RSS Feed

Friday daftness – sample chronology


Date                                                                   Significant Event


June                                                                  Bryan purchases an instrument. It is understood that he paid something appproximating £3.38, certainly no more than that.


Early July 1969                                               Bryan visits GP with lacerations to his fingers.


mid July 1969                                                 Bryan becomes drawn into a group of adolescents that he had met through school.  Jimmy is certainly involved. Jody also believed to be.


At around  this time, reports come in of Bryan repeatedly standing on the porch of an unnamed girl’s mother.



4th August 1969                                      Jimmy quits the group of adolescents. Bryan spents more time on porches, and at drive-ins.


18th August 1969                                   Jody gets married. Bryan by this stage is effectively living on unnamed girl’s porch. Her mother reports that it seemed to last forever.


31st August 1969                                      Bryan confirms to professionals that these were the best days of his life.


1991                                                            For a few weeks, Bryan becomes the most hated man in the world. Then everyone remembers how much they love what happened to him that summer.


Poppi Worthington – the long-awaited judgment

Poppi was a little girl, aged 13 months, who died in December 2012.


Within care proceedings relating to Poppi’s siblings, a finding of fact hearing took place as to what caused her death and whether it meant any risk for those siblings. That took place in March 2014 and has not been published until this week. An inquest also took place and the Coroner described her death as “unusual and strange”.  Part of the reporting of the inquest discussed the existence of the finding of fact hearing and in particular that the Guardian in the case had prepared a schedule of professional failings.


Of course the Press and public would be very interested in those failings, and if there are lessons to be learned, one would want to learn from them.

The police decided in March 2015 not to charge the father with any criminal offences as a result of Poppi’s death (it taking 2 1/2 years to get that decision) and as a result, the father sought to overturn the finding of fact hearing.

The Judge therefore decided that whilst allowing a re-hearing of the finding of fact hearing, it would be potentially prejudicial to publish the results of the March 2014 hearing and have the Press comment on it. A decision was made that part of it would be published in the Winter of 2015.


(All of that is discussed here)


And the (heavily redacted) fact finding judgment is now published


Cumbria County Council v M and F 2014


The redactions really remove any scope for discussion of what happened to Poppi and why the father came under suspicion and what conclusions were made in March.  But it does outline the professional failing identified by the Guardian and endorsed by the Court.


What there ISN’T, at least within the published judgment, is any evidence or claim that social workers had failed to protect Poppi before her death or should have seen it coming. The criticisms are instead about the failings of various agencies to properly investigate it and whether the siblings had not been properly protected. Still very important, but at this stage, there’s nothing within the judgment that suggests that Poppi is another Baby P or Daniel Pelka (where professionals ought to have foreseen the risk to her and failed to act to keep her safe).   Until P’s death, none of the other children was subject to statutory intervention by the local authority and the mother cared for them all satisfactorily. There were no concerns reported by health, education or social agencies. 


What were the professional failings afterwards though?


  • 85. The observations below are made in the context of these good practice protocols and regulations, which appear to have had no effect in this case:

    The national multi-agency protocol: Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI), known as ‘the Kennedy Protocol’. This provides a framework for the collaborative investigation of all unexpected deaths in infants and children up to the age of 2 years. The emphasis is on finding the cause of an infant’s death, incorporating both medical and forensic investigation. Responsibility for oversight of the operation of the protocol rests with the Local Safeguarding Children Board.

