Click on the links to watch the BBC and ITV documentaries.

1. Watch the BBC film above  ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
   Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout

2. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg    A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms………

3. See the programme on Channel 4 News

   http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

   Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform our family courts and social services all on one page !

   Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016

   https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

1. Remember social workers have no power but judges do have it !So you and your parents should make direct applications to the court and never via solicitors or social workers !

2. Contact with children in care – what parents should know

   When a child is taken into care, parents can ask straight away for contact to be set up, even if the local authority does not tell parents they can do this.

   Many parents find that they do not get contact at the start of child protection investigations, and then find that their children do not want to see them, or they are being told by social workers that their children do not want to have contact.

   Keeping that connection with your child is vital to ensure no negative external influences affect your child’s state of mind, and that your child can continue to feel that you love and care for them.

   The right to contact can be found in Section 34(1) of Children Act 1989, which says that children’s social services must allow a child to have reasonable contact with: his or her parents; guardians; anyone who looked after the child under wardship just before a care order was made; and anyone with a residence order or child arrangements order for residence just before a care order was made.

   If you have parental responsibility for your child, the local authority must tell you where you child is once they enter care, and can only ever withhold this information if it is not in the child’s best interests to share their location.

   You are entitled to ask for help with travel costs to get to and from the contact sessions if paying for these expenses would cause you financial hardship. You can ask the local authority what their policy is on helping with these costs, as they have the power to fund your travel.

   Once contact starts, if you think the level of contact you are getting with your child is not good enough, you should ask the social worker for a written statement explaining the reasons for the current level of contact. Getting this written statement is very important, as it establishes the local authority’s position about the contact routine and prevents the local authority from adding more reasons later on.

   You should also send a proposal to the social worker in writing (text or email) for the kind of contact you think is appropriate for you and your child.

   If a social worker refuses to change the format or frequency of the contact, Section 34 of the Children Act gives you the power to apply to the family courts to ask for a different contact routine, or for contact if you have not yet been able to see your child.

   An application for contact to the court is made using a C1 form, or if court proceedings have already started, you can use a C2 form. You will also need the C15 supplement form.

   If you fit into any of the carer categories in the second paragraph of this article, you do not need permission to submit an application for contact. Anyone else who wants to apply for contact will need to get the court’s permission.

   The courts must take into account the following principles when deciding to grant contact or change the terms of a current contact arrangement:

   • If the contact is in the child’s best interests
   • Reasonable contact between the parents and child should continue
   • The application is part of an effort to set aside a care order
   • Parents can show a change of circumstances which the local authority should have acknowledged when putting together the child’s care plan

   The court is also required to acknowledge that ongoing contact with natural parents:

   • Lets a child know that his or her parents still love them and care about them, and that this is important for a child’s sense of security
   • Protect against a child feeling abandoned or as if they have suffered a loss, which can be deeply damaging to the child
   • Ensure the child remains connected to his or her roots, and cultural, religious and ethnic identities.

   If the local authority decides to stop contact, they must get a court order before stopping that contact. It is not legal for a social worker to stop contact without getting a court order first.

   The only exceptions to this legal duty are: if there has been an incident of some kind which the local authority thinks is serious enough to stop contact, or if the quality of contact between you and your child has gotten worse over a long period of time.

   The local authority can then pause contact for up to 7 days. However it still cannot stop contact for more than 7 days, or indefinitely, without a court order.

   If a local authority has failed to comply with a contact arrangement, you can ask the court to attach a penal notice against the head of the children’s social services in the local authority, in your application for contact. If the local authority continue to breach an order for contact, the court can then issue a punishment such as a fine, or imprisonment.

———–

YES YOU CAN APPEAL ! (Usually within 21 days but sometimes longer if your lawyers wrongly told you that you could not appeal) or ask for permission to appeal.

You can always apply for contact.Also you can apply to discharge a care order,or to revoke an adoption placement (after a year ).That would not be  an appeal but a request for a new hearing due to changed circumstances.

Please note well,you can appeal(or apply for permission to appeal) any lower court decision,whether it be a magistrates court or county court,or even crown court ! Anyone who tells you differently is a barefaced liar !

If you appeal against adoption you CAN win !

Judge ordered teenage mother, 16, to give up her baby for adoption after just one court hearing with only THIRTEEN minutes of evidence

• A judge ordered a 16-year-old mother to give up her baby after a single hearing
• Judge Helen Black listened to evidence for 13 minutes before making a decision
• Appeal Court judges have now delivered a stinging rebuke to Judge Black and called for the case to be re-run under a new judge 

By STEVE DOUGHTY SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT FOR THE DAILY MAIL

STOP AND READ THIS!

All you mums who were told by the judge and your bent lawyers that you could not appeal the interim care order listen carefully ! Even if you are by now out of time (21 days) for an appeal you should apply for a residence order and so should your relations seperately if they wanted to care for your child but were ignored by social workers !
Download form C100 and they will have no excuse to just dismiss your applicaton as “without merit” .Something that happens with most applications for” permission to appeal” these days

THE LAW ON ADOPTION:- Adoption is a last resort when nothing else will do !

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

ZH v HS & Ors (Application to Revoke Adoption Order) [2019] EWHC 2190 (Fam)

Case in which the court took the highly unusual and exceptional step of exercising its inherent jurisdiction and revoking an adoption order which had been made following a flawed process, replete with errors and omissions.

This was an application by a child’s birth mother (ZH) to revoke an adoption order made in 2016 in relation to T, now aged 4.

ZH became separated from T when trying to secure entry to this country from Somalia via Holland, and she arrived 2 years after T. T had been delivered to her paternal aunt and uncle (HS and MO) who lived in the UK. HS and MO represented themselves in adoption proceedings, brought because they were being asked for court papers about the arrangement for T to live with them, and an adoption order was made.

All parties agreed the court should take the highly unusual and exceptional step of exercising the court’s inherent jurisdiction and revoking the adoption order, and that T should be placed in ZH’s care.

If the judge does decide that adoption is the ONLY possibility for your child?

Remember that since April 2014
the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.

Sometimes the adoption was not finalised and even more often the adoption broke down and the child was handed back into fostercare !  It is up to you to FIND OUT !!

IF YOU APPLY FOR CONTACT THAT IS ALSO A GOOD WAY TO FIND OUT IF YOUR CHILD HAS BEEN ADOPTED OR NOT !

in other cases

(1)Where a child is placed for adoption by an adoption agency and the prospective adopters give notice to the agency of their wish to return the child, the agency must—

(a)receive the child from the prospective adopters before the end of the period of seven days beginning with the giving of the notice, and

(b)give notice to any parent or guardian of the child of the prospective adopters’ wish to return the child

THAT IS THEN A VERY GOOD TIME FOR LOVING PARENTS TO APPLY FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR CHILD OR CHILDREN

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/19/facebook-adoption-tracing-birth-mother?CMP=share_btn_link     TRACING PARENTS VIA FACEBOOK !!

HR Act 1998 Article 6: ECHR 50 Art 6

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations is  everyone is entitled to equally treated by the court

The Court has returned my documents mention that i do not have permission to make this type of application for Revocation of a placement order. Also mention that I make an application to the court for permission.

But for the same application S24CA2002 made by Birmingham Children Trust  indicated that no need Court permission to make this application. And court accepted

As per that I previously made the application for Revocation of a placement order. Should be accept my application by the court office

A new report by the British Association Of Social Workers has concluded that children should have contact  with their biological families before, during and after adoption proceedings. The country’s leading social work body is also calling on the government to overhaul adoption law in line with this recommendation.

A growing number of birth parents who have lost children to the care system are calling out adoption agencies who fail to record their child’s details properly on adoption certificates, and in some instances never going through with the adoption at all.

Child rights campaigner Michele Simmons, who made a Freedom of Information request in 2017, on the issue, reported that she was concerned that the errors were deliberate omissions made with a view to making children taken into state care untraceable.

HAS YOUR CHILD BEEN ABUSED OR HURT IN CARE ,? Well you can apply for an emergency protection orderhttp:

The law is very clear. Under S.44 of The Children Act 1989, ANY PERSON who believes that a child is at risk can apply for an EPO.
An Emergency Protection Order is usually applied for when there are reasonable grounds to believe that there may be an immediate risk of significant harm to a child.
If you are a parent who believes their child is at risk of imminent harm whilst in the care of the State
As for EPOs, The Children Act gives parents the power to protect their children through them, as long as the danger is imminent. In fact, the Act makes provision for any person to apply, which includes parents and family members, first, with local authorities and ‘authorised persons’ listed after.

A recent case

It’s fair to say without discovering you I would have probably lost. Claire Is certainly worthy of being on your website!

Have a great Christmas

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 15:35, Ian Josephs

<ian@monaco.mc> wrote:

Very glad to hear you won ! Well done ;it shows they can be beaten if you prepare the case properly !

ian

De : safi kemal [mailto:safikemal@btinternet.com]
Envoyé : mardi 12 décembre 2017 16:22
À : ian@monaco.mc
Objet : RE: Current court proceedings section 37 requested

I won my case today. Permanent residence of children. SS asked for a hair drug test but got REFUSED. Thanks for all advice you’ve given. And Claire Roberts prepared my case perfectly.

Judges and lawyers deliberately deceive parents !

If at the conclusion of the case the family court  judge  says the usual “I refuse leave to appeal”that is not final at all though both the judge and your lawyers would like you to think it is .They rarely tell parents the truthful position and later judges remark that the parent FAILED TO APPEAL as though this mean’t they accepted the loss of their children. Do not hesitate therefore to ignore the judge’s initial refusal. Just go back to the court and apply for an oral hearing asking for permission to appeal !

Go to the court and ask for the correct form for your appeal.Do not take it home ,just fill it in while you are there and ask the staff to explain the meaning of any question or anything else you do not understand.Do not delay or they may say you are out of time !Get a receipt when you leave your appeal form with the court staff.

Things to consider before appealing

In most cases you will need a judge’s permission to appeal – permission to appeal will only be given if your appeal has a real prospect of succeeding or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. (FPR 30.3)

At the contested hearing on 7^th November, the court heard evidence from Dr van Rooyen who had conducted a paper assessment and did not support the return of NL to his mother’s care until she had completed her recovery programme.  She described her short-term prognosis as “extremely poor”.  Relying on this evidence, the justices decided to continue the interim care order with the care plan that NL remain in foster care.

The mother appealed 14 days after this hearing but the matter did not come before Pauffley J until 28^th January 2014.  The appeal was opposed by the local authority and the children’s guardian.

In allowing the appeal, Pauffley J is critical of a number of the procedural steps that led to the decision of 7^th November.

Firstly, Dr van Rooyen was instructed to undertake a ‘triage psychological assessment’ based on the case papers and without seeing the mother.  She was allowed less than one working day to undertake this piece of work prior to the 7^th November hearing.  In spite of this, her evidence became pivotal to the case.  Pauffley J describes herself as “gravely troubled by the manner and ambit of Dr van Rooyen’s involvement” stating that:

It surprises and alarms me that Dr van Rooyen was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. I struggle to understand how Dr van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her or, indeed, any communication with [the resource].

She concludes that the local authority had placed too much emphasis on finding an expert to support its care plan and that this had been at the expense of justice and a fair assessment.

In considering whether to seek permission to appeal, and in completing the appellant’s notice (FP161), please remember:

1. you must ensure that your appeal lies to the Family Division of the High Court, rather than to another court. Please refer to the leaflet ‘Routes of Appeal’ (FP201) for guidance. The acceptance by the Family Division Appeals Office of an appellant’s notice does not mean that the High Court accepts jurisdiction in the case.

If you can prove to the court staff that you are “on benefits” you should not have to pay a penny !!

Human Rights Act  rule 29.5(2) and Practice Direction 30A Appeals for litigants in person who were unrepresented at the lower court:

Sometimes you will need the judgement so that you can appeal against it and nobody will give it to you ;It is expensive to obtain transcripts so you are often better off quoting the rule above and proceeding as follows :-

.Rule 5.23 states, “Advocates’ notes of judgments where the appellant is unrepresented – When the appellant was unrepresented in the lower court it is the duty of any advocate for the respondent to make the advocate’s note of judgment promptly available, free of charge to the appellant where there is no officially recorded judgment or if the court so directs.”

FINDING THE CORRECT FORM

You can get a copy of the forms and notes for guidance (including for the Court of Appeal) at http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk

All forms and leaflets can be found at your local family court, or can be downloaded from our website http://www.hmcourt-service.gov.uk.

Judicial review

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.FORM   N461

It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.

This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.

If you are applying for an order related to enforcement of an existing contact order you should refer to leaflet CB5.

If you are applying for a Special Guardianship Order you should refer to leaflet CB4.

Application type	Forms needed
Residence Order	C100
Contact Order	C100
Prohibited Steps Order	C100
Specific Issue Order	C100
Application for an order for financial relief (s.15)	C1+ C10 + C10A
Variation of an order for financial relief	C1+ C10 + C10A
Discharge of an order for financial relief	C1+ C10 + C10A
Appointment of a guardian	C1
Discharge of appointment of a guardian	C1
Parental responsibility order (s.4)	C1
Step-parental responsibility order (s.4A)	C1
Discharge of a parental/step-parental responsibility order	C1
For an order in existing proceedings	C2
For permission to make an application (see section C)	C2
To be joined as a party in existing proceedings (for example if you have received a C6A Notice of Proceedings)	C2

The process is the same if you want to apply for a contact order,appeal against or oppose the renewal of an interim care order,obtain a residence order or special guardianship,oppose an order for adoption, get an adoption placement revoked(one year later) a care order discharged, or even an order to enforce a judgement given by the court ;

If you have difficulty unloading the form you need using the link http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/uploads/attachments/0000/2078/CB1_1108.pdf you can always ask the staff IN THE SAME COURT WHERE YOU APPEARED PREVIOUSLY for the correct form ,fill it in, then hand it in and get a receipt !

Procedure to apply for a discharge of the care order

You will apply on Form C110A with copies for each respondent, which is every person you think has parental responsibility for the child under a child arrangements order before the care order was granted, the child, the parties to the original care proceedings. Other people must be given notice of the proceedings, including the LA who is providing accommodation for the child and anyone who is caring for the child at the time you make the application.

See also the FPR Practice Direction 5A and 12A.

On filing your application with the court, the Public Law Outline timetable starts running so the application must be completed in 26 weeks.

Recent Cases on discharging a care order

For a recent authority when the court looked at discharging a care order see X (Discharge of care order) [2014]. The Judge was very concerned in this case by the failures of the LA. The court emphasised that it was important to look at the question of whether or not it was proportionate for a care order to continue. A solicitor has commented on this case here.

Particular problems for litigants in person

Appealing as a litigant in person

It is difficult to get public funding to make an appeal and some people may have to consider making an application without a lawyer.  You may have to pay a fee to get the court to issue your application – there is information about this on the government website.

Also see their leaflet – Court and Tribunal Fees – Do I have to pay them?. You don’t have to pay if you are receiving the following benefits:

The courts are alive to the difficulties this may cause – see the case of  R (a Child) [2014]

6. This case is illustrative of an increasing problem faced by this court. More and more litigants appear in front of us in person. Where, as here, the appellant is unrepresented, this requires all those involved in the appeal process to take on burdens that they would not normally have to bear. The court office finds itself having to attempt to make sure that the parties to the litigation are notified of the appeal because litigants in person do not always know who should be served; the only respondent named by M here was LA. The bundles that the court requires in order to determine the appeal are often not provided by the litigant, or are incomplete, and proper papers have to be assembled by the court, not infrequently at the request of the judges allocated to hear the case when they embark upon their preparation for the hearing just days before it is due to start. The grounds of appeal that can properly be advanced have to be identified by the judge hearing the permission application and the arguments in support of them may have to be pinpointed by the court hearing the appeal.

7. The court has no extra resources to respond to these added challenges. It needs to be understood that the file from the lower court is not available to the appeal court which is dependent on the papers supplied for the appeal by the parties. If it is to be able to deal properly with an appeal in care proceedings, and to do so speedily (as most local authorities require so that undue delay is avoided for the children who are the subject of the proceedings), then local authorities will have to expect to assist by ensuring that the court is provided with appeal bundles. Three copies of the appeal bundles are normally required, unless the appeal is ordered to be heard by two judges in which case only two copies need be supplied. The bundles will often have to include the documentation that was available to the court below, although there can be appeals in which the issue is so discrete that a more limited selection of papers will suffice. It is so frequently the case that the papers supplied by the appellant are deficient that it should be standard practice for the local authority to take steps itself, well in advance of the hearing, to consider the appellant’s proposed bundle and, if it is deficient or apparently non-existent, to contact the court to see whether it is necessary to supply alternative or supplementary bundles.

I repeat ” If you still cannot locate the form you need,you must ask the staff for the correct form fill it in, then hand it in and get a receipt ! The staff in the court are paid to explain anything on the form you do not understand but cannot give legal advice or tell you what to write on the form as that is your case! Do NOT take the form home ! Go to the court in the morning and stay all day if necessary until the form is completed , you have handed it in and got a receipt.

This leaflet will help you if you want to appeal against the decision. It will tell you:

1. what to consider before you appeal;
2. what you need to make an appeal; and
3. what to expect from the appeals process.

You can find more information about making an appeal in the guidance notes that come with the appellant’s notice forms N161, N161A, N164, FP161 or FP161A.

You can get a copy of the forms and notes for guidance (including for the Court of Appeal) at http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk

Donate

Contact

NOTE FROM IAN!

Usually the staff at « support through court » are very helpful but if you find someone unwilling to assist with formfilling or support in court please print off this instruction below by “support through court” and show the part marked in red to anyone there who seems hostile or indifferent to your problems PERSISTANCE WINS THE DAY!

IAN

SUPPORT THROUGH COURT

What we do

Every year, thousands of people in the UK face court alone. Without help, they have to represent themselves while they go through a divorce, seek custody of their children, or face eviction from their home. They are forced to navigate a complex legal system alone, often against the professional legal representation of the other party.

The increase in cuts to legal aid over recent years has meant that thousands more people face the civil or family courts alone. Their access to justice is limited by how overwhelming the legal system can be to those who have never faced it before, and many struggle to represent themselves effectively in court.

Our 750 volunteers provide a free service across England and Wales, offering support and guidance before, during, and after court. We ensure that those facing court alone feel prepared and supported in accessing justice.

How We Help

How we help

We are a charity supporting people who face court alone so that they can represent themselves to the best of their ability.

Our service is free and based in court buildings.

Our aim is to help clients represent themselves to the best of their abilities so that they have the very best chance of securing a just result before the Courts.

Our volunteers will provide reassurance and practicable help, including:

• Explain how the court works, help fill in forms, organise papers, and discuss settling issues without going to court

• Help plan what you want to say in court, and if needed, go with you to court to provide support, take notes and help afterwards

• Provide details of other specialist advice agencies and help you find out whether you can get free legal advice

Please note that we cannot provide legal advice. You may find useful information at Advice Now

Corporate Partners

All the support we receive helps people facing court alone

FIND OUT MORE

We have several offices across the UK.

Please click on your location below for more information and contact details, including opening times:

Birmingham – 0121 250 6354
Bournemouth – 0120 241 7606
Bristol – 0117 366 4809
Cardiff – 0292 034 3685
Chelmsford – 0124 524 5527
Chester – 0124 440 4299
Coventry – 0121 250 6354
Exeter and Devon – 0139 241 5335
Leeds – 0113 306 2764
Liverpool – 0151 296 2209 & 0151 296 2211
London – 0207 947 7701
Manchester – 0161 240 5037
Newcastle – 01912 618 016
Newport – 0292 034 3685
Nottingham – 0115 947 3592
Preston – 01772 844 920
Sheffield – 0114 281 2456
Southampton – 0238 082 9862
Southend – 0124 524 5527

Don’t forget to take a look at our FAQ section for commonly asked questions.

