These actions by His Honour to refuse the mother any explanation puts the mother’s case at a clear disadvantage and prevents the mother from appealing the decision on the section 37 and interim care order due to the fact that the mother is blind as to the reasons. This is clear mismanagement of the case and a clear abuse of the process by His Honour Judge Tyzack. The mother is entitled to know the reasons for the courts decisions
· The mother alleges that His Honour Judge Tyzack and the guardian have chosen to ignore serious and severe harm caused to the children by the father DR. A.H. Kazeem.
· The mother alleges the court, the guardian and Torbay Social Services have conspired to protect Mr. Kazeem in the hope to return the boys to their father in the long-term.
· His Honour Judge Tyzack has purposely taken no action regards the emotional harm the children suffered when living with their mentally ill father. All parties except the Burtons and Leicestershire County Council have shown no concern whatsoever regards what actually took place with the children in the father’s care. In specific the father was telling the children the mother was dead for 6 months and not having a proper sense of whether he is well or delusional.
· The court simply allow the father open contact for as long and as many times as he wishes. Considering this was the father’s 8th sectioning and still not fully recovered from his last release from a psychiatric ward it is clear the court have no qualms leaving the boys in his care alone at a time when if this case was managed correctly the children would not be allowed within 10 feet of the father. This is clear mismanagement of this case and His Honour Judge Tyzack is prepared to put the children at further risk from their father, his honour shows a clear favorotism for the father,whom can not put a foot wrong.. There is no psychiatric opinion before the court stating that the father is safe to have unsupervised contact with the children. No psychiatric reports were sought before allowing contact to go ahead.
· At the same time further mismanagement of the case is abundantly clear where His Honour takes no action to protect the children from a father who it is agreed has caused emotional harm to the children and the evidence is abundant. Yet the court has no evidence regards the mother or step-father causing emotional harm to either child. Yet this case is so badly mismanaged that the mother and step-father are treated by the court as though the court has evidence as it does in the case of Mr. Kazeem. However the court does not have said evidence and therefore the court is in fact acting in a discriminate and persecuting manner against the mother and step-father. This is misconduct and mismanagement of the case.
· The court further mismanaged the interim care order of A in that the court refused to accept evidence from Miss. G, A's support teacher, refused to allow David Charleton, probation officer, to attend court to give evidence and has simply refused to acknowledge that all professionals who worked within A's life…. not only had no concerns but those professionals made it clear that A should remain where he was in Hinckley with the mother and family. This leaves the mother to make the allegation officially that the court in specific His Honour Judge Tyzack acted in an unjust and unprofessional manner by ignoring all of the professionals working with A except for one-Mr. Ingham, the guardian.
· The court should have managed this case in a fairer manner to the child and to the mother and family but instead chose to pursue a course of action that no matter what lack of evidence there was, no matter what the working professionals stated and no matter that the court was in possession of 5 separate social service assessments it is the opinion of the mother who alleges, His Honour Judge Tyzack had pre-arranged along with the guardian and Mark Williams what the outcome of this case would be.
· The mother therefore alleges His Honour has acted in a corrupt, unprofessional and devious manner, which the mother alleges amounts to misconduct. The mother makes this official allegation both to the court, Lord Wall and the Lord Chief Justice. This will also form part of an official complaint to The Office For Judicial Complaints. The mother is officially seeking a full and thorough investigation into this case since the involvement of His Honour Judge Tyzack and also seeks an official and thorough investigation into her allegations of corruptness and collusion between His Honour Judge Tyzack, Mark Williams and John Ingham.
· This official request for an investigation will also be copied into an application for a judicial review that will be made in the next 7 days and an application for appeal to The Royal Courts of Justice for appeal against orders relating to the interim care order where also an application will be made to The Royal Courts of Justice for the case to be restarted and transferred to the courts of London.
· The mother alleges His Honour Judge Tyzack and the guardian have conspired to make this case prolonged and protracted in order that social services became involved in the matter. The mother alleges this was done to prevent A living with the mother and the mother’s family for the rest of his childhood. The mother does not make these allegations lightly.
· The mother fully understands that these allegations are of the up most serious nature. The mother seeks that His Honour Judge Tyzack either remove himself or be removed from the case in full and not able to return to it.
· The mother is seeking the Head of The Family Court Division take steps to have investigators meet with the mother and step-father to take full statements and to see evidence
· The Mother also seeks The Head of The Family Division remove His Honour Judge Tyzack from the case and replace with Her Honour Judge Robertshaw or transfer the case to any court outside of Devon.
· HHJ Tyzack clearly has an agenda in this case that HHJ Robertshaw did not.
· The mother is aware of a connection between ex-detective sergeant Blair, John Ingham, Mark Williams, Val Reeves (cafcass), Stephen Williams (cafcass) and His Honour Judge Tyzack. These people are connected outside of their professional capacities. The mother alleges that there is sufficient cause of concern regarding the relationship between these professionals that it has an impact which is negative and discriminate against the mother and step-father.
· The mother is also seeking an independent inquiry/investigation into the lies given to the mother and Leicestershire County Council between the 18th August and 22nd August 2011.
· The Judge, the court office staff and Mark Williams all told blatant lies between these dates regards the court hearing due to take place 22nd August 2011.
· From the communications the mother has in her possession it is clear that the above parties colluded in an attempt to stop the hearing on the 22nd taking place. It is apparent they reached a decision together outside of official boundaries but then forgot what they told each other the reason was for the hearing not taking place.
· Because of this the mother received two completely different stories, one from the court and one from Mark Williams.
· The court stated the hearing for the 22nd August had been adjourned in June 2011, this was clearly untrue,
· a lie as the solicitor for Leicestershire County Council stated the court had only e-mailed her about the hearing the week previous regarding the hearing for the 22nd.
· Mark Williams at the same time said no listing had taken place what so ever for the hearing on the 22nd. When the mother pointed this out to all sides the discrepancies in each sides story the hearing was miraculously put back on.
· However HHJ Tyzack then made an order that he knew would prevent mother from attending the court by stating the mother would need to apply for step-father to attend the hearing. This was ordered knowing that the mother and step-father make a 400 mile round trip to appear in court.
· HHJ Tyzack knew the mother and step-father would not risk that amount of time and expense to be told the step-father cannot attend.
· This was a clear mismanagement of the case, the Judge had only previously in June 2011 stated that Mr and Mrs Baggaley are classed by the court as a singular unit,
· “Mr Baggaley can attend hearings and both Mr and Mrs Baggaley can address the court”.
· The mother states this is a typical example of HHJ Tyzack in the past 18 months. HHJ Tyzack’s inability to do what he says he will do from one hearing to the next hearing is unfair and unjust but it must be stated and the mother alleges that HHJ Tyzack’s forgetfulness or inability to link what he says from one hearing to the next somehow only seems to affect the mother. HHJ Tyzack’s memory is perfection for the other parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)