    • Cumbria LSCB’s own complementary protocol at the time of P’s death: Sudden and Unexpected Deaths in Children and Young Persons. This guidance, since updated, applied to the sudden and unexpected death of a child under the age of 18 years.
  • The Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006, which set out the criteria for holding serious case reviews.
  • 86.Cumbria Constabulary
  • It can come as no surprise that, well over a year since the death of this child, no decision has been taken about a criminal prosecution. As a result of the police view that Dr Armour may have jumped to conclusions, a decision was then taken by senior officers not to investigate until her report was received. Due to the extreme delay in that process, there was no real investigation into P’s death for nine months. Such minimal investigation as thereafter took place was inevitably affected by the delay and by actions not taken at an earlier stage. Instances may include:
    • Items at hospital not preserved for forensic analysis: ambulance sheet, paramedic’s gloves, hospital stretcher sheet.
    • Items at home not preserved for forensic analysis: P’s pillow, her clothing (pyjama bottoms if any), the parents’ sheet, any possibly penetrative item, the father’s computer.
    • Scene not secured: loss of P’s last nappy despite the presence of police officers.
    • Decision by DI S and DCI F not to visit the home, despite it being nearby. According to the national protocol, a senior officer should immediately attend the home to take charge of the investigation and ensure that evidence is intelligently preserved.
    • No reconstruction with the parents at home, so that their accounts could be understood and investigations focused.
    • No forensic medical examination at the time of death. Swabs were not taken until post-mortem. Under the Cumbria protocol, police are entitled to take anal swabs automatically. Delay in taking swabs may prejudice the forensic analysis.
    • No engagement of a paediatrician with specialist knowledge of investigating sexual abuse, in order for there to be a physical examination of the child, a viewing of the home and a report for the pathologist.
    • Dr Armour’s initial views were not clearly passed on to the local authority for safeguarding purposes.
    • The parents were not interviewed formally until August 2013.
    • No analysis of either parent’s mobile telephone or Facebook accounts.
  • Samples were not sent for analysis until after receipt of Dr Armour’s report. For example, the swabs from the father’s penis, taken on 12 December 2012, were not sent for analysis until 2 August 2013.
  • No statements taken from any witnesses (paramedics, nurses, doctors, family members) until September 2013, at which point three statements were taken (from the ambulance crew and from Dr B).
  1. Many of these matters were canvassed during the evidence of DI S, who led the enquiry at the outset, and she was driven with evident reluctance to accept a number of failings in the inquiry. Evidence was not taken from DCI F, the senior officer with overall responsibility for the investigation. He may therefore have further information to provide.Cumbria County Council
  2. Given the history, it can likewise come as no surprise that, well over a year after P’s death, the family still awaits a decision about the future of the other children.
    1. At the outset of the proceedings, the local authority was directed to file a statement explaining its actions. This led to a full account from the Assistant Director of Children’s Services. In it, she accepts that
    • Legal advice should have been taken at the outset, and certainly before the family returned home. In fact, the first time that legal advice was taken in this troubling and extremely serious case was on 30 August 2013. Even this was reactive (to the parents’ arrest) and even then there was no decision to issue proceedings for another eight weeks.
  • Proceedings should have been initiated as soon as it became clear that P had suffered injury prior to her death. Had that happened, the court would have been able to get a grip on the matter and ensure that proper investigations were carried out much nearer to the time of P’s death. The local authority shares responsibility with the police for the fact that this did not happen.
  • Even when legal advice was given on 23 September that care proceedings should be issued, a decision of the Legal and Placement Panel two days later rejected this advice. Another month passed before proceedings were issued in reaction to the mother’s rejection of supervision.
  1. I would add that the children should have immediately been medically examined and that in S’s case, a skeletal survey should have been performed. Furthermore, the local authority’s expectation that the mother should supervise the father in relation to this number of children was in my view wholly unrealistic, not to say unfair to her.
  2. In the result, the children were returned home without any effective child protection measures being taken. Fortunately there is no evidence of them suffering harm in the ten month period before they were removed from the parents’ care. The Coronial investigation
  3. It is not clear, and I have not asked, how HM Coroner proceeded in this matter. Concern has rightly been raised about the gross delay in production of the pathology reports. Cumbria’s protocol expects that within 48 hours of the post-mortem, the pathologist will provide preliminary findings to the Coroner. In this case, Dr Armour said that she wanted to have every piece of information before she committed herself. In particular, she was awaiting the results of routine histology on the leg bones. She did not accept the suggestion that the delay was unacceptable. Bearing in mind the interests of the surviving children, that was not a practical approach, though she was not to know that the consequence of her silence was that no other investigation was taking place.
  4. I have no information about the decision of the coroner to release for burial the body of a child who died in unexplained and possibly suspicious circumstances when a pathology report had not been received, a decision precluding the possibility of a second post-mortem. The NHS Trust
  5. In the light of the expert evidence, and having heard from the paramedics, doctors and nurses who were present on 12 December, it is apparent that they did everything they possibly could to resuscitate P. It is sadly likely that by the time she came into their hands she had already died.
  6. Unfortunately, Dr B, the locum paediatrician, had only been employed at the hospital for less than three weeks. He was not aware of either the national or local protocols for infant deaths. He was therefore unable to lead the forensic medical investigation in an appropriate manner.
  7. Neither Dr B nor, more pertinently, Dr W, completed the workbook provided as part of the Cumbria protocol. This would have ensured a methodical examination at the time of death and the timely taking of swabs.The Local Safeguarding Children Board
  8. Regulation 5 of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006 sets out the functions of LSCBs. This includes the requirement to undertake reviews of serious cases in specified circumstances. Regulation 5 provides that a review must be held where abuse or neglect of a child is known or suspected and the child has died. This is mandatory: see page 66 of the statutory guidance in “Working together to safeguard children” (March 2013). Moreover, a review may be held even when the mandatory requirement does not apply.
  9. A sub-group of the Cumbria Local Safeguarding Children Board met on 4 February 2014. The meeting took place at police headquarters and was attended by six persons. The minutes show that DCI F, the principal investigating officer, played a prominent part, although he invited another member to lead the discussion. The conclusion was that the criteria for a serious case review were not met, although the matter would be reviewed in six months following the outcome of the family proceedings and any criminal proceedings.
  10. It will certainly be appropriate for the conclusion of the subgroup of the LSCB to be independently reviewed as it would appear to conflict with the regulations. Collective responsibility
  11. While I reach no conclusions, consideration by others of the above matters may lead to the view that P’s death did not receive the professional response to which she and her family were entitled.