A HAPPY ENDING ! THE SS CAN BE BEATEN !  THIS STORY BEGINS LOWER DOWN MARKED ” IT STARTED HERE”

I did! So did my ex husband! 

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Nov 2022, at 11:32, Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc> wrote:

So glad you won Jenn ! Did you represent yourself as I advised ?

IAN

De : Jenn Mcdade [mailto:jen_mcdade@icloud.com]
Envoyé : lundi 28 novembre 2022 08:28
À : Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc>
Objet : Re: Social services fight

Hi Ian,

I just wanted to update you on my fight with ss. I am very happy to inform you that I won! I kept my boy and they are gone from our lives!!!

Thankyou for everything and I hope you and your family are all well!

Jenn

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jan 2022, at 21:51, Jenn Mcdade <jen_mcdade@icloud.com> wrote:

Thankyou Ian. I will keep you updated.

Jenn

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jan 2022, at 21:44, Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc> wrote:

Of course you will lose if you start attacking thev « SS » !You could prove the social worker a pedophile and the guardian a murderer.They would get sacked or even arrested. but you would not get your son back.

You have to prove you are a good parent NOT that they are bad parents ! Isent you exactly what to say in court so do give it a try

Remember that if you have a solicitor in a  family court you are bound to lose as they nearly all work with social servoices

Good luck

ian

De : Jenn Mcdade [mailto:jen_mcdade@icloud.com]
Envoyé : samedi 22 janvier 2022 16:33
À : Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc>
Objet : Re: Social services fight

Hi Ian,

I did go to the hearing. Was done virtually. My evidence of them causing distress and anxiety to me and my son was agreed by the judge, as was the fact they are doing more harm than good. However, it was disappointing. The judge still awarded an ISO and back to court feb 15th “to see if anything has improved”. If not to their (ss) liking, they are going for an ICP. This will destroy me and my son. My son is having anxiety attacks and suffering separation anxiety and only feels safe if he knows I’m close by, be it here at home or 3 minutes away at work. This is currently undiagnosed at the moment. But being a qualified healthcare assistant, I know the signs, but have still submitted an e-consultation to have it confirmed by our GP, which will be on Monday. I have stated the facts on the form to our GP, how my son has become since ss forced involvement, how very frightened and anxious he is to go to school due to them showing up there to force him into seeing them. Once I have it confirmed my son is suffering from an anxiety caused by them, I will submit it to the courts, as evidence of the harm they are causing. But I feel that I will still lose and my son will be taken from me. Do you know of any solicitors that help parents sue social services, as I think I may have to do that, as well as complain to HCPC and the social work England register.

Jenn

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 Jan 2022, at 18:50, Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc> wrote:

A COURT HEARING  takes priority over work and you cannot be sacked for attending as your employer would have to pay you heavy damages if he/she did sack you. GET RID OF YOUR SOLICITOR WHO WILL GAG YOU AND REPRESENT YOURSELF AUTOMATICALLY

Here is what to say in court but you must change it to fit your case;No ne can force your son to speak to them if he refuse’s saying he must obey his mum !

Ian

WHAT TO SAY IN COURT:-

I keep repeating :-Beware of family court lawyers who gag their clients and give the children away to the “SS”.If you are a couple never take more than one solicitor or barrister so that the best speaker of the couple can automatically represent himself/herself without a treacherous lawyer !

 Yes there are a very few “honest lawyers” ;How do you tell who they are? Well,

1;- if they promise you to fight the social services every step of the way to keep your children or to get them back and also

2:-if they promise to let you speak so that you can make all the points you like (not just let you answer questions!) then you might have hit on a good’un

3:- if they allow you to call friends or relatives as character witnesses to say what they have seen re you and your children.

If the judge asks you why you have sacked your solicitor and/or barrister just explain that it is because “my lawyer wants me to give my children away without a fight and without letting me speak “

!If they refuse these simple requests SACK THEM AT ONCE (even on the day of the court!)

NO SPECIAL FORM NEEDED  to sack them !:-WRITE ON PLAIN PAPER BUT PUT IN YOUR CASE NUMBER

Just,write the following sentence” In case number …………I no longer wish a solicitor or barrister to act for me as I now wish to represent myself.

Signed…… Date……

Case number……

Send this recorded delivery to the court (the court clerk) ,to your solicitor,and to the local authority legal dept.(address should be the town hall,municipal buildings or wherever the Council meet but phone the Council to make sure)

Remember also NEVER obey a social worker or their assistants as they have NO AUTHORITY;Never let them in your home unless police are also present and never speak to them at all except to say “I am very sorry but I have been advised not to speak to you until all court proceedings are over and my children are safe home with me “

.If you have no relatives or close friends to care for your children delete this section and proceed direct to the statement

Social Services have a legal obligation to place children with relatives where possible if they have removed them from parents.It is the responsibility of the local authorities to make enquiries to see if relatives are available to receive such children.

The Children Act 1989 clearly states in the following extract:-

(4) A person falls within this subsection if he is (a) a parent of the child;(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or(c) where the child is in care and there was a residence order in force with respect to him immediately before the care order was made, a person in whose favour the residence order was made.

(5) Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may only allow him to live with a person who falls within subsection (4) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with”

(a) a person falling within subsection (4); or

(b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him,

THIS IS WHAT MOTHERS SHOULD SAY TO THE JUDGE (providing it is true !) I have no criminal record ,no problems with alcohol or drugs,no threats of domestic violence and no mental problems. My child should be allowed come back to live with me to receive the LOVE that only a mother can give.As a family that is our human right.

This is just a “TEMPLATE STATEMENT TO BE CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY THE PARENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE

 READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT ! It is not enough to send it to the court or add it to a bundle .The judge will probably not bother to read it if you do !

Remember Judge Scarrat (above)who admitted in court” I have finished my five applications and given judgment so , I’m now free to deal this but you’ve really got limited time because I have to be at a meeting at 4 o’clock. I’ve got bundles here, I’ve not looked at them –

A v R & Anor 2018

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/521.html

See para 28 from the above judgement !

STATEMENT

 Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

There is no good reason why my children should not be returned to me  under a supervision order and I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER THIS ACCORDING TO THE LAW;

1:-I have never neglected or abused my children

2:-I have no criminal record,and I have never been charged with a serious crime.

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

5:-I have no mental problems, or learning difficulties.Any so called risks from allegations that I do have such problems or difficulties are minmal compared with the far greater risk of putting children into State care where nearly half end up in prison or as prostitutes.

6:-I have never been involved in incidents of domestic violence .

7:-. I am single and will devote myself 24/7 to the care of my children if allowed to do so

8:-My children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight, always healthy, with  excellent attendance and work records at their schools when in my care..

9:-My accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.

10:-My children have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.Contrary to section 8 (human rights act) that gives us all the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority.

11:My rights under Article 6(human rights act) have been breached by my own solicitor denying me the opportunity in determination of my CIVIL RIGHTS to speak in court in person to state my case , to call witnesses on my behalf and to cross examine witnesses called to testify against me.

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them.Many distinguished judges including Sir James Munby have emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person ;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witnesses to prove that I have never harmed my children ,never neglected them,and that they  want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

I also respectfully remind the court of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

Note also the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

 

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.

Remember when you go to court that your object is to WIN the case and get your children back home with you! You can only do this if you can show the judge that the children will be safe from harm and will be loved if they are left with you !It is a waste of time and a bad mistake to attack social workers in court.Even if you could prove that the Guardian was a child sex abuser and the social worker a serial killer they would both get replaced but you would not get your child back !

Your best chance of winning is to be the nicest person in court .Never say anything bad about anyone in a family court ! Say how sad it is that social workers and others have made a terrible mistake in your case and NOW is the time to put matters right !

KINSHIP CARE

If you have a parent or other close relative who is willing to take care of your child if you should lose in court it is important how they behave.They  must say they accept the decision of the court as to what “inadequate parents” these children have and promise that any visits while THEY are in charge are supervised ! Too many grand parents protest their children’s innocence and say what great parents they are with the result that they lose their case immediately for not accepting the “wise words” of social services and the court. Remember your main purpose is NOT to win a bad tempered argument ;it is to keep your child out of state care or adoption by any means that you can use.

Never admit any faults you may have because you are told “that will please the judge” .True it will but it will also lose you your child !Tell the truth when questioned but never volunteer information or explanations unless forced to do so by clever questioning even when you only answer “yes” or “no”.

You must concentrate on proving that you are a good parent and that all allegations against you are false if you want to win your kids back instead of losing them like most people do in the family courts; To do this try and establish that you and your spouse/partner(when applicable)  ,have no criminal record,no problems with drugs or alcohol,no learning difficulties,no mental problems,no ongoing domestic violence ,and a suitable home where the children can live.This will serve you better than any complaints about social workers or the courts !

Never explain your actions unless forced to do so by direct questions in court.If for example you are asked “did you go to London yesterday?” Reply simply “yes” if that was indeed the case .Never blurt out why you went,when you went,or more importantly what happened when you went as you may by doing this  give your enemies fresh information they can use against you. A simple yes,no,I don’t know,I don’t remember,answer most questions and a simple time, date or name can often answer the rest.Explanations usually make you sound worse not better ;so avoid them !Be the opposite in court of what the social workers say you are !If they say you are aggressive act timidly ;and if they say you are too shy and withdrawn be a bit aggressive ! If the police arrest you and/or ask to interview you about the way you look after your children you have the right to remain silent and I advise you to do so or to say “no comment” in response to their questions.Remember to stress that your children miss you NOT that you miss your children. It is your kid’s needs that must come first NOT your own ! :-

Points to make in discussions or in court if they fit your case especially if they want to take your baby at birth !

1) A policeman will arrest you for committing a crime but never because he/she thinks you might commit a crime next year !

2)For “xxxx” years children have thrived under my care and never been seriously hurt or neglected so please do not break up a happy family now ;

3) Experts and judges who try to predict the future based on past records are like bookmakers who tell you a horse ran well last month so it will win today ;No surprise when it comes last…… FUTURE PREDICTIONS ARE RUBBISH;

4) Gypsies with crystal balls and tarot cards can tell the future better than most because they have been doing it all their lives unlike social workers and judges who have no crystal balls but who still remove children based purely on future guesswork .

5) If so called experts could tell the future they would all be billionaires instead of being utterly confused by the corona virus, the long stalemate over Brexit ,and the destruction of the twin towers in New York on 9/11 !

6) There should be no punishment without crime and no children should be removed from a loving parent based on guesswork from amateur prophets

 

CROSS EXAMINATION (your right to question witnesses,especially untruthful social workers !)

You must ask questions and NEVER make speeches in cross examination.The witnesses will say what they want to say and you should note anything that is not true asking them “what evidence have you for that?Why do you say such a thing when you know it is not true? When did you see me ever harm my children?Can you read the future?If not how can you say I will harm my children one day?

NOW  See  videos by BBC, ITV, Channel 4,  a French production company  and  a speech from a conference in London on this site http://www.forced-adoption.com. The fact that I feature (positively) in all these  must surely show that my advice  deserves serious  consideration!

Contact me at ian@monaco.mc if you have any queries or need help.

Please put your contact phone number on every email you send me so I can ring you back within 24 hours !

PLEASE WATCH THESE FABULOUS VIDEOS !!

1. Watch the BBC film   ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!

Here’s the link ! JUST CLICK AND WATCH !: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

1. Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg  A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms……….
2. See the programme below on Channel 4 News

http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

1. Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’https://youtu.be/d8sukVI0UMM

POLICE REMOVE SCREAMING CHILDREN

https://youtu.be/9FVMbkGbEGE

De : Jenn Mcdade [mailto:jen_mcdade@icloud.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 6 janvier 2022 18:47
À : Ian Josephs <ian@monaco.mc>
Objet : Social services fight

Hi Ian,

This came today from my solicitor. I am unable to make the court hearing as cannot get time off work, as I have only recently started a new job and do not qualify for time off, as I have to be at my place of work for 6 months before I can request time off.

I feel nobody is listening to me anymore, and nothing I do is good enough. Ss have lied in this and continue to lie in every report, just to be able to convince the court to take my son away from me. They chose to stop coming to my home, and when they were, I used under duress and made it clear how I felt about it, but it was twisted. I have secret videos of the times the sw had been here. The sw is falsifying documentation, which she and ss are well aware is illegal to do. They have been doing this since day 1, since last January.  I’m this they win I am getting worse when I am now, and they can’t say that if they haven’t seen or tried to speak to me in many months. Why do they enjoy lying?

I’m petrified of ss and I’m scared stiff they will win and kidnap my son.  I do everything I can to make him go to school and send him off clean and presentable. I always make sure I get medical attention if need be (I am myself a qualified hca and cannot work in healthcare now due to child protection being on my dbs, and no healthcare provider will take me on due to this), I always make sure he has eye check ups and dental checks.

I am starting to think I have to leave East Sussex, even if it is just across the border into mid Sussex. But I don’t know how to do that. I am currently in private rental accommodation and I do love my house and would be sad to leave it, which Brighton council helped me secure in 2020. I don’t have any savings or family who can help me to find somewhere else to live, and I would be waiting for a long time if I tried to apply to the council housing department to find somewhere else.

I do not dictate to them at all, just tell my solicitor how I feel about what they do to/with my son when they force him to see them alone in school. In the very first court hearing, it was ruled that if my son said no he doesn’t want to see/talk to them, it means no. Yet they force him despite him saying so.

Please Ian, what can I do to save my son from ss evil hands?

Jenn

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: SarahD <SarahD@brightonandhovelaw.co.uk>
Date: 6 January 2022 at 16:29:15 GMT
To: jen_mcdade@icloud.com
Subject: RE: Your Matter

Dear Jenn,

I would be grateful to hear from you in reply to my email below.

Whilst writing, the Court have listed a Hearing on 19^th January 2021 at 3pm  for 1 hour by CVP (remote) which you are required to join.  I have booked a Barrister to represent you, Christopher Stringer.  This Hearing is in relation to the application by the Local Authority to re-timetable the matter.

I attach the CVP Link for that hearing together with the C2 Application and Statement in Support.

Kind regards

Sarah Dummett

Chartered Legal Executive

BRIGHTON and HOVE LAW

 

DD: 01273 090 923

Tel: 01273 205 805

W: www.brightonandhovelaw.co.uk

 

63 Coleridge Street

Hove

BN3 5AA

IT STARTED HERE SO READ GOING UP TO THE HAPPY CONCLUSION !

 

This office is now closed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of both our clients and our staff.   In line with the Governments recent advice we will be working from home. Documents can still be dropped through the letter box. The phone will still be answered, emails will be received and worked upon. These are difficult times but by working together we will get through them.

HOW FAMILY COURTS COULD BE REFORMED

1) Litigants in person should never be criticised by judges for failing or even refusing to hire solicitors or barristers.

2)Parents representing themselves should be given sight of the position statement and other general evidence of the local authority well in advance and never on or just before the day of the hearing.
3)Parents who ARE represented should never be told to shut up and sit down when they try to talk.The judge should explain that they WILL be allowed to put their point of view at a later time that day indicated to them by the judge.
4)Parents who wish to be represented in court by a friend or lay advisor (McKenzie friend) should automatically be allowed to do so and that person provided their cv showed them to be respectable and responsible should have audience in the court;
5)No babies or young children should ever be taken into care or placed for adoption unless both parents have been convicted of crimes against children or if charged with crimes should regain those children if found not guilty or charges dropped.
6) In Scotland and some English courts reports from social workers are freely given to lawyers to take away and study but parents are expected to read these long 40+ page reports without leaving the court and this discrimination should cease.
7)Judges who finish a family court case saying “leave to appeal denied” should stop deceiving parents into believing they cannot appeal and should at the same time tell them they can apply for permission to appeal.
8)Judges should make it clear that it is the responsibility of the local authority to make enquiries to find posssible care by relatives or close friends of parents who cannot keep their children;Relatives should never be disqualified because they disagree with the children being taken or with the conclusions of the court;
9) Family and close friends of parents appearing in family courts should at the invitation of those parents be admitted to the court and not refused as at present.
10)Parents should be allowed to call as witnesses children of an age when they can understand what a court is for and what a judge does (7 or more perhaps?)

HOME SCHOOLING,?

Contact Education Otherwise

 They can give you information about home schooling

WHAT YOU MUST DO AND WHAT YOU MUST NOT DO ETC !

Contact details for all EO postholders appear on the ‘Contact’ page – but if you need us in a hurry, here are our two main numbers:

• Helpline: 0845 478 6345
• Media: 08445 867548

For all general enquiries about home education and starting to home educate, please call the Helpline in the first instance. The lines are staffed entirely by volunteers, who may sometimes not be available when you call. Please leave a message, and we will call you back as soon as possible.

GOV.UK

Search

Search

SACKING YOUR SOLICITOR AND YOUR BARRISTER !

Most solicitors and barristers in the family courts are PROFESSIONAL LOSERS and you are better off without them.Usually they are there just to GAG you (nobody else can do that,not even the judge !) to make sure you say nothing to upset social workers , cannot present your case,  to make sure that you lose ,and to make sure they stay on good terms with the local authority from whom they get a lot of work and with the legal establishment who will  approve nearly every social service victory !  !Sometimes they even tell parents the disgusting lie that they must have two solicitors and often two barristers as well (2 useless lawyers attack mother and the other two attack father and all get very well paid for it !)  They then agree with everything social workers demand , continuing  to attack each parent in turn so as to prove both parents unfit and then the children are gone……..Even if you are scared of courts ,of speaking in front of people and know nothing of law or arguments you are still better on your own than with an enemy sitting next to you making sure you lose;Yes that is what your lawyers do as they nearly all work a lot with social services.

Extract from a recent case re Gloucester Council

In a statement filed the day before a hearing on 14 July at which the child was reunited with its mother, the guardian appointed to represent the child’s interests in court said she was “deeply saddened by the behaviour of this local authority towards the child and towards this vulnerable young mother”.

It is expected that the guardian will issue an application on behalf of the child for damages under the Human Rights Act.

JUDGE Wildblood pointed out that the multiple mistakes made by the local authority came to light only because the mother, without any entitlement to legal aid at that point, made her own application to the court to have her child returned. “The very basis of the original care proceedings was that the mother is an emotionally fragile and socially vulnerable woman,” he said. “Therefore, for her to have faced the issues that arose on her own is manifestly unsatisfactory.”

MOST OF THE PARENTS WHO DO WIN ARE THOSE FEW WHO REPRESENT THEMSELVES ! See  typical letters below from  successful parents !

Dear Ian,

Just to update you on Thursday’s events in court.

Via my son’s barrister, I requested permission to speak before the judge made his judgement via my sons barrister and this was granted.

I read the statement you had written word for word and you could have heard a pin drop in the court room. To my surprise, the judge allowed me to continue despite his face looking rather aghast. I then asked the judge to give me a valid reason, other than being out of time with my application, as to why he dismissed me as a potential guardian. He had no answer and could only refer me back to the written judgement to find the answer. I told him that I did read the judgement and could find no valid reason other than the aforementioned. I put it to him that he had broken the law regarding the process followed do date (failing to consider leaving the child with a family member before instructing adoption). As for being out of time as a reason, this was nonsense as my application was date stamped as IN time. To summarise, in his summing up, he asked all of the barristers if any of them would like to appeal; I think my point was taken on board.