The re-hearing has either just finished or is currently before the Court. With that in mind, no speculation please about what might have happened to Poppi or who may have been responsible if anyone.  The Court will reach and publish those conclusions and the Court is in possession of all of the facts, whereas we only have a sliver of them.

Social workers slammed for lying on oath


I know the title seems pure clickbait, since it is the sort of thing that is alleged quite often, but this is a case where the Judge did actually make that conclusion.  It involves social workers and managers who set out to change the parenting assessment conducted by another worker (who the Judge found to be blameless) so that it reached different conclusions and painted a wholly different and negative picture and then lied to the Court about it. This is social workers interfering with the parents right to a fair trial. It really is deeply shocking stuff.


A, B, C, D and E (Final Hearing) 2015


The case was decided by His Honour Judge Horton, and involved Hampshire County Council. Some of the workers involved no longer work at Hampshire and they are not spared.



12. This is I hope an unusual case. I certainly have not previously come across one quite like it either at the Bar or as a judge.


13. My previous judgments explain these comments but in my experience it is exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker and the Team Manager; the withholding of the original report when it was ordered to be disclosed and the parties to the alterations lying on oath one of them twice, in order to try to cover up the existence of the original report. Those people are referred to and named in my December judgment but given the enormity of what they did and the fact they still work as social workers it is right that I should name them again so that practitioners and members of the public coming across them are aware of their shortcomings in this case.

  1. Sarah Walker Smart the children’s Social Worker lied twice to me on oath. I was told during this hearing that she has been promoted to Team Manager within this authority.
  2. Kim Goode, Sarah Walker Smart’s then Manager, was the person who initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me. At the time of the last hearing she was District Manager for the Isle of Wight. I was told during this hearing that she is still in post.
  3. Lisa Humphreys was Kim Goode’s Manager. Her evidence was deeply unimpressive. She made a ‘hollow’ apology to the parents during her evidence; she regarded a social worker lying on oath as “foolish” and she failed to accept any personal responsibility for what had gone on under her management. At the date of the last hearing she was Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care with Lambeth Borough Council.
  4. In my December judgment I concluded that the parents’ and children’s Article 6 and 8 Rights had been breached. The children had been removed illegally and the parents had not had a fair parenting assessment carried out due amongst other things to all professionals both childcare and legal, failing to identify M’s communication difficulties and the need for a psychological assessment. I therefore at the parents’ suggestion, directed that Symbol a parenting assessment organisation which specialises in people with learning and communication difficulties, should carry out a full parenting assessment. This was to be coupled with individual therapy for both parents. This ‘dual’ approach had been suggested by Dr Halari a highly qualified adult clinical psychologist who had seen each parent, prepared reports and who gave evidence. The plan was for the therapists and assessors to work together in order to give the parents the best possible chance of making the agreed and much needed changes to their parenting.




The December judgment had escaped my attention, so here it is


The portions setting out the failings of the Local Authority are long, but because they are so powerful, I will set them down in full   (I really can’t believe that I missed this judgment first time around).  Underlining, as ever, mine for emphasis (though I could almost underline every word). Apologies that the paragraph numbering goes all over the place.