My son’s barrister is writting an advice letter to the judge regarding an appeal. Meanwhile, I have completed all of the relevant forms regarding my application for special guardianship. We now have 21 days  to get all of the forms submitted.

Thank you for the wonderful statement you wrote for me to use in the court. It really did shake the court up. My son’s barrister said that the statement was marvelous and every word of it was true. I didn’t mention where it had come from. She also informed me that all of the advocates in the case thought that the judge would let me continue with my original assessment. I will keep you informed on the case as it proceeds.

If there is any further advice you would like to pass my way, I would be grateful.

Once again, thank you so much for your guidance and help, you don’t know how much it is appreciated.

Kind regards,

Susan .

Hi Ian, my name is Sophie and you may remember I have emailed you in a few occasions since January regarding my daughters and NAI. I took your advice and represented myself. I did have a solicitor in court however her role was only to go through legal things I did not understand. To cut a long story short, I kept on fighting and fighting and our daughters have now been home with us for three weeks. On the day of the final hearing, the judge told the LA’s lawyer to sit down and be quiet and said that we have shown ourselves to be exemplary parents  to our daughters and he wants no further social work intervention. As you can imagine we are delighted at the outcome. I just wanted to thank you for your help and advice. Kind regards, Sophie

Hi Ian,

Firstly, my sincere thanks for all the help and advice you have given me, and for the statement you so kindly wrote.Secondly, i wanted to let you know what happened in court and update you on our current situation.So…

On my way to court, on Tuesday, I received a call from the solicitor I spoke to whilst under duress from Social Services, and she said she could not get there but had asked a barrister to represent me. I said I intended to represent myself, but out of courtesy, i met with the barrister, showed her my statement and discussed the situation. In the end, she did speak for me, but used 99% of what was in the statement (she changed some of the wording but not the meaning) and we successfully won against social services when they requested an interim care order.

IF YOU DON’T SPEAK IN PERSON YOU NEARLY ALWAYS LOSE 

If your solicitor or barrister refuses to let you speak freely (allows you only to answer questions and not say what you want to say)  in court or does not let you speak at all ,or in worst cases tells you to wait in a witness room as he/she will speak for you ,WHAT CAN YOU DO?? The only answer is to” Represent yourself !”.However little you know about laws and courts you will always be better off without an enemy in your camp who does know the law and is there to make sure you lose !

 To represent yourself sack your solicitor and your barrister in writing .If you do not do this the court will usually send all future correspondence and sometimes vital statements of evidence to your solicitor even though you have told all concerned that you wish to represent yourself.

NO SPECIAL FORM NEEDED :-WRITE ON PLAIN PAPER BUT PUT YOUR CASE NUMBER

Just,write the following sentence”I no longer wish a solicitor or barrister to act for me as I now wish to represent myself.

Signed…… Date……

Case number……

Send this recorded delivery to the court (the court clerk) ,to your solicitor,and to the local authority legal dept.(address should be the town hall,municipal buildings or wherever the Council meet but phone the Council to make sure)

REPRESENTING YOURSELF:- Remember if English is not your first language you have the right to have an interpreter always with you in court ! 

If you have never attended a court before; these 3 videos by barrister LUCY REED explain exceptionally clearly ,how to prepare for court ,what happens there, how to present your evidence and how to ask questions of “opposition witnesses”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgAVMahol7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdjYtbOVS-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VP1yXWgtsI

The Family Justice Council has funded a short film for litigants in person in the family courts. The film is accessible on the advicenow website.

The  film looks at how an individual without a lawyer should represent him or herself in court about a family problem. The film looks at the questions people who have represented themselves have said they worried about most and shows simple tips for presenting their case. The film is here.

If the judge asks you why you have no legal team or why you insist on representing yourself you should answer as follows whenever applicable:-

1:- My solicitor/barrister refused to accept my instructions to oppose the demands of the local authority.

or2:-My solicitor/barrister refused to let me speak in court

or 3:-My solicitor/barrister allowed me to answer questions in court but refused to allow me to put the points to the judge that I considered the most important.

or4:- My solicitor/barrister refused to allow me to call either witnesses from my family or experts of my choosing who were vital to my case.

or5:- My solicitor /barrister ordered me to admit to things I had not done saying that would “help me get my children back” but I did not wish to commit perjury even when ordered to do so by my own lawyers.

Don’t feel alone ! A McKenzie friend can sit with you !

If you have a good friend you can trust you can nominate that person as your McKENZIE FRIEND who will normally not speak in court but will be allowed to sit next to you in court ,advise you quietly ,take notes and remind you of points to make and questions you can ask social workers ! You should write to the court first to inform them with a short cv to say the person  knows how courts proceed and is capable of giving you moral support and good advice !The friend you choose does NOT have to have any qualifications except for a calm mind and common sense and to agree with you before the court what you will say and how your friend will fit in with what you want to get across to the judge. !

Remember that I advise a trusted FRIEND not a scammer who wants your money,will stop you speaking,(so the judge approves of them !) and will simply agree with the “SS” ! There are too many “Professional” McKenzie friends who are simply after your CASH!! Never pay anyone unless they can prove to you that they have already won several cases against the “SS” and recovered children for parents. Otherwise never pay McKenzie friends or family court lawyers  who will gag you in court and agree to all the “SS” demands !!

How to conduct an appeal:-

Typical judge’s guidelines for “permission to appeal” applicants…………..

Our function  is very limited indeed. Our task is to review the decision made by [the lower court]. We have to put to ourselves the proposition set out in the second sentence of paragraph 16 above. That question itself can be broken down to the following; (1) Did the judge arguably make any error of law in reaching his conclusion? (2) Was there, arguably, insufficient material on which the judge could properly make the findings of fact and the assessments of the witness which he did make? (3) Is it arguable that the order he made was not properly open to him in the exercise of his judicial discretion? (4) Is there, arguably, any error in the exercise of that discretion which enables us to say that his order was, arguably, plainly wrong?
[21] It is only if the answer to any one of these questions is “yes” that we can give permission to appeal…”

You must show points of law where the learned judge erred; not rambling accounts of past experiences !

Barristers representing parents usually agree with interim care orders so parents lose their children because as L;J Thorpe states “the courts are so prejudiced thereafter”

Even when parents represent themselves (but without sound advice)  they tend to talk about how people felt,how they behaved and how angry , cruel,or,untruthful they were.

You need to show either

1:- That circumstances have changed for the better since the previous decision; (eg no longer with a violent Partner,no longer dependent on drugs or alcohol,cured of depression or other condition that could adversely affect children etc)

or 2:-That the judge made a mistake in law  (eg did not consider kinship care,made sexist or racist or simply very impolite  remarks about you without justification,did not demonstrate that adoption really was a last resort in your case because the judge neglected to show that all alternative solutions were not possible etc.)

In re P (A child) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html

The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision.  The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.

or 3:- That the previous hearing was unfair to you.(eg that you were not informed of the hearing,that you were not allowed to speak yourself , that your solicitor agreed to care orser or adoption against your instructions, you were not allowed to call witnesses to court such as your doctor,your children, your extended family,or even your new Partner,that you were wrongly informed that you could not appeal and only now have found out that you have the right to ask for an oral hearing asking permission to appeal.that you live a long way from the court and had no Financial means to make the return journey three or more  times for a hearing of three days or more, etc )

WHAT TO SAY IN COURT:-

Remember when you go to court that your object is to WIN the case and get your children back home with you !  You can only do this if you can show the judge that the children will be safe from harm and will be loved if they are left with you !Don’t waste time and the goodwill of the judge by attacking horrible social workers for your own satisfaction.Even if you could prove the social worker was a murderer and the guardian a child abuser that would not help you to get your children back ! It would just mean that these guilty parties would either be arrested or more likely transferred to another area and replaced by others nearly as bad .

Your best chance of winning is to be the nicest person in court .Never say anything bad about anyone in a family court ! Say how sad it is that social workers and others have made a terrible mistake in your case and NOW is the time to put matters right !

You must concentrate on proving that you are a good parent and that all allegations against you are false if you want to win your kids back instead of losing them like most people do in the family courts; To do this try and establish that you and your spouse/partner(when applicable)  ,have no criminal record,no problems with drugs or alcohol,no learning difficulties,no mental problems,no ongoing domestic violence ,and a suitable home where the children can live.This will serve you better than any complaints about social workers or the courts !

Never explain your actions unless forced to do so by direct questions in court.If for example you are asked “did you go to London yesterday?” Reply simply “yes” if that was indeed the case .Never blurt out why you went,when you went,or more importantly what happened when you went as you may by doing this  give your enemies fresh information they can use against you. A simple yes,no,I don’t know,I don’t remember,answer most questions and a simple time, date or name can often answer the rest.Explanations usually make you sound worse not better ;so avoid them !Be the opposite in court of what the social workers say you are !If they say you are aggressive act timid ;and if they say you are too shy and withdrawn be a bit aggressive ! If the police ask to interview you about the way you look after your children you have the right to remain silent and I advise you to do so or to say “no comment” in response to their questions.Remember to stress that your children miss you NOT that you miss your children. It is your kid’s needs that must come first NOT your own !

CROSS EXAMINATION

You must ask questions and NEVER make speeches in cross examination.The witnesses will say what they want to say and you should note anything that is not true asking them “what evidence have you for that?Why do you say such a thing when you know it is not true? When did you see me ever harm my children?Can you read the future?If not how can you say I will harm my children one day?

!

PLEASE READ THROUGH THIS STATEMENT/SKELETON ARGUMENT VERY CAREFULLY  !

DELETE ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU (adoption  might not apply to your child for example ) and correct anything that is wrong (speaking of “children” if you only have one child for example)

TEMPLATE STATEMENT TO BE CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY THE PARENPLEASE CORRECT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE

THEN READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT !

THEN READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT ! It is not enough to send it to the court or add it to a bundle .The judge will probably not bother to read it if you do !

Remember Judge Scarrat who admitted in court” I have finished my five applications and given judgment so , I’m now free to deal this but you’ve really got limited time because I have to be at a meeting at 4 o’clock. I’ve got bundles here, I’ve not looked at them –

STATEMENT

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

There is no good reason why my children should not be returned to me  under a supervision order and I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER THIS ACCORDING TO THE LAW;

1:-I have never neglected or abused my children

1:-I have no criminal record,and I have never been charged with a serious crime.

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

5:-I have no mental problems, or learning difficulties.Any so called risks from allegations that I do have such problems or difficulties are minmal compared with the far greater risk of putting children into State care where nearly half end up in prison or as prostitutes.

6:-I have never been involved in incidents of domestic violence .

7:-. I am single and will devote myself 24/7 to the care of my children if allowed to do so

8:-Mychildren have always been happy, well dressed,clean,never underweight, always healthy, with  excellent attendance and work records at their schools when in my care..

9:-My accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.

10:-My children have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.Contrary to section 8 (human rights act) that gives us all the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority.

11:My rights under Article 6(human rights act) have been breached by my own solicitor denying me the opportunity in determination of my CIVIL RIGHTS to speak in court in person to state my case , to call witnesses on my behalf and to cross examine witnesses called to testify against me.

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them.The former Minister for Children (Simon Hughes) emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person and not through third parties;yet I have been refused permission to call my son as my chief witnesses to prove that I have never harmed my children ,never neglected them,and that they  want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

I also respectfully remind the court of the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

Note also the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

by a different judge

While it is unfair on parents to set the test for change of circumstances too high, it would also be unfair if the court did not apply the test correctly, or at all, as occurred in Re W (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 403. In Re W, the trial judge failed to consider the paternal aunt as a potential carer for the children. As the aunt had not previously been considered as a potential carer, this new development equated to a change of circumstances. By ignoring the introduction of the paternal aunt, the trial judge misapplied the directions given in statute, in particular section 1(4)(f)(ii) ACA,  which says that as part of the welfare checklist, the court should consider:

A decision by the Court to give leave to a parent is therefore profound. As the Court of Appeal said in Re B-S,

“not merely is the parent able to oppose the making of an adoption order, but the parent, notwithstanding the making of the earlier placement order, is entitled to have the question of whether parental consent should be dispensed with considered afresh and, crucially, considered in the light of current circumstances (which may … be astonishingly different from those when the placement order was made).”

OR PLEASE CORRECT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE

This version of the statement provides answers to most of the matters that come up in family court proceedings

;THEN READ IT ALOUD TO THE COURT !

STATEMENT

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

There is no good reason why my baby/child/ children should not be returned to me or a member of my family under a supervision order and I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER THIS ACCORDING TO THE LAW;

1:-I have never neglected or abused my baby/child/children

Quote the case below ONLY if there is an unexplained injury to your child..

Judgement:IMPORTANT !!

UNEXPLAINED INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO INCRIMINATE PARENTS

M (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580

Appeal against fact-finding where the judge had found that one of the parents had caused injury to the child and the other had failed to protect, but could not say which parent had caused the injuries. The child was taken to the GP and then to hospital by the mother. She had raised concerns about the bruising which, she stated, must have been caused by the father. There was significant bruising to the child’s left forearm, further bruising to the right are am the right thigh.
The bruises, the experts all agreed, were in unusual places for a baby to be bruised, certainly in the day-to-day care of the baby. The experts, however, could not come to an agreement as to how the bruises might come about. Swaddling, thrashing in the bath and being trapped by the bars of the cot were all discounted. The judge found that the injuries had been caused by pressure from an object imposed on the baby.
It was further determined that the parent who failed to protect would have been aware of the pain and discomfort of the child, given the severity of the bruising. Also, the house was such that the baby’s distress would have been audible throughout.
The appeal was brought by both parents. The mother argued that a lack of reasoning in the argument that the parents failed to protect led to the judge misdirecting herself as to who caused the injuries.
The father’s appeal criticised the judge’s approach and that the lack of parental care was the reason given by the experts for their conclusion that these were non-accidental injuries.
Essentially, the judge found that, due to the experts being unable to give an explanation, reasonable or unreasonable, for the cause of the injuries, they must have been non-accidental.
Ward LJ giving the judgment for the court stated: “[The expert’s opinion] was the effect of the judge’s view of the case: that absent a parental explanation, there was no satisfactory benign explanation, ergo there must be a malevolent explanation. And it is that leap which troubles me. It does not seem to me that the conclusion necessarily follows unless, wrongly, the burden of proof has been reversed, and the parents are being required to satisfy the court that it is not a non-accidental injury”.

Couple who were under investigation for nine months when social services took their three month old baby are finally reunited with her after proving she has a rare condition that causes bruising 

       

Fractures believed to be child abuse may be metabolic bone disease

2:-I have no criminal record (Most crimes are wiped clean from police records after periods varying from 6 months to 10 years depending on the crime ) ,and I have never been charged with a serious crime.

 OMIT THIS PARA IF YOU HAVE NO CRIMINAL RECORD:-Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Section 139 This came into force on 10th March 2014 and significantly reduce active conviction times. The changes are ‘retrospective’ and apply to offences before and after this time.If a person has a SOPO, the ministry of justice class this as an active criminal conviction. Therefore as a parent had it, his convictions were spent but his SOPO was keeping him from ticking the ‘no’ box on job applications. So 5 years after conviction he used the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 108, (6) to apply to discharge his SOPO meaning at that point . He was successful.

3:-I have no problems with alcohol

4:-I have no problems with drugs.

5:-I have no mental problems, or learning difficulties.Any so called risks from allegations that I do have such problems or difficulties are minmal compared with the far greater risk of putting children into State care where nearly half end up in prison or as prostitutes.

IMPORTANT  TO GET A SECOND EXPERT OPINION BECAUSE :-

New rulings have been made by the U.K. courts in criminal and civil cases involving the deaths of children which are that,  (Lord Justice Judge – Angela Cannings Appeal Hearing against conviction 2004),

“in cases like the present, if the outcome of the trial depends exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unwise, and therefore unsafe, to proceed”.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2149.html   SHOWS HOW UNRELIABLE SOME “EXPERTS” CAN BE

BOTH PARENTS HAVE LEARNING DIFFICULTIES BUT…………………………

Council pays £12,000 damages for removal of child

Parents’ Articles 6 and 8 rights breached

In Re H (A Child: Breach of Convention Rights: Damages) [2014] EWFC 38 HHJ Clifford Bellamy, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, has awarded damages of £12,000 against Leicester City Council for breaches of the ECHR Articles 6 and 8 rights of the parents whose only child was taken into care.

The breaches arose in care proceedings brought by the local authority in April, 2014 in respect of a little girl, H.  H is now aged 17 months.  Both parents have learning disabilities. At the final hearing before HHJ Bellamy all parties agreed that the appropriate welfare outcome was that there should be a supervision order for a period of 12 months.

The parents asserted that the way the local authority had dealt with the case before proceedings were issued gave rise to a breach of their rights under Articles 6 and 8. They sought relief in the form of declarations and damages. The local authority accepted that by its conduct it had breached the parents Article 6 and Article 8 rights. It agreed to most of the declarations sought by the parents but did not agree that the parents were entitled to damages and submitted that if they were an appropriate amount would be £1,000 for each parent.

HHJ Bellamy found:

“H is these parents’ first child. Whilst it may be the case that had the local authority issued care proceedings soon after H was born an interim care order would have been made, the fact is that proceedings were not commenced promptly. They were not issued until shortly before H’s first birthday. It was not until June 2014 that these parents eventually managed to secure the return of their daughter to their care, exactly a year after she was placed with Mr and Mrs B. Whilst it is true that during that year the parents were having regular contact, supervised contact at a local authority contact centre is far removed from the joys of fulltime, unsupervised care of one’s own child. The residential assessment which began in June 2014 could have begun a year earlier. The cognitive assessment of the parents, not finally obtained until May 2014, could have been obtained months earlier. Unlike the parents in Coventry City Council v C, B, C and CH [2013] 2 FLR 987 these parents’ have suffered a loss of time with their daughter which was both unnecessarily lengthy and deeply distressing.”

He added:

“In my judgment the nature and extent of the poor practice admitted by the local authority is such that an adverse impact on these parents was inevitable. They would have needed great fortitude to be able to take such an experience in their stride. Far from having great fortitude it is clear that these are vulnerable learning disabled parents who had no-one to speak up for them.”

Having considered a number of authorities as examples of awards made in other cases, the judge determined that there were too few to be able to be confident that they indicate the broad parameters for making an assessment. He concluded that “an award of damages of £6,000 for each parent would achieve ‘just satisfaction’ in all the circumstances of this case.”

6:-I have never been involved in incidents of domestic violence .

or Quote the case below if there has been domestic violence in the family

Domestic Violence not necessarily a sufficient reason to remove a child

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

This is a set of care proceedings heard in Manchester County Court, but it raises some important issues of wider importance.

It was a case in which the Local Authority obtained an Emergency Protection Order removing IMA in August 2013, and after that Interim Care Orders sanctioning IMA remaining in foster care, up until the final hearing, which took place in August 2014 a year after the initial removal.

The Local Authority had been seeking a plan of adoption, supported by the Guardian, but this had changed to permanent placement with a relative. It is of note that the plan of adoption had been supported by the Agency Decision Makers (whose job it is to assess separately to social workers whether the circumstances of an individual case mean that adoption is the right plan)

The Judge at final hearing found that the threshold criteria were not made out, and thus the child would be going home and no statutory orders would be made.