  1. The factual matrix underpinning the breaches
  2. Removal
  3. Social worker Ms X was allocated to these children on 27 October 2011 and remained their social worker until Sarah Walker Smart was allocated the case in June 2013. During this time she formed a working relationship with the family.
  4. She was clearly concerned at A and B’s lack of schooling, failure to engage fully with health professionals and issues of basic neglect. Such was her concern that she initiated the PLO process on 12 April 2012. The PLO letter was clear and Ms X spelt out what was required. See Mrs Randall’s comments at D131.
  5. As early as 11 May 2012 Ms X had identified that the parents were unsure how to work with professionals and that the parents become aggressive and hostile.
  6. By April 2013 Mrs Randall’s opinion based on the recordings of Ms X was that little had really been achieved during 18 months of PLO process. D133
  7. In late Spring early summer 2013 Ms X obtained a new post within the authority. She made her last visit to the family on 4 June 2013. By this time Ms X had begun compiling information for Core Assessments on all the children and it was made a condition of her leaving that she completed Comprehensive Core Assessments. I heard evidence that I accept that Lisa Humphreys and Kim Goode were exasperated by Ms X’s failure to complete them.
  8. The new social worker allocated to the children was Sarah Walker Smart. She was new to this team and relatively inexperienced in child protection work. Her manager remained Kim Goode who was and is extremely experienced in such work having been in it for 18 years.
  9. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart carried out an introductory joint visit on 20 June 2013. I am satisfied that Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart found a situation that they had not been fully prepared for by Ms X’s case recordings. This was not only in relation to the condition of the home and children but also the attitude of the parents. The mother in particular was difficult and hostile. I pause there to record that whilst I make criticism of the parents it must be seen in the context of their then unidentified difficulties and the attitude of Kim Goode who I am quite sure did nothing to calm the situation. I have seen and heard Ms Goode. She is a strong willed, forceful, opinionated person who it would be difficult to challenge effectively or at all. Her manner of answering during cross examination amply demonstrated this.
  10. As a result of what they saw and as a result of there having been 18 months without sustained change Ms Goode and Ms Walker Smart decided that the case should be taken to a legal strategy meeting. This took place on 24 June 2013. see K136.
  11. It was decided that the Comprehensive Core Assessment “with concerns” should be concluded as soon as possible, that care proceedings should be instigated and that a new PLO letter would be written. This was delivered to the parents on 27 June which was the same date as Sarah Walker Smart’s first statement.
  12. On 11 July Ms Walker Smart visited the home and found things largely the same as before but that the children’s presentation was “Ok”.
  13. On 12 July Care Proceedings were issued and on the 15 July directions given including a direction for the LA to file and serve the “current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers”. A21
  14. Also on this date the Housing Officer visited the home. He was clearly concerned by the condition of the property; a number of problems with the condition of the property that had not been reported and the overcrowding but I am satisfied he does not “condemn” it or say that it is dangerous. He did believe that the family should be temporarily or permanently re-housed.
  15. On 15 July the court made directions including giving a hearing date for a contested ICO.
  16. On 16 July Ms Walker Smart spoke to the Housing Officer. She purportedly interpreted what he said as the house was condemned, dangerous and unfit for the family to remain in. It is clear from Ms Walker Smart’s e mail of the same date that she was trying to get Mr Sibley to say that the property was unsafe and dilapidated due to the parents’ neglect and makes it clear that “we are planning to remove the children” and “need as much evidence as possible based on the home conditions being unsafe”.
  17. I am satisfied that by this date Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart had decided that the children should be removed from their parents care and that they intended to bolster their case by involving the housing department. This is clear from the wording of the e mail and I interpret the e mail as pressure being put on the Housing Officer. It was clear from his evidence to me that he was not prepared to do so.
  18. Lisa Humphreys told me that she had approved the cost of B&B and that she had not approved the removal of the children from their parents. This does not fit in with the content of the e mail and I have trouble believing that Kim Goode would construct a plan for removal without the approval of her DSM.
  19. On 17 July at 09:00 Sarah Walker Smart made a visit to the home. It was she said her view that the children were “no longer safe in the home and that if they remained they could experience significant harm”. In reality I doubt that anything was very much different from before and I am certain that the grounds for immediate separation were not there. She reported on what she saw to Kim Goode.
  20. At 11:17 that day Kim Goode set out an action plan. That action plan clearly expected the police to use their administrative powers to remove the children. She does record that if the police won’t agree to do so then the mother is to be asked to go to B&B with the children. Ms Walker Smart never offered this option to the mother and I am satisfied from the video footage and her evidence that this option was never in her mind. It is probable that Kim Goode never discussed this option with her.
  21. At 15:30 that day a joint police and social services visit took place. The LA accepts that the visit and removal was unlawful and breached the family’s Human Rights. The details of the breaches are set out later in this judgment.
  22. I have viewed the Body Worn Camera footage. I can well see why the LA makes the admissions it does. The removal was a flagrant breach of this family’s Human Rights. There were insufficient grounds for such action and it is clear the police felt that too as they did not try to use their administrative powers; the correct procedure was not followed; no true consent was obtained, and that which was obtained came from F under duress. Further he did not have power to give consent for the older two children as he did not have parental responsibility a fact Ms Walker Smart should have known.
  23. I am asked by F to find that the use of the police was a manipulation to coerce the parents. I am not satisfied that the social workers were deliberately trying to manipulate the police although I am satisfied that the effect on the parents was to coerce them. The parents, mother in particular could be verbally aggressive and had been so to Ms Goode. In circumstances where it had been decided to remove the children from their parents and it could reasonably be anticipated that the parents could be hostile, it would be appropriate to involve the police to avoid there being a breach of the peace. However, the video footage shows that the situation was badly handled with 8 police officers and two social workers descending on the parents and presenting them with no choice but to relinquish their children. There were no grounds for such removal, there was no discussion, no alternatives offered and it was clearly the intention of Ms Walker Smart to remove the children from their parents’ care come what may by asking for consent to s20 accommodation if the police did not act.


  1. Factual matrix underpinning the failure to disclose material evidence
  2. This relates to the Comprehensive Core Assessment that Ms X completed and sent to Kim Goode for what has been described “Quality Assurance”.
  3. Ms X completed writing her CCA on 18 June 2013. See P125. The Assessment contained both positives and negatives. It was therefore a balanced report. She e mailed it to Kim Goode.
  4. On 27 June 2013 Sarah Walker Smart swore her first statement asking the Court to read her statement along with the ” Core Assessment (July 2013) completed by Ms X” (my emphasis).
  5. On 10 July Ms Melanie Kingsley asked Kim Goode to forward Ms X’s core Assessment. Kim Goode replied saying she just wanted to “pad out the conclusion before it goes off”.
  6. On 15 July the court directed the LA to file and serve the “current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers”.
  7. On 16 July Kim Goode made substantial changes to Ms X’s Comprehensive Core Assessment (CCA) which are recorded by the word processing programme by way of tracked changes. All the substantive changes made are negative. The changes change the tenor and conclusions of the report completely. The picture painted by it is now wholly negative and would if accepted, have the effect of substantially improving the LA’s case for removal of the children, probably permanently. In my judgment these changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite and were not a proper use of the Quality Assurance system.
  8. Ms X never approved the changes.
  9. Kim Goode sent the track changed document to Sarah Walker Smart on 17 July at 13:02 who made few if any and no substantial changes. She could not make many changes as she had little knowledge of the family due to her brief involvement. She signed the assessment as if it were her own and it was served on 6 August.
  10. Ms X’s CCA was not filed in accordance with the court order.
  11. An order was made for the CCA to be filed by 30 July. Ms X’s version was never filed.
  12. Solicitors for the parents asked on numerous occasions for the disclosure of the document referred to in Ms Walker Smart’s statement and for any documents prepared by Ms X.
  13. On 22 August 2013 Melanie Kingsley in response stated in an e mail: “an assessment was started by Ms X but not concluded. The decision was taken that because Ms X no longer works for the department, the new social worker SW would compile an entirely new assessment, as it would not be appropriate for her to complete another person’s partially completed piece of work. Accordingly Sarah Walker-Smart wrote and filed a new Core Assessment which is in this bundle. There is nothing outstanding from Ms X which may be filed with the parties”
  14. I am satisfied that this e mail gave a deliberate and entirely false impression. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart knew that Ms X had completed her assessment. The problem was that Kim Goode did not like it. In her opinion it did not fit in with her assessment of the family’s circumstances. Kim Goode knew Ms X had completed it because she had changed it. Ms Walker Smart knew Ms X had completed it as she had seen the tracked changed document which was obviously based on Ms X’s completed work.
  15. I am also satisfied that the legal department knew of the existence of the Ms X piece of work as Ms Kingsley had referred to it in her e mail of 10 July.


[A quick break here to say “Holy F**ing s**t!”]