The threshold criteria was based on the risk of the child being exposed to domestic violence (which is, on the revised wording of the Children Act 1989 a matter which on its own is capable of meeting threshold). That had two aspects really (i) Was father a risk of violence or violent behaviour and (ii) was the child in mother’s care going to be exposed to the father.

The fact that the Judge found that threshold was not met therefore was significant. This wasn’t a case with a suspicious injury which on full investigation was found to be an accident or a peculiar medical condition, but rather that the child ought never really to have been removed. The Judge was not saying that the threshold HAD been met but due to changes the risks had dissipated or become manageable, but that the situation of this family had NEVER crossed the section 31 threshold.

And the Judge had advised the Local Authority in a number of hearings that he was concerned that the section 31 threshold was not made out on the evidence that they had presented and was giving them the opportunity to flesh out their evidence if they had more information which was not before the Court. He told them that on 17th February 2014, 14th April 2014 and 23rd June, before making it official at the final hearing by ruling that threshold was not met.

or:- I split from my Partner a long time ago so there is now no danger to me or my baby/child/children from any domestic violence from him (which was in any case only verbal)

7:-My husband/wife/partner has a similar record.or I am single and will devote myself 24/7 to the care of my baby/child/children if allowed to do so

8:-My child/children have always been happy, well dressed,clean,and have a good attendance record at their schools,

9:-My accommodation is very suitable and has always been kept clean and tidy.

10:-My baby/child/children has/have been cruelly abused by the removal from my loving care.Contrary to section 8 (human rights act) that gives us all the right to a private family life undisturbed by public authority.

11:My rights under Article 6(human rights act) have been breached denying me the opportunity in determination of my CIVIL RIGHTS to speak in court in person to state my case , to call witnesses on my behalf and to cross examine witnesses called to testify against me.

12:- The UN Convention on children’s rights give children the right to participate in proceedings that concern them.The former Minister for Children (Simon Hughes) emphasised that children’s voices must be heard in person and not through third parties;yet I have been refused permission to call my children as my chief witnesses to prove that I have never harmed them ,never neglected them,and that they all want to come home with me as soon as possible because they are very unhappy where they are in care.

”

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

para 86

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

“[Counsel] seeks to develop Hedley J’s point. He submits that:

‘many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or “model” them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.’

I agree with [counsel]’s submission”.

The other is the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

16. I respectfully agree with all of that. It follows that I also agree with what His Honour Judge Jack said in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWFC B192, a judgment that attracted some attention even whilst I was hearing this case:
    1. “I deplore any form of domestic violence and I deplore parents who care for children when they are significantly under the influence of drink. But so far as Mr and Mrs C are concerned there is no evidence that I am aware of that any domestic violence between them or any drinking has had an adverse effect on any children who were in their care at the time when it took place. The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

It boils down to three important principles as elaborated in the case above by Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) and summarised by myself

I SUMMARISE HIS JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS :-It boils down to three important principles :-

1:- Hearsay (evidence from persons who do not attend court or take the oath) if contradicted and challenged by a parent in person must be backed up by factual evidence from the L.A and cannot by itself justify a care order.

2:- Even if the allegations against parents are established the local authority must prove that they have caused or will probably cause significant harm to the child or children concerned.

3:-If the lifestyles of the parents are unconventional or immoral or punctuated by occasional noisy domestic spats and episodes of drunkenness those things alone do not justify a care order.S

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

The President also agreed with the somewhat controversial remarks of His Honour Judge Jack in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWCC B77 (Fam) (emphasis added):

“…The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

 

KINSHIP CARE

Social Services have a legal obligation to place children with relatives where possible if they have removed them from parents.It is the responsibility of the local authorities to make enquiries to see if relatives are available to receive such children.

The Children Act 1989 clearly states in the following extract:-

(4) A person falls within this subsection if he is (a) a parent of the child;(b) a person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him; or(c) where the child is in care and there was a residence order in force with respect to him immediately before the care order was made, a person in whose favour the residence order was made.

(5) Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may only allow him to live with a person who falls within subsection (4) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with”

(a) a person falling within subsection (4); or

(b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him,

unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare.

(7) Where a local authority provide accommodation for a child whom they are looking after, they shall, subject to the provisions of this Part and so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with his welfare, secure that”

(a) the accommodation is near his home; and

(b) where the authority are also providing accommodation for a sibling of his, they are accommodated together.

Father’s successful appeal against adoption orders and dismissal of his contact application – the applications were remitted to be heard by a different judge

While it is unfair on parents to set the test for change of circumstances too high, it would also be unfair if the court did not apply the test correctly, or at all, as occurred in Re W (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 403. In Re W, the trial judge failed to consider the paternal aunt as a potential carer for the children. As the aunt had not previously been considered as a potential carer, this new development equated to a change of circumstances. By ignoring the introduction of the paternal aunt, the trial judge misapplied the directions given in statute, in particular section 1(4)(f)(ii) ACA,  which says that as part of the welfare checklist, the court should consider:

A decision by the Court to give leave to a parent is therefore profound. As the Court of Appeal said in Re B-S,

“not merely is the parent able to oppose the making of an adoption order, but the parent, notwithstanding the making of the earlier placement order, is entitled to have the question of whether parental consent should be dispensed with considered afresh and, crucially, considered in the light of current circumstances (which may … be astonishingly different from those when the placement order was made).”

How To File Your Case With The European Court Of Human Rights by Natasha

One of the things we are asked regularly is how and when a family can apply to the European Court Of Human Rights to hear their case, and now the ECHR has provided a really useful guide explaining this, and it’s been really well done.

If a family, parent or child wish to apply to the ECHR, first, they need to have exhausted all the remedies available to them in their home country. This usually means allowing a case to run its course from the lower courts all the way up to the appropriate highest court for that case. Once all avenues have been tried, if the parties still feel their case hasn’t been properly dealt with, they can then apply to the European Court.

The ECHR’s home page for the guide is divided into sections, including:

• How To Make A Valid Application
• How To Submit An Application
• How To Prepare Your Application and Information On How It Will Be Processed
• A Q&A Section
• An Admissibility Checklist to see if your case meets the criteria for lodging an application (just click the ‘next’ button right at the bottom of the first page to take you through)
• A video showing you how to prepare an application
• Information on Interim Measures (where the ECHR may ask a country to take certain measures whilst they continue to assess the case, such as stopping the country in question from doing something until the case has been reviewed).

The page even offers a full breakdown of the Rules Of Court, and related Practice Directions.

We love the level of detail here and the simple language that’s been used to make all this information easily accessible. It’s something we try hard to do in our spare time with our LIP Service videos, but we’re really delighted to see that the ECHR has taken the initiative and put together this guide.

Worth holding onto as well is this brochure from the House of Commons Library which was published this month, and also offers information on how to apply to the ECHR. Although it’s been prepared for Members of Parliament who are asked by their constituents about how to apply to the ECHR, it is also well written and offers a nice summary of the application process. At a comfortable 24 pages, we would recommend reading this first before diving into the ECHR’s own guide

You can quote 3 reasons why your child if aged 10+ must be allowed to come to court:-

1:- The Human Rights act ;Article 6 as quoted below that “in determination of their civil rights “ persons before a court may call witnesses and in this case your child is your chief witness without whom you have no case.

2:-  The former Minister for justice and civil liberties Simon Hughes recently made it clear that all children aged 10 years or more should have the right to make their views known to the judge themselves and not have them” interpreted “ by 3^rd parties

3The United Nations Convention on childrens rights makes it clear that all children have the right to make their views known and taken into account in proceedings that concern them.

If the judge not only refuses to allow your child to testify in court but also refuses to question the child in chambers in the presence of yourself or your lawyer and the guardian ;then you have a very very strong chance to appeal on the grounds that the judge has acted illegally and you should say all this in court briefly but clearly!

All 3 authorities below should be quoted in full !

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights –

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used

——————————————————————————–

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by  General Assembly resolution 44/25  of 20 November 1989

entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49

Article 12 (child’s right to participate in decision making)

1. Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law

Any claim that this clause is satisfied by the appointment of a “guardian” or “independent solicitor” to represent the children’s views by stating in court an opinion diametrically opposed to that of the children concerned should be exposed as the sham that it is.Simply a device to keep the children’s true opinions and desires from reaching the court and as such a clear breach of the spirit of the convention.

——————————————————————————–

Human Rights Act  Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

SPECIAL NOTE:-

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

This is, in the most basic sense, a right to privacy. And it was passed by Parliament into law. Whenever it is cited in court in injunction cases, it is always balanced by judges against another right enshrined by the Convention, the right to freedom of expression under article 10.

Moreover, the Human Rights Act also has a specific provision which seeks to bolster the freedom of expression side of that balance. Section 12 provides

The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to

(a)the extent to which (i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or (ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; (b)any relevant privacy code.

YOU CAN ALSO QUOTE THREE IMPORTANT CASES TO PROVE YOUR POINT !

Three-year-old becomes youngest trial witness

Jonathan Brown, The Independent, Saturday 12 November 2011

A three-year-old boy was given a packet of crisps by a judge after making legal history by becoming what is believed to be the youngest child to give evidence in a British court case.

The toddler, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was led gently through a series of questions about an alleged attack during the informal hearing. Answering via video link from an adjoining room at Bradford Crown Court, the boy told Judge Jonathan Rose that he liked Transformers and that his favourite flavour of crisps was salt and vinegar.

The court heard that the boy from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, then aged two, suffered life-threatening injuries and had to undergo surgery on his bowel after Daniel Joyce, 29, allegedly stamped on his stomach.

The judge and both barristers removed their wigs and gowns in accordance with Ministry of Justice guidelines on questioning young witnesses.

Michelle Colborne, for the defence, handed the boy cardboard cut-outs representing people and locations involved in the case as she reconstructed events.

The child was accompanied by a court usher and a female intermediary and was allowed to draw during the short cross-examination. He had been warned that he had to tell the truth before giving his evidence.

At one point the judge asked him: “If Michelle asks you just three questions should we stop for a bag of salt and vinegar crisps?” He replied: “Yeah.” The boy was also questioned by Caroline Wigin, for the prosecution. She asked: “How did Danny hurt your tummy?”

“He stamped on me,” the boy replied. “Did he touch you anywhere else apart from your tummy?” asked Ms Wigin. “Yeah,” said the boy.

“Where was that?” she asked. “He put his hand on my mouth,” said the child who is also alleged to have suffered injuries to the face and ear. “Do you know which room you were in?” asked Ms Wigin. “Yeah … in my bedroom,” said the boy. The prosecutor said the boy had appeared “his normal chatty self” according to a witness the night before the alleged attack. Mr Joyce raised the alarm the following day when the boy appeared pale and floppy.

A few weeks later the boy was asked what had happened and he said “Danny” had stamped on his stomach, it was claimed. Mr Joyce denies GBH with intent and an alternative allegation of causing grievous bodily harm. The trial continues.

—————————–

Girl, 6, makes legal history as judge in child abduction case allows her to choose whether to live with her mummy or daddy

By Andy Dolan Daily Mail 15th April 2010

In a landmark case, a six-year-old girl caught in a tug-of-love battle has been allowed to choose which parent she will live with.

She became the youngest child to have her wishes influence the courts in an international child abduction case.

A judge heard how she had been left with a ‘visceral’ fear of being sent back to live with her father in Ireland.

The girl and her two brothers, aged three and eight, were brought to the UK by their English-born mother last summer.

They are now free to remain with her in this country after the Appeal Court yesterday upheld an earlier ruling by a family court judge to refuse the father’s application for them to be sent back to Ireland.

Giving her decision last month, Mrs Justice Black said the six-year-old and her older brother had ‘attained an age and level of maturity’ to have their wishes taken into account.

She said it would be ‘intolerable’ for their younger brother to be separated from them.

The court heard the three siblings had spent all their lives in Ireland, their father’s homeland, before their mother ‘unlawfully removed’ them last summer.

Their father’s counsel, Edward Devereux, said it was a ‘ clandestine and well-planned’ operation carried out while the father was at work.

He asked to have the children ‘summarily returned’ to Ireland under the Hague Convention, the international treaty which tackles-child abduction in family cases.

But Mrs Justice Black refused to order their return after hearing the strength of the two older children’s objections to the move.

A social worker who interviewed the pair said that, when she told them they might be sent back to Ireland, the boy ‘became very fidgety’ and his little sister started to cry.

The youngsters said that, if they had to return to Ireland, they wanted to live in a secret location as far away from their father as possible, the court heard.

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Black said the children’s objections were rooted ‘in their own experiences of family life and their fear of their father’.

She added that there was nothing to suggest that they had been influenced or put under pressure by their mother.

At the Appeal Court, Mr Devereux argued that the judge’s ruling undermined the whole basis of the Hague Convention, which requires that the future of children in such cases should be decided by the courts of the country from which they have been unlawfully abducted.

Describing the case as ‘unique’, the barrister said that six ‘is the youngest age in the reported jurisprudence at which a child has been found to have attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views’.

Mrs Justice Black’s ‘radical’ ruling, he said, would have ‘a far-reaching impact’ on child abduction cases.

However, after a two-hour hearing, Lord Justice Wilson and Lord Justice Sedley refused to grant the father permission to appeal, with the result that the children will now get their wish and stay with their mother in England.

Recognising the potentially widespread importance of the case, Lord Justice Sedley said the court would give the reasons for its decision at a later date.

Last month’s Court of Appeal hearing attracted much attention in the national press because at first instance Black J had taken account of the views of two of the three children involved. The younger of them was five years old at the time of her interview by a Cafcass officer. Edward Devereux, representing the father, told the Court of Appeal that Mrs Justice Black’s decision to consult the girl had been “radical” and “unique”. He said that five was “the youngest age in the reported jurisprudence at which a child has been found to have attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views.” The father’s application for permission to appeal was refused. Delivering the main judgment of the Court, Wilson LJ cited the observation of Baroness Hale in In Re D (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, that

“children should be heard far more frequently in Hague Convention cases than has been the practice hitherto”.  He shared the concern that “the lowering of the age at which a child’s objections may be taken into account might gradually erode the high level of achievement of the Convention’s objective, namely – in the vast majority of cases – to secure a swift restoration of children to the states from which they have been abducted.” However, he added: “A considerable safeguard against such erosion is to be found in the well-recognised expectation that in the discretionary exercise the objections of an older child will deserve greater weight than those of a younger child.”

—-

In Mabon v. Mabon [2005] 2 FLR 1011, the Court of Appeal considered Rule 9.2A and the older line of authorities in the light of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, and Article 8 of the ECHR. The court acknowledged the greater appreciation and weight which must now be attached to the child’s autonomy and consequential right to participate fully in the decision-making process that fundamentally affects his life. It held that

“in the case of articulate teenagers…. the right to freedom of expression and participation outweighed the paternalistic judgment of welfare.”[paragraph 28].

However, if direct participation would lead to a risk of harm that the child was incapable of comprehending, then a judge could find that sufficient understanding had not been demonstrated. Judges must equally be alive to the risk of emotional harm that might arise from denying the child knowledge of and participation in the continuing proceedings [para.29].

WHAT THE JUDGES SAY

1: Lord Justice Thorpe said There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.

2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the W

Ministry of justice :- Official Judicial statistics

In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

What chance did those parents have as (to quote L.J.Thorpe) “parents are so prejudiced in proceedings” ?

If your child is slow to speak etc remind social workers accusing you of neglect because your baby or young child has not “reached its milestones” ,that Albert Einstein the greatest mathematical genius of the century hardly spoke at all until he was three!

rlyAlbert Einstein in Brief 1879

Albert Einstein was born to a middle-class German Jewish family. His parents were concerned that he scarcely talked until the age of three, but he was not so much a backward as a quiet child. He would build tall houses of cards and hated playing soldier. At the age of twelve he was fascinated by a geometry book……………….

How to conduct an appeal:-

I repeat this advice in case you skipped it earlier !

You need to show either

1:- That circumstances have changed for the better since the previous decision; (eg no longer with a violent Partner,no longer dépendent on drugs or alcohol,cured of depression or other condition that could adversely affect children etc)

or 2:-That the judge made a mistake in law  (eg did not consider kinship care,made sexist or racist or simply very impolite  remarksabout you without justification,did not demonstrate that adoption really was a last resort in your case because the judge neglected to show that all alternative solutions were not possible etc.)

In re P (A child) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html

The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision.  The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.

or 3:- That the previous hearing was unfair to you.(eg that you were not informed of the hearing,that you were not allowed to call witnesses to court such as your doctor,your children, your extended family,or even your new Partner,that you were wrongly informed that you could not appeal and only now have found out that you have the right to ask for an oral hearing asking permission to appeal.that you live a long way from the court and had no Financial means to make the return journey three or more  times for a hearing of three days or more, etc )

As already stated in the introduction section,children of all ages even those under 12 aged 7 or 8 for example can go to any phone box and call parents reverse charges if they are quietly told how to do this.

Dial 100 from any private phone or public call box and you will be offered 4 options(choices) Choose option4 ask the operator for a call transferring the charges. The operator will then ask you for your name and the number you are calling.(this must be to a fixed line not a mobile)Your mother or father will then say ok they accept the call and no money is needed from the child who is calling!

If there is no court order section34 forbidding contact they can always meet you for an afternoon or so and it would be an assault  for social workers to physically stop them !

The important thing is firstly to keep in touch with your children  telling them you still love them and are fighting the wicked social workers who kidnapped them.(social workers have absolutely NO legal right to censor your conversation)You should then take positive steps to recover them and welcome them back home .

Quote the cases and the principles below .Ignore the advice of lawyers who tell you to admit to things you have not done ! Even more important ,do remind lawyers that they are there to take instructions from clients not vice versa! Refuse to “go along with social services ” in court and always fiercely oppose interim care orders,adoption placements,and adoption orders.Oppose gagging orders,prohibited steps orders, any orders forbidding you to contact your own children and above all if faced with a criminal charge and you know you are innocent ;then plead NOT GUILTY even if bent lawyers try and persuade you to lie in court and plead guilty to save them time and money !

Cases on threshold must be supported by stated facts: Court of Appeal

Court summarises principles set out by the President in Re A (A Child)

The Court of Appeal has expressed concern about local authorities’ lack of precision in pleading that the threshold criteria have been met in care proceedings. Lord Justice McFarlane, giving the main judgment in Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222, said that he expressly welcomed and endorsed the importance that the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, ‘has attributed to the need for there to be linkage between the individual facts relied upon [by a local authority] and the requirements of s 31 of the Children Act 1989’. In Re A (a child) [2015] EWFC 11 the President had said:

“The second fundamentally important point is the need to link the facts relied upon by the local authority with its case on threshold, the need to demonstrate why, as the local authority asserts, facts A+B+C justify the conclusion that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, significant harm of types X, Y or Z.”

McFarlane LJ also endorsed the “View from the President’s Chambers (2)” (June 2013), which set out that threshold should state: “what the nature of the local authority case is; what the essential factual basis of the case is; what the evidence is upon which the local authority relies to establish its case; what the local authority is asking the court, and why” in a short, concise document.

In Re J a mother appealed the decision to make care and placement orders in respect of J, an 8 month old boy.  The mother was aged 16 when J was born and had spent time, from age 13, in the local authority’s care.  She went into a mother and baby foster placement that broke down shortly after J’s birth – proceedings were issued and J remained in foster care.

The parents disputed some of the factual matters relied upon and it was necessary for the judge to evaluate whether the established matters (a) justified concluding that the threshold criterion of significant harm was met and, if so, (b) whether the plan for adoption was justified as a necessary and proportionate response.