  1. Twice more did Ms Coates ask for Ms X’s “draft” to be filed and served. Ms Kingsley replied on 13 November 2013 “there is nothing that can be filed”. Again this was patently untrue.
  2. On 31 March 2014 Sarah Walker Smart commenced giving evidence before me. A transcript of her evidence is at 72.1 of the transcript section.
  3. She was asked in chief: “Have you ever seen a core assessment completed by Ms X? “No” “Can you explain the reference to one in your statement?” “.. there was an assumption that Ms X had completed a Core I relied upon an assessment that did not exist. That’s completely my error.” I then asked: “You have given the date of July 2013 which rather implies that you had some basis to believe that there had been a Core Assessment carried out. What was your factual basis for that?” Answer:” The team manager” Kim Goode, “assumed that Ms X had written one”.
  4. I asked whether Kim Goode had checked for the Core Assessment. I was told that she had and that she could not find it.
  5. Sarah Walker Smart went onto to say that she had not checked. She said: “I’ve never seen a Core Assessment in Ms X’s name.”
  6. I have considered this evidence very carefully and been mindful of the two fold test in the R v Lucas direction that I must give myself when encountering lies.
  7. I am satisfied that her evidence that she had never seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X was a lie. Sarah Walker Smart had seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X. She had seen the tracked changed version e mailed to her by Kim Goode. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was a deliberate lie to try to deflect attention from the existence of that document. I do not make this finding lightly or willingly but the evidence drives me to it. This lie was repeated in her evidence given to me on 25 November 2014.
  8. I am also satisfied that she lied when she said that the reference to such an assessment in her statement was a “mistake” based on an “assumption”. I am satisfied that the reason she mentioned it was because she had seen Ms X’s Core Assessment and she did not think there was anything wrong in referring to it. It was only afterwards that the import of what she had done became clear. In my judgment this is the only logical reason why she would have mentioned it. Her attempts to say it was a wrong “assumption” on the part of herself and Kim Goode was a fabrication. Again I do not reach this conclusion lightly but it is an inevitable one. Again she repeated this lie in evidence in November.
  9. Ms Walker Smart had the opportunity to disclose the existence of the Ms X assessment during the April part of this final hearing but did not take it. She chose to try to get away with the deception she had practised. I made it clear at the end of that hearing that I was worried about this issue and that I required full enquiries to be made to see if such a document existed. See 72.45 line 30 of the transcript of Ms Walker Smart’s evidence.
  10. Lisa Humphreys was also at court during the April hearing. She knew that the parents’ advocates wanted Ms X’s assessment disclosed and she knew of its existence yet she did not then or afterwards bring its existence to the attention of the court, the new social work team or the legal department. She could have accessed it easily as it was located in her ‘Outlook’ programme on her computer.
  11. The completed Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment was eventually disclosed inadvertently as part of the disciplinary proceedings’ file in relation to Ms X in early August 2014. Kim Goode had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms X as a result of what she saw were serious failings in her work. As a result Ms X was dismissed from her employment. Her health is now so poor that she was unable to give evidence. I do not know whether her poor health and the disciplinary proceedings are linked but they cannot have helped her. This is not the place to comment on the appropriateness of that investigation, its fairness or its conclusions but I do ask the LA to robustly review their conclusions and decision in the light of this judgment and all that is now known about this case.
  12. Kim Goode’s involvement in this deception was examined in the November hearing.
  13. I am satisfied she knew of Ms X’s completed CCA as she had changed it. I am also satisfied she knew that the parties and court wanted it disclosed and she had decided that she would not.
  14. At one point I asked her: “So it was a deliberate decision by yourself not to let the court and the parents have” the Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment and the guardian. Is that right?” “Yes” she answered.


A second break to say again “Holy f**ing s**t!”



  1. Whilst she tried to persuade me that she did this out of concern for the children as she felt the assessment was not accurate, I find this suggestion breathtaking. This is a manager with 18 years experience deliberately flouting the lawful request of the parents for disclosure of information and more to the point flouting court orders for such disclosure. At one point she tried to suggest that she was unaware of the duty to disclose, which I find as Mr Ker-Reid put it “incredible” in both senses of the word.
  2. There was a particularly telling piece of cross examination by Mr Ker-Reid when he put this question to her: “You were overtly, determinedly, seeking to deceive courts of justice, put your head together with other professionals in your department, whether legal or social workers, to tell judges of the Family Court that there was not an assessment by Ms X which you knew there was? That is right is it not?” Answer: “It is but I..” Q: “It is”. Answer: … “gave the explanation”. Q: “We have your answer, done”.
  3. I am satisfied that this question and answer perfectly sums up the thinking of Kim Goode and her approach to this case. I heard Kim Goode’s “explanation” and I am not satisfied by it. Her perception of whether the assessment was correct or not was not a reason for non-disclosure particularly in the face of a Court order. It was as she conceded dishonest to have said that there was no assessment from Ms X. I am satisfied that this “explanation” was in fact an attempt to deflect blame away from herself.
  4. I have already commented on my impression of Ms Kim Goode from my observation of her in the witness box and from her work on this case. She is a strong personality and I am satisfied that those subordinate to her would find it hard to challenge her. This atmosphere is probably what led Ms Walker Smart into such grave error. Whilst this may be an isolated incident in her career I have very grave concerns as to Kim Goode’s working practises in this case and in my judgment a thorough review of her work and management style should be undertaken by the LA.
  5. I have made some comments about the involvement of Lisa Humphreys in this case. I found her to be a very strong and forceful personality. Whether her management style fed into or off Kim Goode I cannot say but I am clear that they are similar in management style. Subordinates would find it hard to say no to or challenge her.
  6. Her response to hearing of Ms Walker Smart’s lies to me was astounding. She thought it was “foolish”. I am afraid that is not the way I see it and it is not the way she should have seen it. Such a comment makes the lies seem like minor misdemeanours which they are not.
  7. I also found her failure to accept personal responsibility for what has happened in this case depressing. Whilst of course managers cannot be responsible for rogue employees and their decisions are only as good as the information they are given by their subordinates, they should at least sound as if they mean any apologies they give. The one she gave the parents during her evidence did not sound heartfelt and I noted that there was no apology to the Court for the lies that had been told or the unnecessary delay that had occurred by those under her. It is probable that she saw no harm in withholding the Ms X CCA as she seemed to me to be fully in support of withholding it, because in her view it was not an accurate piece of work.



Wow. Just wow.



  1. Conclusions and Findings on Human Rights breaches
  2. It follows from my conclusions above that this family’s Human Rights have been breached. The parties have produced one combined document for me to consider covering the breaches that the parents, A, B and the Guardian allege have occurred and the LA’s response to each of them. In short the LA has albeit late in the day, conceded all of the general breaches alleged and most of the specific facts that go towards those general conclusions. I have amalgamated the various breaches from this composite document and my findings and condensed them into a manageable form. My findings are as follows.
  3. Removal of the children on 17 July 2013
  4. The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully and disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 purportedly pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. I am satisfied that it did this by:
  1. a) Taking a decision to pursue police protection in preference to the provision of alternative accommodation;
  2. b) Failing to consider making an application for an EPO or short notice ICO;
  3. c) Failing to consider whether any family placements were available;
  4. d) Failing to inform the parents of the available options such as B&B
  5. e) Failing to encourage the parents to seek legal advice or the advice of family or friends;
  6. f) Acting without the Father’s informed consent to the removal;
  7. g) Acting without the consent (informed or otherwise) of the Mother;
  8. h) Acting without the consent of any person with parental responsibility for A and B;
  9. i) Purporting to act under section 20 of the Children Act by seeking the consent of the parents in the presence of 8 uniformed police officers presenting an overt threat of police protection;
  10. j) Acting in knowledge of the Father’s expressed belief that the police would act to remove the children in any event;
  11. k) Removing the children in circumstances which did not reach the test for an emergency removal;
  12. l) Purportedly justifying the removal at the time and subsequently by way of reasons which were incorrect and/or known to be untrue by the Social Worker namely that the home had been condemned; and
  13. m) Failing to obtain the wishes and feelings of the children contrary to section 20(6) of the Children Act 1989.
  14. n) Failing to have in place a policy document guiding procedures when social workers attend a family with police, such document having been directed by HHJ Levey DFJ to be produced in or about January 2013;
  15. o) Upon it becoming known to the Team Manager and/or District Service Manager that the Social Worker had acted disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 the LA should have taken steps to rectify matters by offering to reunite the children and parents in alternative accommodation but failed to do so.
  1. Failure to disclose material evidence
  1. The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully by materially failing to comply with its duty to disclose documents which modified and/or cast doubt on its case and/or supported the case of the parents by:
  2. Failing to disclose the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X as directed as early as 15 July 2013 or at all prior to its inadvertent disclosure pursuant to a court order on 11.8.14 relating to disclosure of disciplinary proceedings concerning Ms X;
  3. Failing to disclose the ICS Core Assessments of Ms X as directed or prior to 1.4.14;
  4. Failing to disclose ICS notes with the District Service Manager’s comments due to inconsistent practices in recording information by her;
  5. Failing to disclose case recordings until directed to do so by the court on 3.3.14; and
  6. Failing to inform the parties of the existence of the video of the children’s removal and/or disclose the video itself until directed to do so by the court in May 2014. This video was in the possession of Kim Goode and viewed by her within weeks of the unlawful removal. She knew that the removal was unlawful but failed to do anything about it.
  7. The non-disclosure of the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X in the face of repeated requests from the parties and directions of the court was deliberate and the decision not to disclose the document was known to Sarah Walker-Smart, Kim Goode, Lisa Humphreys and the Legal Department.
  8. The LA misled the court and the parties as to the existence of a Comprehensive Core Assessment undertaken by Ms X.
  9. In particular the LA does not dispute and I find that Sarah Walker Smart lied on oath on 31 March 2014 when she said she had never seen a core assessment completed by Ms X; that Kim Goode had looked for one and had not found one and that the reference in her first statement to such an assessment was therefore an error.
  10. Further, Sarah Walker-Smart repeated the lies on oath on 25 November 2014.
  11. The LA’s failure to comply with its duty of disclosure caused an incomplete picture to be presented to the Guardian and to the court within the LA’s evidence filed before 7.4.14.