In this case, McFarlane LJ said, the question of whether this young, immature couple was likely to cause significant harm to their baby required a far greater degree of analysis than it had received from the local authority or the judge.  Even if there was a conclusion that threshold was met, there should also have been a similarly thorough and clear analysis of the evidence to determine the welfare outcome.

The only factual matters referred to in the original judgment in the family court were an admitted domestic incident between the parents prior to J’s birth, a domestic incident when clothes were thrown, and the father having a caution for possession of cannabis.  The other matters relied upon (lack of parenting role models, dishonesty, failure to engage and emotional immaturity) were in the most general terms.  The ‘findings’ did not identify what significant harm the judge found J to have suffered, nor was the type of significant harm that J was likely to suffer.

McFarlane LJ concluded that the judgment in the family court was, “by a wide margin, wholly inadequate”. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the cases to be heard by a different judge.

Aikens LJ, agreeing with McFarlane LJ, summarised the principles set out by the President in Re A “in the hope that advocates and judges throughout England and Wales who have to deal with these difficult care cases will pay the utmost heed to what the President has said”:

i) In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove,  on a balance of probabilities,  the facts on which it relies  and,  if adoption is to be ordered,  to demonstrate that “nothing else will do”, when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare.

ii)  If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove.    If a local authority asserts that a parent “does not admit, recognise or acknowledge” that a matter of concern to the authority is the case, then if that matter of concern is put in issue, it is for the local authority to prove it is the case and, furthermore, that  the matter of concern  “has the significance attributed to it by the local authority”.

iii) Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority,  although admissible,   has strict limitations if a parent challenges that hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing.  If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first hand evidence,  it may find itself in “great,  or indeed insuperable” difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged.

iv) The formulation of “Threshold” issues and proposed findings of fact must be done with the utmost care and precision.   The distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised.   The document must identify the relevant facts which are sought to be proved.   It can be cross-referenced to evidence relied on to prove the facts asserted but should not contain mere allegations (“he appears to have lied” etc.).

v) It is for the local authority to prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold.   The local authority must demonstrate why certain facts, if proved, “justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm” of the type asserted by the local authority.   “The local authority’s evidence and submissions must set out the arguments and explain explicitly why it is said that, in the particular case, the conclusion [that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm] indeed follows from the facts [proved]”.

vi) It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges,  bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other. The State will not take away the children of “those who commit crimes,  abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse antisocial,  political or religious beliefs”   simply because those facts are established.   It must be demonstrated by the local authority,   in the first place, that by reason of one or more of those facts,  the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.   Even if that is demonstrated, adoption will not be ordered unless it is demonstrated by the local authority that “nothing else will do” when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare.     The court must guard against “social engineering”.

vii) When a judge considers the evidence, he must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and, to use a metaphor, examine the canvas overall.

viii)  In considering a local authority’s application for a care order for adoption the judge must have regard to the “welfare checklist” insection1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and that in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.   The judge must also treat, as a paramount consideration,  the child’s welfare “throughout his life” in accordance with section 1(2) of the 2002 Act.   In dispensing with the parents’ consent, the judge must apply section 52(1)(b) as explained in Re P (Placement Orders,  parental consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535.

For the judgment, prefaced by a summary by Ariel Ricci of Coram Chambers, please click here.

SO CALLED “VOLUNTARY CARE”

1.Surrey County Council “v- M, F & E [2012] EWHC [2400] a decision of Mrs. Justice Theis and at paragraph 60 she said this:-

“To use the section 20 procedure in circumstances where there was the overt threat of a police protection order if they did not agree, reinforced by the physical presence of uniformed police officers, was wholly inappropriate. By adopting this procedure the local authority sought to circumvent the test any court would have required them to meet if they sought to secure an order, either by way of an EPO or interim care order.”

Remember that you are free to take back your children any time!

Home Office Circular 17/2008, issues guidance to the police in the use of their powers under section 46.

The guidance goes on to say at paragraph 15:

“Police protection is an emergency power and should only be used when necessary, the principle being that wherever possible the decision to remove a child/children from a parent should be made by a court.”

It goes on to say at paragraph 16:

“All local authorities should have in place local arrangements (through their local Chief Executive and Clerks to the Justices) whereby out of hours applications for EPOs may be made speedily and without an excess of bureaucracy. Police protection powers should only be used when this is not possible.”

NON MOLESTATION ORDERS

Cite the high court ruling in Case HIGC3456 delivered on 27/6/01 where a precedent was set regarding the Court’s conduct in ex-parte granted non-molestation order cases. Try googling this case.

In it it states on P2: ‘a non-molestation order is a serious interference with a person’s liberty and could have grave consequences due to the power of arrest to which it gives rise.’

On P5 it states: ‘if the court makes an order by virtue of paragraph (1), it shall afford the respondent (ie the person who has had the order served upon them) an opportunity to make representations relating to the order as soon as just and convenient at a full hearing.’

On P7 it states: ‘Given the nature of a non-molestation order and its effect …a FULL hearing Must be convened At The Earliest Opportunity.’

P8 it states: A respondent should be ‘afforded an opportunity to make representations’ at the earliest opportunity.’

The statement on P10 ‘in any event the evidence in support of the application shall state the reasons why the application is made ex-parte’ is no comfort to the respondent if the given reasons for ‘justifying’ making the order in the respondent’s absence are entirely fictitious and fabricated, however they do provide a starting point for galvanising a response when an opportunity is provided (If of course such opportunity is provided).

P10 ‘Article 23 (3) REQUIRES the court to afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations’ P11 at the ‘earliest opportunity’.

Also on P11 ‘there is the Potential for such an order to Work an Injustice on the respondent.’

ILLEGAL CHILD REMOVAL

In R (on the application of G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 400 (Admin) Munby J considered removal of a child from a mother without either court order or consent under s.20 of the CA 1989.  In finding that removal to be unlawful the Court relied on Article 8 of the HRA and concluded that the interference with the family life was not justifiable under Article 8(2) as a result

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675395/Judge-blasts-social-workers-telling-not-law-remove-nine-year-old-family-away-without-consent.html

Yes, the punishment dealt out to parents by family courts is far more severe than anything the criminal courts can do ;yet the evidence needed is only the “balance of probabilities”(51+%) instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” .This must be very wrong !

Speech by Sir James Munby (president of the family courts) to the Society of editors:- “I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family judge makes an adoption order in relation to a twenty-year old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risk”

Some fundamental principles stated by Sir James Munby ,President of the family court.

1. In the light of the way in which this case has been presented and some of the submissions I have heard, it is important always to bear in mind in these cases, and too often, I fear, they are overlooked, three fundamentally important points. The present case is an object lesson in, almost a textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.
2. The first fundamentally important point relates to the matter of fact-finding and proof. I emphasise, as I have already said, that it is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts upon which it seeks to rely. I draw attention to what, in Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12, [2011] 1 FCR 141, para 26, I described as:

“the elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.”

This carries with it two important practical and procedural consequences.

1. The first is that the local authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. Much material to be found in local authority case records or social work chronologies is hearsay, often second- or third-hand hearsay. Hearsay evidence is, of course, admissible in family proceedings. But, and as the present case so vividly demonstrates, a local authority which is unwilling or unable to produce the witnesses who can speak of such matters first-hand, may find itself in great, or indeed insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it. As I remarked in my second View from the President’s Chambers, [2013] Fam Law 680:

“Of course the court can act on the basis of evidence that is hearsay. But direct evidence from those who can speak to what they have themselves seen and heard is more compelling and less open to cross-examination. Too often far too much time is taken up by cross-examination directed to little more than demonstrating that no-one giving evidence in court is able to speak of their own knowledge, and that all are dependent on the assumed accuracy of what is recorded, sometimes at third or fourth hand, in the local authority’s files.”

It is a common feature of care cases that a local authority asserts that a parent does not admit, recognise or acknowledge something or does not recognise or acknowledge the local authority’s concern about something. If the ‘thing’ is put in issue, the local authority must both prove the ‘thing’ and establish that it has the significance attributed to it by the local authority.

1. The second practical and procedural point goes to the formulation of threshold and proposed findings of fact. The schedule of findings in the present case contains, as we shall see, allegations in relation to the father that “he appears to have” lied or colluded, that various people have “stated” or “reported” things, and that “there is an allegation”. With all respect to counsel, this form of allegation, which one sees far too often in such documents, is wrong and should never be used. It confuses the crucial distinction, once upon a time, though no longer, spelt out in the rules of pleading and well understood, between an assertion of fact and the evidence needed to prove the assertion. What do the words “he appears to have lied” or “X reports that he did Y” mean? More important, where does it take one? The relevant allegation is not that “he appears to have lied” or “X reports”; the relevant allegation, if there is evidence to support it, is surely that “he lied” or “he did Y”.

Re B (Children: Long Term Foster Care) [2014] EWCA Civ 1172

Appeal against care orders in respect of two boys. Appeal allowed and case remitted for rehearing by a different judge.

This case concerned two boys, A and B, who were age 11 and almost 10 respectively at the time of the appeal hearing.  The appeal was brought by their mother against the decision of HHJ Scarratt, on 30 October 2013, to make final care orders in respect of both boys.

The judgment describes the concerns about the children as ‘diverse’.  These included domestic violence between the parents, poor home conditions, poor school attendance, trouble caused by family members, the children being out unsupervised at night and the mother being stabbed by a neighbour.  Although at the outset of the proceedings, the local authority had sought interim care orders, they subsequently accepted that the boys could remain at home during the proceedings under interim supervision orders.  The evidence at this time acknowledged that the mother had been able to make improvements and work with professionals for the benefit of the children.

During the course of the proceedings, the mother continued to show some positive engagement although fresh issues also arose which gave the local authority and the Guardian cause for concern.  However, the local authority evidence reflected its plan for the boys to remain at home under interim supervision orders.

The local authority changed its plan to one of foster care prior to a hearing on 5 September 2013.  This was due to the ongoing concerns and their view that ‘only minimal improvements’ had been made despite the support and the ongoing reports of fresh incidents of concern.  Further incidents occurred between the local authority’s final evidence and the final hearing in October 2013.

At that hearing, HHJ Scarratt preferred the evidence of the local authority and the Children’s Guardian and made the care orders sought.  The mother’s grounds of appeal were distilled into the following propositions:

• That the judge failed to scrutinise properly the local authority’s change of position from July 2013 to August 2013;
• That the judge wrongly accepted the local authority’s evidence about two of the incidents in September when the witnesses to those incidents had neither given statements nor attended to give oral evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had failed to carry out a sufficient analysis of the alleged incidents that had given rise to the change of position and had failed to make findings about what had occurred.

Matters were not helped by the local authority having confused the criminal record of the mother’s new partner, Mr SB, with that of his brother.  It was difficult to ascertain from the judgment what the judge had made of the supposed convictions of the partner as his reasoning was unclear.  Moreover, the judge had not determined whether the mother had ended her relationship with this partner and whether that showed an ability to put the needs of the children first.  His reasoning about the mother’s association with Mr SB was therefore described as ‘decidedly shaky’.

In relation to a finding that the judge had made, namely that the mother’s partner had assaulted A, the judge had not carried out sufficient analysis of the evidence before him to justify that finding given the significance of that alleged incident in the proceedings overall.

In allowing the appeal and remitting the case back for a fresh final hearing before a different judge, the judgment emphasises that the Court of Appeal did not do so because there was insufficient evidence to justify a care order but:

“The basis on which we allowed the appeal was that the judgment was flawed in its approach to the events which led to LA’s change of mind and was lacking in the detail that was required to substantiate the decision taken. The more finely balanced the decision in a case, the more exacting must be the judge’s approach to the evidence, the more precise his findings of fact on pivotal matters and the fuller the explanation of his route to his determination.”

The judge’s treatment of the background history lacked sufficient detail and analysis and so this compounded the difficulties with his treatment of recent events and:

“In short, this was a case which could only be resolved by a detailed and critical review of the evidence, old and new, with each step of the way meticulously charted in the judgment.

ZH v HS & Ors (Application to Revoke Adoption Order) [2019] EWHC 2190 (Fam)

Case in which the court took the highly unusual and exceptional step of exercising its inherent jurisdiction and revoking an adoption order which had been made following a flawed process, replete with errors and omissions.

This was an application by a child’s birth mother (ZH) to revoke an adoption order made in 2016 in relation to T, now aged 4.

ZH became separated from T when trying to secure entry to this country from Somalia via Holland, and she arrived 2 years after T. T had been delivered to her paternal aunt and uncle (HS and MO) who lived in the UK. HS and MO represented themselves in adoption proceedings, brought because they were being asked for court papers about the arrangement for T to live with them, and an adoption order was made.

All parties agreed the court should take the highly unusual and exceptional step of exercising the court’s inherent jurisdiction and revoking the adoption order, and that T should be placed in ZH’s care.

Theis J emphasised the need for courts to carefully scrutinise applications for adoption, with robust systems to ensure the gateway requirements are met. This requirement for scrutiny is heightened in non-agency adoptions particularly when made by parties without the benefit of legal advice or representation. The Family Procedure Rules Committee may wish to give consideration to amendments to the adoption application form.

Theis J also highlighted the obligation on LAs to prepare the Annex A report on the suitability of the adopters to adopt, an obligation which is more onerous in non-agency adoption applications and should always involve some legal advice. The report needs to be prepared within a robust framework in the LA that will provide effective scrutiny of the report, both legal and social work.

The LA in this case accepted the wholesale failure by them to undertake the necessary enquiries as were required of them by PD14C. Their revised procedure regarding non-agency placements was set out in full in a postscript to the judgment as it may benefit other LAs.

No-one suggested that HS and MO acted other than in good faith. They did not receive any advice from a family specialist and appeared unaware of other orders that could be made. There was no evidence any professional discussed or raised the option of other orders with them and they were not seen with the assistance of interpreters.

In this case adoption was a disproportionate order for what was required, and was made following a flawed process, replete with errors and omissions. Theis J set out the numerous flaws in the process in detail, which included:

• T had not lived with HS and MO for at least three years and the court had not granted them leave to make the adoption application.

• No notice of intention to adopt had been given to the LA not more than two years and not less than 3 months prior to the adoption application.

• No prescribed consent to adoption had been provided by the birth father. It was a matter of very great concern that F saying he wanted T to continue in the care of his sister was translated in the Annex A report to him fully supporting an adoption order.

• ZH either needed to consent to the adoption or have her consent dispensed with and no consideration was given to her position other than a recital recording that ZH was said to be missing.

• Both parents, the LA and T should have been respondents to the adoption application but none of them were identified as parties.

• Neither parent was served with notice of the adoption application.

• The court failed to give any directions in relation to tracing either parent.

• The court did not join T and appoint a Guardian.

• No notice was given that the adoptive parents were inviting the court to dispense with one or both parents’ consent and no statement of facts was directed.

• There was no record to suggest either parent or the LA was given notice of the final hearing, and there was nothing in the previous order that indicated the hearing was going to be a final hearing. At that date the LA had not gone through the Annex A report with HS and MO.

• The Annex A report was defective in numerous ways, including there being no current medical summary in respect of T, the medical assessments of HS and MO were outstanding, the DBS checks for HS and MO were outstanding, and the requirements to consider the relative merits of adoption and other orders was ignored.

Theis J considered the adoption order must be revoked. Many of the errors went to the very root of the adoption process, in particular notice to the birth family and consent. The errors tainted the entire process and Theis J was satisfied the adoption order was not lawfully or properly made.

AGE 16 AND STILL IN CARE??

Remember also that if children are 16 or more they will often be released from care.Sometimes however the “SS” take a particular dislike to a family and say they will keep the child until 18 when the care order must expire.

NEVER MIND! There is a way out ! If a child marries at 16 then the care order ceases !A marriage anywhere in Scotland does NOT need parental consent.Take the hint !

No need for a divorce later as the marriage can simply be annulled(cancelled) when the child reaches 18 if it has not been consummated (ie if bride and groom have not slept together)!

A TRUE CASE :-

“On the 22nd december 2011, an order was made for me to be taken away from my mother causing me and my mother to flee our home. After 3 weeks we were caught; my mother was locked up and bailed on abduction charges and I was taken to Cockermouth Carlisle to a foster home, my phone was taken from me;I was not allowed any contact with any of my family and I was on 24 hour supervision; not allowing me to go anywhere by myself. I remained there for 5 months and only received school work on the last month. I saw my mother twice a week for 2 hours .I was then moved to another carer at Chester-lee street to attend school and still not allowed a phone or to see any family members apart from my mother .I was placed there for 2 months. I was then placed with my aunt and was only allowed to see my mother once a week for 2 hours. All this time I was desparate to move back with my mother and to be able to see my siblings. To do this I was married at Gretna Green (Google Gretna green to see how to arrange a marriage) at the age of 16 on the 16th November 2012 .On the same night the police attended my mother’s house and were shown my marriage certificate.After stating it was all legal they left,and my clothes are being returned to me today from my aunts house who was my foster carer.

Ian I would like to thank you deeply for all your help

yours sincerely Georgie Callison ” tcallison325@googlemail.com

IMPORTANT  TO GET A SECOND EXPERT OPINION BECAUSE :-

New rulings have been made by the U.K. courts in criminal and civil cases involving the deaths of children which are that,  (Lord Justice Judge – Angela Cannings Appeal Hearing against conviction 2004),

“in cases like the present, if the outcome of the trial depends exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unwise, and therefore unsafe, to proceed”.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2149.html   SHOWS HOW UNRELIABLE SOME “EXPERTS” CAN BE.

GOV.UK Search

=========================

–Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

 

Precedent The right to breastfeed
*In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/850.html

Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J.

Abstract.

“Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.”…

Published Date 16/04/2003

Domestic Violence not necessarily a sufficient reason to remove a child

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

This is a set of care proceedings heard in Manchester County Court, but it raises some important issues of wider importance.

It was a case in which the Local Authority obtained an Emergency Protection Order removing IMA in August 2013, and after that Interim Care Orders sanctioning IMA remaining in foster care, up until the final hearing, which took place in August 2014 a year after the initial removal.

The Local Authority had been seeking a plan of adoption, supported by the Guardian, but this had changed to permanent placement with a relative. It is of note that the plan of adoption had been supported by the Agency Decision Makers (whose job it is to assess separately to social workers whether the circumstances of an individual case mean that adoption is the right plan)

The Judge at final hearing found that the threshold criteria were not made out, and thus the child would be going home and no statutory orders would be made.

The threshold criteria was based on the risk of the child being exposed to domestic violence (which is, on the revised wording of the Children Act 1989 a matter which on its own is capable of meeting threshold). That had two aspects really (i) Was father a risk of violence or violent behaviour and (ii) was the child in mother’s care going to be exposed to the father.

The fact that the Judge found that threshold was not met therefore was significant. This wasn’t a case with a suspicious injury which on full investigation was found to be an accident or a peculiar medical condition, but rather that the child ought never really to have been removed. The Judge was not saying that the threshold HAD been met but due to changes the risks had dissipated or become manageable, but that the situation of this family had NEVER crossed the section 31 threshold.

And the Judge had advised the Local Authority in a number of hearings that he was concerned that the section 31 threshold was not made out on the evidence that they had presented and was giving them the opportunity to flesh out their evidence if they had more information which was not before the Court. He told them that on 17th February 2014, 14th April 2014 and 23rd June, before making it official at the final hearing by ruling that threshold was not met.

CRIMINAL RECORDS + DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PARENTS STILL WIN !

See also a very important case where both parents had bad criminal records and previous domestic violence but still recovered their baby from care !If it fits your case because it is similar quote this case to the judge and ask him for similar treatment for you !

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

ALSO:-N-D (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1226
Judgments (10/09/2014)
Successful appeal against care and placement orders on the basis that the judgment had failed to provide adequate reasoning behind the welfare determination

 

National Domestic Violence Hotline (IF YOU NEED HELP)

http://www.thehotline.org/

State child snatchers: As social workers hand back a child they falsely claim was abused, an investigation exposes one of the great scandals of our age

By Christopher Booker

Daily Mail, 20th August 2011

Daily Mail readers will have been horrified yesterday to read the story of the South Gloucestershire couple whose two young children were removed from them because social workers thought their son’s bone fractures must have been caused by physical abuse.

Only after a nightmarish 18-month ordeal, which drove the couple apart, were they finally able to produce medical evidence to indicate that the boy’s injuries were caused naturally, by brittle bone disease.

The council dropped the case, and Amy Garland and her children are now happily reunited.

When I spoke to her last night she told me how lucky she’d been to be put in touch with a medical expert who established the truth.

I listened to her story with particular interest because it is only one more example in a very dark area of our national life I have long been investigating, and which I have come to see as one of the greatest scandals unfolding in Britain today — as shocking as anything I have come across in all my five decades as a journalist.

In the past two years, since the furore over Baby P, the number of children being taken away from their parents by social workers has soared by almost 50 per cent to an all-time record level of nearly 10,000 a year.

And having followed scores of such cases in detail, it is abundantly clear to me that in far too many of them there is absolutely no reason why the families should be torn apart in this way.

Forcibly separating happy, well-cared for children from loving, responsible parents creates a tragedy which will last for the rest of the lives of all those involved — even if they are eventually reunited. The emotional agony if the children are permanently removed hardly bears thinking about.

Of course there is no objection to social workers removing children from parents who have genuinely abused them. As we know from many notorious examples, social workers have failed to take into care children who died as a result.

But a key reason for the rise in the number of children now being seized from their parents is that, precisely to avoid such scandals in the wake of the Baby P case, social workers have gone to the opposite extreme, becoming trigger-happy, snatching children for no good reason.

Since Baby P, social workers have gone to the other extreme, becoming trigger-happy and snatching children for no good reason

What is most shocking about this is that the families then find themselves in the grip of a system which seems horribly rigged against them. Too often these cases will begin on the flimsiest of grounds, as when the social workers are tipped off by a malicious neighbour or an over-zealous teacher.

One mother I know, who holds down a responsible job, lost her two children when her only mistake was to tap her daughter’s arm with a roll of clingfilm.

The next day this was twisted by a foolish teacher into a charge that the girl had been ‘hit with an implement’, and the council paid a psychiatrist £14,000 for a 235-page report arguing that the mother suffered from ‘a borderline personality disorder’, one of the vague, unprovable claims they love to use.

Another lost her three children after she had tripped up on a charity walk, pulling the daughter holding her hand to the ground. When a health visitor reported the bruises the child suffered as a result to social workers, without asking how these had arisen, they sent the mother to one psychiatrist after another until they also found one prepared to say she had a ‘borderline personality disorder’.

One of the sanest and brightest mothers I have come across had her baby removed after the woman had accidentally fallen from a window on the FIRST FLOOR 12 feet from the ground, because the social workers alleged that she had tried to commit suicide.

They rang to tell her they were taking her baby while she lay temporarily paralysed in hospital.

On such dubious grounds, the social workers may arrive to snatch children from their beds, all too often accompanied by a gang of four or more policemen, who seem only too willing to comply with any demands the social workers make.

One mother was breastfeeding her three-hour-old baby on a hospital bed when two social workers and four policemen burst into the room to take the child forcibly from her arms, after a series of false allegations were made against her.

The parents in such cases often find themselves treated like criminals, held for hours in police cells before being released without charge. But worse is to come when they arrive in a family court, where all the normal rules of British justice seem to have been reversed.

The social workers can produce hearsay evidence which may be a tissue of lies, but which the parents are not allowed to question, or submit damning documents to the judge which the parents are not even allowed to read.

If they are represented by solicitors, in most cases forced on them by the council, they often find that their lawyers refuse to oppose the council’s application for a care order — which allows the children to be removed for a longer period — and accept every allegation the council makes.

The system hides itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy

Most family judges are as much part of this broken system as the social workers themselves — one rare exception being the senior family judge who last year castigated the behaviour of Devon social workers as ‘more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England’.

Meanwhile the children, generally bemused and distraught at what is happening to them, are placed with foster carers, who receive on average £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child from the state.

The biological parents and children may be allowed to meet for only a few hours a week of rigorously ‘supervised contact’, in a grim council ‘contact centre’.

Any expression of affection or mention of the court case is strictly forbidden and can be punished by suspension of the contact, possibly permanently.

It may sound hard to believe, but I know of cases where children have been groomed by the social workers and their foster carers to believe that their parents no longer love or want them. In several cases I have followed, it is clear that children in foster care are being maltreated or even sexually abused.

Finally, this travesty of justice may wind to its conclusion when, after anything up to two years, a judge agrees that a child can be sent for adoption — although in recent years our adoption rate has markedly fallen, leaving ever more thousands of these children as fodder for a ‘fostering industry’ which is now costing taxpayers more than £3 billion a year.

Obviously there are happier exceptions to this dreadful picture. Some children are rightly saved by social workers from genuine abuse, and there are many good and caring foster homes. But in far too many cases, the other, more tragic scenario has become the norm.

So, if things have gone so terribly wrong with our child protection system, why has this happened — and why have we not heard more about it? It is difficult for outsiders to realise just how corrupted it has become until they experience it at first hand — because the entire system has managed to hide itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy.

It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is

Supposedly designed to ‘protect the interests of the children’ by ensuring that they cannot be identified, this secrecy had been used by the system to conceal its workings from public view, by threatening parents with prison for talking about their case to outsiders, and even journalists like me for trying to report what goes on.

It is this cloak of secrecy which more than anything has allowed the system to go so far off the rails. Too many social workers are in the grip of a self-righteous, politically correct ideology which drives them to abuse the power the Government has given them over other people’s lives, in the conviction that they are doing good in the world.

The secrecy which surrounds the way they wield that power means they are hardly ever called to account.

Nothing did more to distort the system in this way than Tony Blair’s personal crusade a few years back to drive up the number of adoptions by setting councils targets for the number of children they place with new families.

They were given huge cash incentives to fulfil their quotas thanks to a policy which, though now technically abandoned, has left a terrible legacy in convincing both social workers and the courts that one of their prime duties is to seize children from their parents, even when there is no good reason for it.

It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is, and for the trail of horrors it is perpetrating to be dragged into the light.

S (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 325

Appeal by paternal grandmother of a child based upon the assumption that the judge at first instance had not regarded the grandmother’s claim to be the child’s long term carer as being unrealistic in the context of Re B-S. Appeal allowed.

The central issue in this appeal concerned whether a court had been justified in ruling out the child’s paternal grandmother as a prospective long-term carer for him prior to the full welfare hearing.  The paternal grandmother had been a significant figure in the life of T, the subject of the proceedings.  She had been the subject of two positive assessments by the local authority during the course of the proceedings.  However, at the Issues Resolution Hearing, the Children’s Guardian expressed concern about the approach adopted by the local authority in assessing the grandmother.  As a result, the court directed a further assessment by an independent social worker.  This assessment was negative and led the local authority to change its own position to recommend a plan of adoption for T.  This was also the view of the Children’s Guardian. A seven-day hearing took place in November 2014.  At this hearing, the paternal grandmother sought a special guardianship order so that T could remain in her care.  She was not able to put herself forward as a carer for his younger sibling, N.  The outcome of this hearing was that the application for special guardianship was dismissed and the court ruled that neither child could be brought up in their family of origin.  The order from this hearing recorded the key issues for the final hearing as being whether permanency should be achieved through adoption or long-term foster care, and any contact arrangements.  The outcome of this hearing was the subject of the grandmother’s appeal. The thrust of the appeal was that the judge had not ruled the grandmother out as a carer having conducted a Re B-S type analysis.  The issue of adoption had not been considered at the November hearing and so the judge could not have weighed up the relative merits of the different types of placement nor had she conducted the holistic welfare analysis that was required of her.  She had not tested the local authority’s case against the checklists in the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The local authority, opposing the appeal, accepted that the arguments at the core of the appellant’s case were valid but submitted that they had no relevance to the context in which the judge conducted the hearing.  The object of the hearing had been to test whether care by the grandmother was a ‘realistic’ option for T.  In doing so, the judge was only doing what she was permitted to do in accordance with R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 in which the Court of Appeal emphasised that the process described in Re B-S did not apply to every conceivable option for the long-term care of a child but only to those that were ‘realistic’. McFarlane LJ, giving the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluded that “if the process undertaken by the judge in November was intended to be a process of evaluating one realistic option against another then the judge’s approach fell entirely and profoundly short of what is required” (para. 47).  The question was, therefore, “whether or not the judge was in fact determining that the option of care by the paternal grandmother was not a “realistic option” and therefore one in accordance with Re R that could be removed from the otherwise mandatory welfare and proportionality evaluation” (para. 48).  He concludes that it was ‘not credible’ that an experienced family judge would have failed to establish the structure within which she was making the decision if what she was undertaking was intended to be a full welfare evaluation.  She must, therefore, have understood that she was establishing whether or not continued placement with the grandmother was a ‘realistic’ option for T.  A central issue for the appeal was therefore what is, or can be, regarded as a realistic option and what can be ruled out prior to a full welfare evaluation at a final hearing. On the evidence before the court, it was simply not possible for a court to rule that the paternal grandmother should fall outside the pool of realistic options for care of T.  The quality of the assessment between T and his grandmother was strikingly described in the earlier positive assessments.  Moreover, the status quo argument (that is, T remained placed with his grandmother) was relevant.  A further factor was that the local authority had themselves supported the placement until a few months before the November hearing.  Finally, the negative matters that had led to her being ruled out were based on family dynamics and the risk of future harm.  These were subtle matters that represented only part of the totality of the care that the grandmother could offer. The appeal was therefore allowed, on the basis that the judge could not reasonably have ruled out the grandmother as a realistic option for T’s care.  What was required was a holistic analysis, bearing in mind the strictures of Re B-S and considering this option against the other realistic option(s), being, in this case, a plan of adoption.     Summary by Sally Gore, barrister, Fenners Chambers ___________________________

 Breach of conditions of Bail

Revised Practice and Procedure

Breach of conditions of bail is not a Bail Act Offence, nor is it a contempt of court unless there is some additional feature (Ashley [2004] 1 Cr App R 23).

Pre Charge

The police have a power of arrest where conditions imposed on pre-charge bail have been breached (see section 46A PACE 1984 as inserted by CJPOA 1994 Section 29 (2)). Where a person has been re-arrested, section 37 C (2) (b) PACE gives the police the power to release (again) “without charge, either on bail or without bail”. Section 37 C (4) states explicitly that if a person is released on bail under section 37 C (2)(b), then that person shall be subject to whatever conditions applied before the ‘re-arrest’. It appears that there is no power to change conditions of bail at this point.

Post Charge

Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 confers power upon the Police to arrest a person if the Constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to break any of the conditions of his bail or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions.

A person so arrested must be brought as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of his arrest, before a Justice of the Peace of the Petty Sessions for the area in which he was arrested.

Prosecutors are reminded of R v Culley [2007] EWHC 109 which states that where a person has breached their bail, they must not only be brought before the court ‘as soon as is practicable’ but also be dealt with within 24 hours of arrest (see s7 (4) Bail Act 1976).

Judgement:IMPORTANT !!

UNEXPLAINED INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO INCRIMINATE PARENTS

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed146049   = a recent case plus the following:-

M (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580

Appeal against fact-finding where the judge had found that one of the parents had caused injury to the child and the other had failed to protect, but could not say which parent had caused the injuries. The child was taken to the GP and then to hospital by the mother. She had raised concerns about the bruising which, she stated, must have been caused by the father. There was significant bruising to the child’s left forearm, further bruising to the right are am the right thigh.
The bruises, the experts all agreed, were in unusual places for a baby to be bruised, certainly in the day-to-day care of the baby. The experts, however, could not come to an agreement as to how the bruises might come about. Swaddling, thrashing in the bath and being trapped by the bars of the cot were all discounted. The judge found that the injuries had been caused by pressure from an object imposed on the baby.
It was further determined that the parent who failed to protect would have been aware of the pain and discomfort of the child, given the severity of the bruising. Also, the house was such that the baby’s distress would have been audible throughout.
The appeal was brought by both parents. The mother argued that a lack of reasoning in the argument that the parents failed to protect led to the judge misdirecting herself as to who caused the injuries.
The father’s appeal criticised the judge’s approach and that the lack of parental care was the reason given by the experts for their conclusion that these were non-accidental injuries.
Essentially, the judge found that, due to the experts being unable to give an explanation, reasonable or unreasonable, for the cause of the injuries, they must have been non-accidental.
Ward LJ giving the judgment for the court stated: “[The expert’s opinion] was the effect of the judge’s view of the case: that absent a parental explanation, there was no satisfactory benign explanation, ergo there must be a malevolent explanation. And it is that leap which troubles me. It does not seem to me that the conclusion necessarily follows unless, wrongly, the burden of proof has been reversed, and the parents are being required to satisfy the court that it is not a non-accidental injury”.

James.lefanu@btinternet.com  is your best bet as an independent consultant as you can see from what he writes below.If he is not free he will probably be able to recommend a colleague !

Dear Christopher Herewith my comments on the panorama programme for next weeks column. Good,as always ,to talk yesterday.BWjames

———- Forwarded message ———- From: James Lefanu <james.lefanu@telegraph.co.uk> Date: 22 January 2014 15:02 Subject: lefanu col

 The late Cassandra Jardine, whose career as a feature writer of this paper will be commemorated with the award this week of the Memorial Prize in her name, campaigned vigorously on behalf of innocent parents accused of the horrific crime of having deliberately injured their children.  In a typically brilliant article published six years ago she outlined the several contentious medical theories that had resulted in so many ‘gross miscarriages of justice’ but hoped ‘the necessary lessons have been learned’.  Regrettably not.

What, I wonder, would she have made of the case of Jill McCartan, featured in the Panorama programme a fortnight ago ‘I want my baby back’ , forced to flee to Spain to escape the tentacles of the Social Services determined to take her newborn son into care.

Two years earlier Jill and her partner had taken their daughter Alyssa, then aged just ten weeks old, to hospital with an unexplained fracture of the arm – where X-rays also revealed three further healing fractures of her ribs and leg.  The medical experts concurred these injuries had been caused deliberately – despite there being not the slightest hint of the sort of circumstantial evidence such as  bruising, pain or swelling of the limbs that might reasonably be expected had they been caused by excess physical force.

The experts, however, failed to comment on ,or  indeed advise the parents, that blood tests had shown Alyssa’s vitamin D levels to be virtually undetectable.  There were clear grounds here for an appeal as she  would almost certainly have had rickets which could only too readily account for those ‘unexplained’ fractures – but astonishing this was turned down on a technicality.  Alyssa was put up for adoption.

Meanwhile Jill was 8 months pregnant with her second child who would, in view of the judgement against her, have also been taken into care at birth.  And so, on the advice of the Lib Dem MP John Hemming, she fled to Spain and went into hiding.

Jill McCartan and her partner are not child abusers but their plight together with three very similar cases highlighted by the Panorama programme, clarify what has become the fundamental issue at stake here – that Cassandra would have recognised only too well.  There is no longer  the slightest possibility of those ‘lessons being learned’ because for all those involved- the medical experts, social workers and the judiciary, to acknowledge there might be would be to concede that they had been instrumental in so many miscarriages of justice in the past.  These parents have little hope  of getting a fair trial in Britain because as John Hemming observes ‘they cannot rely on the evidence being fair’.   Shocking but true.

We should remember the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed137123

Above is a link to further evidence that unexplained injuries cannot be pinned onto parents as easily as before.

Domestic Violence not sufficient reason to remove a child

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B110.html

This is a set of care proceedings heard in Manchester County Court, but it raises some important issues of wider importance.

It was a case in which the Local Authority obtained an Emergency Protection Order removing IMA in August 2013, and after that Interim Care Orders sanctioning IMA remaining in foster care, up until the final hearing, which took place in August 2014 a year after the initial removal.

The Local Authority had been seeking a plan of adoption, supported by the Guardian, but this had changed to permanent placement with a relative. It is of note that the plan of adoption had been supported by the Agency Decision Makers (whose job it is to assess separately to social workers whether the circumstances of an individual case mean that adoption is the right plan)

The Judge at final hearing found that the threshold criteria were not made out, and thus the child would be going home and no statutory orders would be made.

The threshold criteria was based on the risk of the child being exposed to domestic violence (which is, on the revised wording of the Children Act 1989 a matter which on its own is capable of meeting threshold). That had two aspects really (i) Was father a risk of violence or violent behaviour and (ii) was the child in mother’s care going to be exposed to the father.

The fact that the Judge found that threshold was not met therefore was significant. This wasn’t a case with a suspicious injury which on full investigation was found to be an accident or a peculiar medical condition, but rather that the child ought never really to have been removed. The Judge was not saying that the threshold HAD been met but due to changes the risks had dissipated or become manageable, but that the situation of this family had NEVER crossed the section 31 threshold.

And the Judge had advised the Local Authority in a number of hearings that he was concerned that the section 31 threshold was not made out on the evidence that they had presented and was giving them the opportunity to flesh out their evidence if they had more information which was not before the Court. He told them that on 17th February 2014, 14th April 2014 and 23rd June, before making it official at the final hearing by ruling that their evidence was not sufficient

BOTH PARENTS HAVE LEARNING DIFFICULTIES BUT…………………………

Council pays £12,000 damages for removal of child

Parents’ Articles 6 and 8 rights breached

In Re H (A Child: Breach of Convention Rights: Damages) [2014] EWFC 38 HHJ Clifford Bellamy, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, has awarded damages of £12,000 against Leicester City Council for breaches of the ECHR Articles 6 and 8 rights of the parents whose only child was taken into care.

The breaches arose in care proceedings brought by the local authority in April, 2014 in respect of a little girl, H.  H is now aged 17 months.  Both parents have learning disabilities. At the final hearing before HHJ Bellamy all parties agreed that the appropriate welfare outcome was that there should be a supervision order for a period of 12 months.

The parents asserted that the way the local authority had dealt with the case before proceedings were issued gave rise to a breach of their rights under Articles 6 and 8. They sought relief in the form of declarations and damages. The local authority accepted that by its conduct it had breached the parents Article 6 and Article 8 rights. It agreed to most of the declarations sought by the parents but did not agree that the parents were entitled to damages and submitted that if they were an appropriate amount would be £1,000 for each parent.

HHJ Bellamy found:

“H is these parents’ first child. Whilst it may be the case that had the local authority issued care proceedings soon after H was born an interim care order would have been made, the fact is that proceedings were not commenced promptly. They were not issued until shortly before H’s first birthday. It was not until June 2014 that these parents eventually managed to secure the return of their daughter to their care, exactly a year after she was placed with Mr and Mrs B. Whilst it is true that during that year the parents were having regular contact, supervised contact at a local authority contact centre is far removed from the joys of fulltime, unsupervised care of one’s own child. The residential assessment which began in June 2014 could have begun a year earlier. The cognitive assessment of the parents, not finally obtained until May 2014, could have been obtained months earlier. Unlike the parents in Coventry City Council v C, B, C and CH [2013] 2 FLR 987 these parents’ have suffered a loss of time with their daughter which was both unnecessarily lengthy and deeply distressing.”

He added:

“In my judgment the nature and extent of the poor practice admitted by the local authority is such that an adverse impact on these parents was inevitable. They would have needed great fortitude to be able to take such an experience in their stride. Far from having great fortitude it is clear that these are vulnerable learning disabled parents who had no-one to speak up for them.”

Having considered a number of authorities as examples of awards made in other cases, the judge determined that there were too few to be able to be confident that they indicate the broad parameters for making an assessment. He concluded that “an award of damages of £6,000 for each parent would achieve ‘just satisfaction’ in all the circumstances of this case.”

–Family Courts:- 99.7% of parents lose against the “ss” in court(National statistics) and those who win are usually those who represent themselves as most legal aid lawyers in family courts are “professional losers” not on your side at all ! .If you are a couple let one have a lawyer and the other act in person.State facts not opinions , never interrupt and you will at least have been allowed to speak unlike many parents who lose their children to adoption for life without saying a single word ! Answer all questions from police or barristers whenever possible by “yes”,”no”,I don’t remember, or “I don’t know” . Never complain about any social worker or police officer in court.Sometimes the judge will ask you if you think there is a conspiracy against you,pointing out that social workers,mental and medical experts,lawyers,and the guardian are all against you so how can you think you know better than all these highlyqualified people?This is to try and ridicule you and make it look as though you have a persecution complex ! Always reply “NO” of course not! Tell the judge that social workers try desperately to COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES .Say that is what they are doing in your case and that civil servants are notorious for trying to cover up mistakes rather than admit them !Recite boldly:-

” Birds of a feather flock together”

Social workers, judges, guardians ,family court solicitors and their carefully chosen “experts” always “stick together” never admitting a mistake and are fanatically eager to cover up rather than rectify any errors of judgement they have made .Just like our wonderful M.Ps fiddling their expenses ! No conspiracy ,just SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH ! Remember always:-

“Those who live off the system protect the system!”

The Hague Convention demands that children be returned to or allowed to remain in the country where they are “habitually resident” .There are however important exceptions. “Child objections

The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

Article 13(b)

The judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that ¦ there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Decided( above) that the best interests of the child would be the deciding factor to determine whether that child could remain in Ireland. Previously the question concerned “habitual residence”.

Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland

A Momentous and Disturbing Ruling in Europe on the Hague Abduction Convention …

LEAVING THE COUNTRY . (EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO PASSPORT)

Why leave? To escape “forced-adoption” of your precious children of course ! The UK is the only region in Europe or Asia where thousands of children are forcibly adopted every year, as ordered in family courts against the will of protesting parents .In other countries in Europe or Asia forced adoption does exist but it is very rarely exercised. That is why I advise non criminal parents threatened with adoption of their children to leave quite legally BEFORE any court proceedings.I do NOT carry out any ridiculous risk assessments (they should be banned!) as I CANNOT PRETEND TO KNOW THE FUTURE AND I wish social; workers and judges would admit the same !

If no court has placed an order on you or on  any children you wish to take with you then  YOU (the parent) ARE FREE TO COME AND GO between UK and S.Ireland any time as you please !!However Do not kidnap your own children if a judge has put them into care or made an order forbidding them from leaving the country otherwise you will end up in jail !Also do not take them permanently without the consent of the other parent or you will be accused of “KIDNAP” and also risk jail !

The West coast is recommended,(especially areas where Sinn Fein dominate as they still dislike British authorities

NEVER WASTE YOUR MONEY ON HOTELS JUST GOOGLE HOSTELS S.Ireland or wherever you want to go and take your pick.Or better still buy or rent a static caravan to save your cash in Ireland or elsewhere.Just google rent or buy caravans in S.Ireland and you will have a great choice !

(I repeat no passports are needed on the ferry to Southern Ireland)

I have several letters from escapees but here is the most recent !

first of all I carnt thank you enough for supporting my move whilst I was pregnant, to stop the uk taking my little baby boy at birth. Even though it was traumatising having my daughter removed from my care a week before a was due to give birth, moving to Ireland was the best decision I’ve ever made, my little baby boy is 3 months now he’s healthy and safe with me where he belongs I’m so happy back in England I was suicidal thinking my baby was going to be snatched from me just 2 hours after birth 😦 the Irish social workers have worked with me and carnt fault me as a mother they said they have no concerns and said I’m amazing mother and give my boy a very good level of care, they visit once a month and have supported me with housing and parent groups. I’m honestly the happiest I’ve been in my life it’s a completely different life here. I would never move back to England I can live free here free from fear of someone snatching my baby. I’ve met loads of really nice people. I have started a new job and sorted suitable accommodation for me and the baby. I thought my whole life was over a few month ago. Thank you so much 🙂 for your help and support.

IF YOU ARE BEING PURSUED,It is easy to change your name in the uk by declaration before a solicitor and then register with a new N.H number
(https://ni-apply.co.uk/)If you wish to vanish abroad

Alternatively  you can report to the local
social services in your new country  AND MAKE FRIENDS WITH LOCAL SOCIAL WORKERS before the “SS” from the UK find you. This way the locals will nearly always be on your side and ready to protect you !

REMEMBER :- As I stated above,a child born in Ireland of British parents has the right to be an Irish Citizen, but to actually become an Irish Citizen you should apply as soon as possible to get the child an Irish passport.

Please note that as S.Ireland is easy for YOU  to get to it is also easy for UK social workers to pursue you !IF YOU HAVE NO PASSPORT but you do have money to support yourself via a Partner of with the support of your family or your relatives then Ireland is your only choice .You will not be 100% safe if the “SS” find out where you are but you will still have an excellent chance of saving your child if you fight the SS from the UK in the Irish courts  !

If you do have a passport  and means of Financial support then FRANCE,(90%safe) SPAIN(90%safe) and N.Cyprus (100%safe) are best !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-131560/Brits-turn-Cyprus-Costa-del-Crime.html

 I never advise anyone to lie to a judge ! That is why I advise parents who flee as follows:-

1:-Never tell relatives or friends your address abroad .That way they cannot reveal your whereabouts if they truthfully do not know them.

2:-Do not leave UK if you cannot support yourself (with the help of a partner or relatives if necessary) financially for at least the 6 months it will take for you to get benefits.

3:-S.IRELAND   Useful contact for advice:-

Andrew Austin (successful escapee!)  email= adtaustin@icloud.com

Ireland  can still be dangerous because so many social workers from the UK have now taken up employment in Ireland.You have to hope that you do not run into one ! DO NOT LET THEM GO TO COURT WITHOUT TELLING YOU ! This case below can get any decisions taken that way quashed !

CONTACTS ( FREE advice but no accommodation or money offered !)

FRANCE:- Florence Bellone  email = flobellone@ntlworld.com

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-France

Gena Jones:- (France) 0033612637448    babagena@hotmail.com

julie    operationjulie@gmail.com

Near Lyon, France

I can’t help financially, but I can offer emotional support and friendship in both English and French.

GERMANY:-Meran email = Mjprediger@mail.com

PORTUGAL:-

Sent from my Vodafone Smart

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: jemma hayne <search4justice@outlook.com>
Date: 9 Dec 2017 11:00
Subject: RE:
To: jemma hayne <search4justice@outlook.com>
Cc:
__dear ian
I hope you are well. We are settled in portugal now. We are renting a 4 bedroom house in the alentejo so we have extra space. I have made some good work contacts in the valgarve_too. So, if you know of anyone who has been in a similar situation to ourselves and may need some help please do keep us in mind. We can provide shelter, emmotional support and i can pass on some contacts in terms of cleaning and cafe work down south. I can also help with the language barrier and getting registered at the docters etc if need be. Kind regards,
jemma stephen and freddie_______________________________
From: jemma hayne
Sent: 22 June 2017 22:13
To: Ian Josephs
Hello Ian,

How can we do something to help those families ?

I live in Belgium near Brussels, I don’t know if I can help in any way, but don’t hesitate to tell me if so, or to get me in touch with other people…

Regards,

Charlotte
+32 474 83 11 75

SPAIN:-  A family who escaped will now help others !

Tel 007933749230

YES THEY CAN BE BEATEN – VIEW THE PROOF HERE ON THIS VIDEO

See me on Channel 4 News

http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

MISSING PERSONS ??  USE SKYPE !!

Sometimes the “SS” will report  you, a fleeing parent (and child) as a missing person even though you are in contact with family and not missing at all .Phone calls are not enough to stop police enquiries so use SKYPE ! Tell your parents or other relatives to arrange a short SKYPE interview with them at a certain time and notify police a few hours before so that they can watch too ! A  person looking well and chatting sensibly can then no longer be classed as missing !

YES THEY CAN BE BEATEN – VIEW THE PROOF HERE ON THIS VIDEO

See  Channel 4 News

http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

WHAT IF A JUDGE THREATENS YOU WITH CONTEMPT (and jail) if you refuse reveal your child’s address  ? REFUSE TO ENTER THE WITNESS BOX;REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

If your parents,partner, or friends are questioned by police following the escape of a parents and child from the UK never lie ;just refuse to answer any questions at all and claim your right to remain silent if they try and found out where they escaped to . .Similarly if you are summoned to court to be questioned by a judge never lie ,just REFUSE TO GO IN THE WITNESS BOX AND REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL ! you can however quote the case below to prove your right to do this ! I repeat do not enter the witness box if accused of “contempt” for refusing to divulge the whereabouts of any escaped parent and child .You cannot be compelled to do so;Once you say “I don’t know where they are” the judge can decide you are lying and can jail you for contempt.Say nothing and the judge can do nothing !

The absolute right of a person accused of contempt to remain silent, which carries with it the absolute right not to go into the witness box, was established in Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67, where this court held that such a person is not a compellable witness.)

Home » Contempt of Court » Litigation Practice » Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics; CA 1971

Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics; CA 1971

August 27, 2016 dls 0 Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice,

References: [1971] 2 QB 67, [1971] 1 All ER 1141
Coram: Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
Ratio: The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis it was held that it should not have been allowed. A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent.
Lord Denning MR said:

This right is to be distinguished both from the privilege against self-incrimination and from legal professional privilege, each of which may entitle a witness in certain circumstances to decline to answer a particular question but neither of which entitles the witness to refuse to go into thewitness box or refuse to take the oath (or affirm): see Re X (Disclosure for Purposes of Criminal Proceedings) [2008] EWHC 242 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 944, para 9.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2011/S48.html

N.CYPRUS IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU ARE 100% SAFE BECAUSE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS NO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH TURKEY WHO OCCUPIED HALF THE GREEK ISLAND!

If you give me written proof,by email(ian@monaco.mc) or fax (0033493220967) all of the following 4 items all together same day, so I do not have to chase after any that are missing:-I will refund the costs of coach(but not private car) and ferry travel for mother ,partner/spouse and children from UK to the borders or airports of France  or Ireland or  to other European countries if agreed with me in writing beforehand.

1:-Hospital document proving your personal pregnancy  and birth if applicable

2:- Letter from social workers showing  they are threatening to take the baby

3:-Official receipts  for cash paid out for rail,coach,and boat charges plus a total  claimed on one sheet showing each item plus the total claimed ;.

4:- You email me your new fixed line phone number from a foreign phone in S. Ireland , France or any other European country so I know you are there   and I WILL PHONE YOU STRAIGHT BACK.

How do I send it?

You give me your uk bank details = sort code ,account number,and exact name of the person receiving the cash .I then send it bank to bank and it gets there in less than 24 hours

IAN PS:- Please note once more that I am happy to refund travel expenses but cannot support families after arrival though I usually can pass on some useful contacts. Do not land in a foreign country with no personal resources expecting to collect benefits ! That just won’t happen.You need outside support to survive if you have no cash and no job lined up.Sometimes a father remains in uk earning money to support the mother and baby in their new home;others rely on extended family support.PLEASE do NOT ask any of the contacts from my list for money or free accommodation as most of them are parents who fled the UK just like you to save their children from UK social services and they can only afford good advice about your new country.

The “SS” may eventually track you down,and if they do you must stay and fight them in the courts. Do not panic or run away to the UK as most (but not all ) who stay put to fight do win !

I advise against flight with children if they are already under a care order as you would go to jail if caught— Help to families fleeing —

Neulinger and Shiruk versus United Kingdom  was the case where the Grand Chamber of The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the best interests of the child took precedence over habitual residence.

I represent MYSELF as that is the only way that I can SAY WHAT I WANT IN COURT .

I came to Ireland to escape the FORCED ADOPTION of my baby that UK social services have said they would arrange.

I believe them because the National Fostering Agency (recruiting fosterers and adoptive parents for local authorities) founded by two UK social workers about 15 years ago was recently sold to a commercial firm called Graphite for more than £130 million !Forced adoption ids driven by money for those who practice it.

I have NO criminal record,NO problem with drugs or alcohol,NO learning difficulties,NO mental problems,NO risk of domestic violence since I am single,

I have been promised continual financial support by my family while I am in Ireland and they have in fact supported me ever since my arrival.

I BELIEVE MY BABY IS SUFFERING SEVERE EMOTIONAL ABUSE BY  SEPARATION FROM A LOVING MOTHER SO I REQUEST THE COURT TO RESTORE MY CHILD TO ME;

Also :- A MOTHER WHO SUCCESSFULLY ESCAPED and beat the ss in the courts ! She now helps others:- Katy Brown tel 00353892336329 or 00447450236065 katybrown19852@gmail.com

Also recommended is agency Daftie near the N.Irish border to find flats for reasonable rentals.

SABOTAGE FORCED ADOPTIONS !
IF the “SS” threaten to take your children for adoption,make sure they never forget you .Hug them tight at “last contact” so they cannot easily be removed while you repeat to them that wicked people HAVE KIDNAPPED THEM and are stealing them for money ,and to say no to adoption when they try to give them a horrible new mummy and daddy !

THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many “adopters” will want to take in a child who has been told to say “NO” to adoption in any case.

 

Apply to the court for contact and they will soon tell you if your children have really been adopted !

Google “Winona Varney” or “Von and Tammy”TO SEE SUCCESS STORIES.

MESSAGE TO MOTHERS WHOSE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FORCED ADOPTED

All is not lost ,you have to try and find your adopted children.No law stops you plastering their photos when small with brief stories all over the internet,under facebook,twitter,Genes united,friends united, and other similar sites.They may even be looking for you right now !

Here are two success stories ;- 1:- Winona Varney and her sister Danielle in which I was very much involved who I helped to happily reunite with their birth mother, and 2:- Von and Tammy who look more like sisters than mother and daughter and were happily reunited for good once they found each other.

1:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7958099/She-defied-the-law-to-find-her-mother.html–

2 Von and Tammy on ITV local news – YouTube

Remember also that social workers often LIE and say a child has been adopted when it is in fact still in care ! Only believe a letter from the court not words from the SS !

To be sure apply yourself (as instructed at the beginning of this page) for contact and again for the adoption placement to be revoked.The court would have to reply that the adoption had already been formalised or that the child had been returned!

If you are searching for a child that may have been adopted ,put up “wanted missing child”notices on genes united and friends united.Use twitter,faceboof and any other sites that an old fella like me might never have heard of ! Make a special site for her using her own name because even if it has been changed someone somewhere might recognise her and get in touch with you!

HOW TO OPPOSE AN ORDER FOR AN ADOPTION PLACEMENT . Then how to revoke the placement and lastly how to oppose the adoption ORDERthat follows a successful placement with prospective adoptive parents and is necessary to finalise the adoption process. 

Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” – Munby LJ in Re BS

 Sir James Munby ,President of the family Courts confirms in the case below that although hearsay evidence is admissible in family courts direct evidence from someone in the witness box testifying under oath should normally be preferred if the two conflict.

Quote the case below and the three principles that come from it

In the matter of A (A Child) v Darlington Borough Council and (1) M (2) F (3) GM and GF and (4) A (by his children’s guardian) [2015] EWFC 11 (“Re A”) – read judgment

In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as “social engineering” a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption.

The case was, he said,

an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.

In addressing these failings, Munby P identified “three fundamentally important points”.

The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy.

In this case, the original social worker’s “concerns” about the father were repeated and adopted by other practitioners (including the children’s guardian), without further enquiry. When the case reached court, that enquiry revealed what Sir James described witheringly as

a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations.

Stripped of suspicion, speculation and hyperbole, the majority of the factual case collapsed and was reduced to familiar assertions that the parent “lacks honesty with professionals” or “minimises matters of importance”.

The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?

In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?

The judge was equally unimpressed by the local authority’s “concern” about the father’s involvement with the English Defence League (EDL) – referred to in the social worker’s assessment as “a barbaric protestor group”. The fact (“if fact it be”) that the father was a member of the EDL (“probably only for a short time”) was, he said,

neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs or policies.

The social worker’s repeated reference to the “immoral aspects of the father’s behaviour”, prompted the judge’s third fundamental point that, in the “wise and powerful words” of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.

In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33:

We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.

In this case, local authority concerns also included an alleged “history of drug abuse”. Once probed, the evidence established the father “may have taken cannabis on occasions”. However Sir James observed,

the reality is that many parents smoke cannabis on occasions without their children coming to harm… [P]arental abuse of alcohol or drugs of itself and without more is no basis for taking children into care.

On the positive side, the father was recognised to love the child, to be capable of meeting his day-to-day needs and to have shown commitment in supervised contact. Taking account of the “greatly weakened” local authority case and “surveying the wide canvass”, the judge concluded

The judge says “I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be less than a suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order, let alone adoption.”

para 86

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

“[Counsel] seeks to develop Hedley J’s point. He submits that:

‘many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or “model” them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.’

I agree with [counsel]’s submission”.

The other is the observation of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC (para 143):

“We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs.”

16. I respectfully agree with all of that. It follows that I also agree with what His Honour Judge Jack said in North East Lincolnshire Council v G & L [2014] EWFC B192, a judgment that attracted some attention even whilst I was hearing this case:
    1. “I deplore any form of domestic violence and I deplore parents who care for children when they are significantly under the influence of drink. But so far as Mr and Mrs C are concerned there is no evidence that I am aware of that any domestic violence between them or any drinking has had an adverse effect on any children who were in their care at the time when it took place. The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should, I am not condoning that for a moment, but the courts are not in the business of social engineering. The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective carers who come before the courts.”

It boils down to three important principles as elaborated in the case above by Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) and summarised by myself

I SUMMARISE HIS JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS :-It boils down to three important principles :-

1:- Hearsay (evidence from persons who do not attend court or take the oath) if contradicted and challenged by a parent in person must be backed up by factual evidence from the L.A and cannot by itself justify a care order.

2:- Even if the allegations against parents are established the local authority must prove that they have caused or will probably cause significant harm to the child or children concerned.

3:-If the lifestyles of the parents are unconventional or immoral or punctuated by occasional noisy domestic spats and episodes of drunkenness those things alone do not justify a care order.S

I accept, and find, that there have on occasions been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and more particularly his step-father, that drink has played a significant part in this, that the police have on occasions been called out, and that there was a particularly physical confrontation with violence on 3 December 2013. I accept also that there was some lack of frankness on the part of both the father and his mother in relation to the accounts they gave the local authority of that incident. This history, however, needs to be kept in perspective. Neither the number nor the frequency nor the gravity of these incidents is such, in my judgment, as to cause any major concern. Moreover, it is clear to me, having heard their evidence and watched them carefully throughout the hearing, that, despite their differences and notwithstanding these incidents, the relationship between the father and his mother is, overall, positive and mutually supportive

H (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 1131

Appeal by mother against placement orders in respect of her three youngest children on the grounds that that judge’s approach was not Re B-S compliant. Appeal allowed and remitted for rehearing.

Relevant facts
The court was concerned with three children aged 6, 5 and 2. The mother had ten children in total, all of whom had at some point been involved with Children’s Services and subject to care proceedings. In September 2013 proceedings were issued by the local authority following allegations made by an older sibling against the children’s father and concerns regarding the general level of neglect in the family home, and in January 2015 Judge Sharpe made full care orders. However, at no point were the three children removed from their mother’s care. A safety plan was agreed that included the requirement that the father stay away from the family home. In June 2015, however, following allegations by an older sibling ‘O’ that the father had been at the home in breach of the safety plan, the local authority sought removal of the children, who were placed together in foster care.

In considering the allegations made by ‘O’ in a fact-finding hearing, Judge Sharpe had before him the transcript of O’s ABE interview, evidence from the social worker and her notes, and oral evidence from the parents and an older sibling. Judge Sharpe found the allegations made by O proved, to include findings that the safety plan had been breached and that the children had been forced to lie to professionals about their father’s presence, and relevant to this appeal, the fact that O had been dangled over the bannisters by his armpits by F. Notwithstanding those findings, Judge Sharpe declined to make final orders (the local authority having applied for placement for adoption orders) and decided instead to give the parents a final chance to see how, if at all, their reflection on the court’s findings might impact their parenting.

When the matter returned before Judge Sharpe on 11 March 2016, the situation had not improved and the local authority continued to seek placement for adoption orders. The court considered that the father continued to pose a risk to the children and that the mother could not be trusted to protect the children from the father. Judge Sharpe then went on to say “Having rejected the one alternative placed before me, I consider that the position has been reached where nothing else will do for these children but the making of placement orders…”[28].

The appeal
The mother appealed the decision on several wide-ranging grounds; permission to appeal was granted by Theis J on Ground 2 (relating to the judge’s finding about F holding O over the bannisters) and Ground 4 (that the judge had failed to afford the required respect and approach dictated by Article 8 ECHR).

The appeal was heard by McFarlane LJ (delivering judgment) and Laws LJ.

Ground 2:
The mother argued that Judge Sharpe had been wrong in that no reason was given for him preferring O’s account over that of his sibling (or parents), and no consideration given of the fact that O’s account in the ABE interview had differed from what O had told a social worker. The mother argued that the judge had ‘reversed’ the burden of proof in asking rhetorically why O would lie about something before concluding that he had not and preferring his account.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had afforded proper weight and consideration to the ABE interview and was justified in finding O’s account in that interview to be credible notwithstanding the discrepancy with what he told the social worker (which could be explained by the circumstances). Moreover, the Court found that this had been just one finding within a raft of others and that proportionality was required when looking at the ‘fine detail of a judgment on a particularly narrow point when there is a whole range of allegations to be considered’ [53]. The Court considered that that whilst the judgment may have fallen short of the standard required by Re: V [2015] EWCA Civ 274, it did not materially affect the court’s subsequent decisions nor would it on itself merit a re-hearing of the welfare decision.

Ground 4:
The mother argued inter alia that the judge had erred in adopting a linear approach in reaching his conclusion, having rejected the option of returning the children to their mother and subsequently accepting the alternative of adoption, without embarking on a full balancing exercise of the pros and cons of each placement, and without giving any consideration to the possibility of long term foster care. The local authority argued that the Court should read the judgment within the context of Judge Sharpe’s other detailed judgments within the proceedings which reflected consistent careful analysis and an overarching awareness that adoption must be the last resort (hence, for example, declining to make final orders after the fact find in the hope that the parents may yet turn it around). The LA also submitted that the option of long term foster care simply hadn’t been put before the court by any of the parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mother’s appeal on Ground 4. It considered that whilst the judge was clearly experienced and very familiar with the case, the requirement in Re B-S to give an adequately reasoned judgment had not been met, and that the comment at para 28 could not be ‘anything other than the description of a linear approach’ [79]. In respect of the absence of consideration of long term foster care, the Court of Appeal noted that the Guardian had not supported the LA’s proposal at first instance that if an adoptive placement for all three children was not found, a placement for the youngest should be considered; in the Guardian’s view the three children should not be separated. The Court also accepted the submissions that the children had grown up knowing their seven siblings, and that the impact of severing so many ties had not been properly evaluated. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that judge’s analysis fell short of the requisite global holistic evaluation of all the available options, and, despite the inevitable negative impact on the children of allowing the appeal and incurring further delay, held that the appeal must succeed and the matter be remitted.

Summary by Esther Lieu, barrister, 3PB

Evaluating Expert Witness Psychological Reports: Exploring Quality, was part funded by the Family Justice Council as part of their commitment to expert witness work and the continued review of standards across all expert witnesses.

Results of this study, the first systematic quality evaluation of expert evidence of this nature, indicate variability in report quality.

The study examined 126 expert psychological reports submitted in family court proceedings from 180 court bundles across three  courts located in the UK. Court proceedings took place between 2009 and 2011and covered both adult and child assessments.

Using four experts (three forensic psychology and one clinical psychology), the study evaluated  the quality of court reports using criteria relating to the stated  qualifications of the psychologists providing expert reports and applying a framework of quality measures drawn from established criteria.

Key findings of the report were:

• The reports were of variable quality.
• The qualifications of 20% of instructed psychologists evaluated as inadequately qualified for the role on the basis of their submitted curriculum vitae.
• According to information gleaned from the submitted CV, 90% of instructed experts maintained no clinical practice external to the provision of expert witness work.
• Two thirds of the reports reviewed were rated as below the expected standard, with one third between good and excellent.
• In one court, all expert witness psychology reports were generated by witness companies, who take a commission for the instructions.

The reports rated as ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ were characterised by a number of factors including: use of graduate or assistant psychologists to compile case background and in some cases to interview parents, overuse of psychometrics, absence of support for opinion, and making uninformed psychological statements.

UCLan’s Professor Jane L Ireland, Chartered Psychologist, Forensic Psychologist and author of the report, who is based in the School of Psychology, said:

“The crucial decisions made by family courts on issues such as the custody of children, domestic violence and sexual violence have life changing consequences.

“Although there are some unavoidable limitations in a study of this nature, such as sample size, we were concerned about the limited stated qualifications and current clinical experience of some of the experts commissioned to provide reports. Only one in 10 of those producing court reports appeared to maintain a clinical practice but seem to have become full time professional ‘expert’ witnesses.

“The under-use of recognised methods to assess risk in cases involving domestic violence, general violence and sexual violence, experts commenting on mental health and yet having no demonstrable background in that area, are significant areas worthy of further research.”

 

In re P (A child) 2016    SUCCESSFULLY APPEALING AGAINST A PLACEMENT !

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html

The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision.  The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.

Revoking a Placement order for Adoption After it has been made

Remember adoption comes in two stages 1:-Adoption placement  2:-Adoption Order.

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 received Royal Assent and therefore became law on 7th November 2002. However, the Act finally came into full effect on 30th December 2005. One of the provisions was that  Freeing Orders  for Adoption were replaced by Placement Orders.

After one year has expired from the date of the placement order for adoption, the local authority are bound by law to inform the former parents whether an adoption order has been made and (if not) whether the child is currently placed for adoption.

If the child has not been adopted after 12 months then the parents are legally entitled to apply to The High Court for the placement order to be revoked (cancelled) on the grounds that they wish to resume parental responsibility.

While the application is pending the adoption agency or local authority having parental responsibility shall not place the child for adoption without the leave of the court.

Court of Appeal gives important guidance on adoption applications

“Sloppy practice” must stop, warns Court

The Court of Appeal comprising Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, Sir James Munby, the president of the Family Division, and Lady Justice Black has given important guidance as to the proper approach to applications for adoption orders and for leave to oppose adoption orders.

In an unanimous judgment in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, the President said:

“We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.” [30]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1146.ht

See especially:-
Para34:-First, there must be proper evidence both from the local authority and from the guardian. The evidence must address all the options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option. As Ryder LJ said in Re R (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1018, para 20 , what is required is: evidence of the lack of alternative options for the children and an analysis of the evidence that is accepted by the court sufficient to drive it to the conclusion that nothing short of adoption is appropriate for the children.

The same judge indicated in Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926, para 21, that what is needed is: An assessment of the benefits and detriments of each option for placement and in particular the nature and extent of the risk of harm involved in each of the options.

McFarlane LJ made the same point in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, para 48, when he identified: the need to take in to account the negatives, as well as the positives, of any plan to place a child away from her natural family.

We agree with all of this.

Lastly if the judge seems dead set on adoption and against returning a child to the birth parents you do have an alternative approach…..

Request the judge to make an order for “special guardianship”(SGO) on the grounds that at least this will mean contact is not lost for ever ! You can reasonably request contact four times per year if you can convince the court that you will not use contact to undermine the SGO placement.

The Prospective Adopters v London Borough of Croydon 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/331.html

Permission to appeal was given because the judge had not explained why all alternatives to adoption were impossible and in particular “special guardianship”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/1491.html

The Judge in this case concluded that an adoption order was preferable for this child than SGO, weighing the pros and cons of each type of order, and bearing in mind that adoption could not be sanctioned unless nothing else will doThe point is however that the judge seriousl considered special guardianship as an option but rejected it largely because the child had very special needs

Re B (A child) 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/561.html

And above, a rehearing was ordered because the magistrates and subsequently the judge had NOT sufficiently demonstrated that adoption was the ONLY feasible course to take.Surely however forced adoption can never be the only solution since nearly every country in W.Europe finds solutions to family problems WITHOUT forced-adoption so the UK could do the same !

MR JUSTICE MOSTYN said”PARA 35. The proposition of the merits of adoption is advanced almost as a truism but if it is a truism it is interesting to speculate why only three out of 28 European Union countries allow forced or non-consensual adoption. One might ask: why are we so out of step with the rest of Europe? One might have thought if it was obvious that forced adoption was the gold standard the rest of Europe would have hastened to have adopted it. The relevance of this aspect of the case is surely obvious.”

Remember that since April 2014
the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/pdfs/ukpga_20140006_en.pdf

W (Children), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 403 (24 April 2015)

Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) has ruled as follows :-

I agree with all of that. I can understand the pragmatic and very human (and humane) grounds on which judges have come to adopt the current practice, and I can see no reason why the hearing of the adoption application, if the judge thinks this appropriate, should not immediately follow the dismissal of the parent’s application: see In re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2014] 1 WLR 563, para 74(ix). Nor do I see any problem if the judge then and there announces his decision that there should be an adoption order. The problem arises if the judge proceeds then and there to make the formal adoption order. For the future, judges should postpone both the making of the formal adoption order and the holding of the celebratory event until after the parent’s time for applying to this court for permission to appeal has expired. (This will necessitate some adjustment to para 12 of the President’s Guidance: Listing Final Hearings in Adoption Cases, 3 October 2008, set out in the Family Court Practice 2013, p 2958. Until new Guidance is issued, para 12 of the existing Guidance should be applied in a manner consistent with this judgment.) It would also be prudent for judges, when dismissing an application under section 47(5), to ask the parent whether an appeal is proposed and, even if told that an appeal is not in mind, to make clear to the parent that the time for doing so is strictly limited.”

Historically, Courts have been able to consider applications for the contact that a parent would have POST-ADOPTION, but that application and determination of it would have been BEFORE the adoption order was made. Thus, the adoption order would in effect be the last time the child would be the subject of litigation, and the Court’s involvement in their life would end.  (There are exceptions – as we saw in Re W the President was willing to overturn an adoption order to hear an appeal, there are adopters who end up being involved in subsequent care or private law proceedings themselves, but generally, once the adoption order itself was made, the Court were done with the child)

Also one in three adoptions break down and the unfortunate baby or young child is returned to care.This gives the birth parents yet another chance to ask for their children to be returned to their care

.Do not believe the ss when they say your child has been adopted.They often say that to deprive you of hope.

Apply to the court for contact and they will soon tell you if your children have really been adopted !

In contrast to the invasive surgery the Court of Appeal has undertaken on the human rights of Placement Orders, their approach to challenges to Adoption Orders has been more subtle. The Court upheld much (but not all) of the previous case law but added, “we fear it may on occasions have been applied too narrowly and indeed too harshly.”

OPPOSING AN ADOPTION ORDER (AFTER PLACEMENT !) Remember adoption comes in two stages 1:-Adoption placement  2:-Adoption Order.

Yes you can still beat an adoption order as the case below shows quite clearly !!

May 2015 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2039.html

A Placement Order gives permission to an adoption agency to place a child with prospective adopters. In the case of a non consensual adoption, the court has to determine whether the welfare of the child requires that the consent of the parents should be dispensed with.

There are certain circumstances in which a parent can apply to revoke a placement order but this comes to an end when the child is placed for adoption. Thereafter there is no opportunity for a parent to challenge the process until an application for an adoption order is issued.

A parent can oppose the making of an adoption order but to do so requires the leave of the Court and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 specifies that the Court cannot give such leave unless it is satisfied that there has been a change of circumstances since the making of the Placement Order.

It is also settled that once such leave is given the Court effectively have to decide afresh whether to dispense with parental consent to adoption in the light of the circumstances that then exist.

Home > Judgments

Re LG (A Child) [2015] EWFC 52

Successful application by a father for leave to oppose an adoption order

Prospective adopters applied for an adoption order in respect of L who was born in March 2014 and therefore 15 months old at the time of the hearing. L had been living with them since September 2014.

The father of L applied for leave under s.47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose the adoption application. At the time of L’s conception the parents were young and the father had not informed his family about the mother’s pregnancy or L’s birth. The local authority started care proceedings which concluded with a care order and placement order on 28 August 2014. The extended paternal family had no knowledge of L’s existence during the currency of the care proceedings. The father had been pressed by professionals, including the allocated social worker and his own solicitor to explain why he did not want his family to be involved which resulted in no member of the extended family being identified or assessed as a suitable long-term carer for L.

• 2015 archive
• 2014 archive
• 2013 archive
• 2012 archive
• 2011 archive
• 2010 archive

Father’s successful appeal against adoption orders and dismissal of his contact application – the applications were remitted to be heard by a different judge

While it is unfair on parents to set the test for change of circumstances too high, it would also be unfair if the court did not apply the test correctly, or at all, as occurred in Re W (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 403. In Re W, the trial judge failed to consider the paternal aunt as a potential carer for the children. As the aunt had not previously been considered as a potential carer, this new development equated to a change of circumstances. By ignoring the introduction of the paternal aunt, the trial judge misapplied the directions given in statute, in particular section 1(4)(f)(ii) ACA,  which says that as part of the welfare checklist, the court should consider:

A decision by the Court to give leave to a parent is therefore profound. As the Court of Appeal said in Re B-S,

“not merely is the parent able to oppose the making of an adoption order, but the parent, notwithstanding the making of the earlier placement order, is entitled to have the question of whether parental consent should be dispensed with considered afresh and, crucially, considered in the light of current circumstances (which may … be astonishingly different from those when the placement order was made).”

 

Link – http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/3388.html

My main purpose is to try to stop “punishment without crime”. We have laws in the UK and those who break the laws are rightly punished. Unfortunately those who do NOT break the law are also punished and that makes the whole idea of the law absurd ! This applies especially to mothers whose babies are taken away at birth for” risk of emotional abuse” and later adopted by strangers ; Sir James Munby President of the family courts recently described this as the most terrible punishment that could happen to anyone since the abolition of actual capital punishment (hanging)

When all else fails because you have exhausted the uk appeals process,you can turn to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) and the information you need is below.

Questions and Answers – European Court of Human Rights

www.echr.coe.int/…/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05611  Shows you the sort of cases they have been hearing and dealing with !

[PDF]Your application to the ECHR – European Court of Human …

www.echr.coe.int/…/Your_Application_ENG.pdf

In no circumstances will the Court set aside a national court’s decision. If the judgment is given by a Committee, it is final and there is no possibility of appeal.

[PDF]Application form – European Court of Human Rights

www.echr.coe.int/…/Application_Form_2014_1_EN...

concerned, including appeals, and also indicate the date when the final … Is or was there an appeal or remedy available to you which you have not used? Yes.

[PDF]The ECHR in 50 questions – European Court of Human Rights

www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

9 févr. 2014 – better known as the “European Convention …. of violations of the European Convention …. Chamber, are final and cannot be appealed against.

The Personal Support Unit

The PSU is an independent charity, based in the main building at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. The PSU provides non-legal advice, help, information and support to litigants in person and to any member of the public attending at the Royal Courts of Justice who may need help or assistance. We also operate at the Principal Registry of the Family Division at First Avenue House, High Holborn and at Wandsworth County Court.

The PSU was established in January 2001 and achieved charitable status in January 2002. It is a company limited by guarantee with a board of 9 Trustees.

The Courts are a daunting and intimidating place for those involved in legal proceedings. For those who do not have legal representation the difficulties are made worse. We try to overcome these difficulties by providing practical advice and support.

What we can do for you –

We can go around the court building with you.

We can go into court with you and stay with you during the hearing. (When the court is sitting in chambers or in private, we will need the permission of the judge and other parties).

We offer emotional support and practical information about what happens in court or at the RCJ offices.

We have a room where you can wait, talk through your case or just have a cup of tea.

We can normally help you straightaway – just ring 020 7947 7703 .

—

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

2014 payment now £590 per week per child!Most fosterers double this by taking in two children ! As advertised on the back of a bus….

And who will that young boy with the kite attract?

Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:

Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care

Extract (point 9):

In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.

The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.

For the full report click here

———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!

 

REFORMS

If you are asked what should be done to reform the UK family courts reply as follows:-

The family courts should be run under the same guidelines as those of the uk criminal courts
This would entail the following improvements:-
1:- Innocent until PROVED guilty beyond reasonable doubt !Probabilities (51%) mean that family courts could now be taking children wrongly for nearly half the time.
2:-No gagging orders.
3:-The right to call for a second opinion in regard to medical or psychiatric evidence.
4:-The right to call any witnesses relevant to the case,including children deemed Gillick competent by an independent source.
5:-The public should be admitted and relatives be allowed to sit with or near parents
6:-Hearsay to be admitted only under special circumstances and to be awarded less weight than direct evidence should the two conflict.
7:-Previous offences or charges should not be revealed until after the verdict;
8:-Contact between children and parents should never be forbidden or censored unless the parent has been convicted of a serious crime against a child or children.Conversations between parents and children should never be censored.Murderers and Paedophiles in prison are of course allowed visitors and allowed to phone out about once a week in most prisons and can speak freely without censorship.
9:- The right of parents to a jury in the most important cases ie when permanent or long term separation between parent and child is envisaged.
10:-The right NOT to be punished by removal of children for mere risk of things that may never happen;Criminals are not jailed for risk !

Our approach: Help4LiPs Multimedia

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

British and Irish Legal Information Institute
Access to Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
DONATE to BAILII – Major Sponsors

Welcome to BAILII, where you can find British and Irish case law & legislation, European Union case law, Law Commission reports, and other law-related British and Irish material. BAILII thanks the Practical Law Company for their recent donation which has enabled us to replace our old hardware. Our continuing gratitude goes to The Society for Computers & Law for their substantial sponsorship. For more information, see About BAILII.