  1. Denial of fair opportunity to participate in decision making
  2. I make the following findings in relation to this head.
  3. The parents were not consulted about the removal of the children.
  4. Neither the Court nor the parents were provided with the investigations and recordings which precipitated the applications to separate C from A and B or to apply for a section 34 order to “terminate” contact;
  5. In respect of the application to terminate contact, Hampshire County Council relied upon reports from foster carers upon which they did not seek the parents’ instructions. The foster carers’ reports were inconsistent with Hampshire’s own evidence such as contact supervisor recordings;
  6. Hampshire County Council undertook sibling assessments without discussing the children and their attachments with their parents, or indeed observing the children together;
  7. Hampshire County Council failed to convene a Family Group Conference or take any steps to explore potential family support, which led to their overlooking the Gs and issuing placement applications although the parents did not bring the existence of the Gs or their willingness to offer care to the attention of HCC until August 2014;
  8. It is alleged that the parents have been excluded from LAC and PEP reviews and all medical appointments for all of the children. I have not been addressed in submissions on this point and so can make no findings. If it is thought significant I will hear further submissions on this point;
  9. Hampshire County Council failed to provide the parents with contact notes and foster carer records in accordance with the Court’s direction or on a regular basis. This has deprived the parents of the ability to address any identified issues and effect change.
  10. Hampshire County Council had been “put on notice” of their Human Rights breaches by the order of 07.04.14 (A121); further order on 08.05.14 and Mother’s detailed skeleton argument setting out both limbs of her argument which was filed and served on 17.06.14. However, they continued to deny any wrongdoing until:
    1. On or about 10.11.14 in respect of the unlawful removal;
    2. On or about 14.11.14 in respect of the material non-disclosure. Indeed this was described by Hampshire on 29.07.14 as a ” last minute fishing expedition speculatively raised” [135].
  11. Failure to promote family life
  12. The LA breached the children’s right to family life by failing to set up or maintain regular family or inter-sibling contact during proceedings up until 31 March 2014.
  1. I am also satisfied that FC2 particularly Mrs FC2 became inappropriately attached to the children she was looking after. She allowed herself to become emotionally involved so that she tried to “claim” them for herself. This was not picked up upon by the social workers quickly enough. They were getting reports from FC2 that conflicted with the reports of their own contact supervisors yet this was not properly or timeously investigated. It was this failure to control FC2 that led to no proper inter-sibling contact taking place and E not seeing his parents for a considerable period of time.
  2. As a result of the failures of Hampshire County Council to provide all relevant material and to conduct the matter in an open and fair way, the care plans for A and B as presented to the court for the hearing commencing 31 st March 2014 were particularly distressing in that they provided not only for separation of the siblings but that for B he was to have very restricted contact with his parents and siblings; such care plans were wholly unjustified and were changed by the then Service Manager Lisa Humphreys on or about 1 st April 2014 it being noted that this was without the court or any party having heard any evidence on this issue.
  1. Other failures
  1. The evidence presented to the court in the statement of Sarah Walker-Smart dated 27.6.13 upon issue of the LA’s application and in support of its application for interim care orders was unfair in that it was unbalanced and in parts inaccurate.
  2. As conceded immediately in evidence by Ms Gibson the LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair assessment of the parents’ ability to care for the children by way of the assessment by the family centre worker and the social work assessment of Sarah Walker-Smart.
  3. The LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair sibling assessment in particular because they were undertaken without sibling contact being observed.



I have read law reports where Local Authorities have got things wrong. I have read law reports where Local Authorities have got things badly wrong. I have read law reports where they have been unfair, or stupid, or failed to act promptly, or acted in a knee-jerk way. I have read law reports where the Court disagreed with their recommendation and told them that they had badly misunderstood the law. But I’ve never read anything like this. It is utterly astonishing.  It is every conspiracy theory about what social workers do, come to life.

It is shocking, it is appalling. It is a damn scandal. It brings the profession into disrepute. The only tiny crumb of saving grace in the whole affair is that those involved were caught and that His Honour Judge Horton has shone a light into this scandal. I can only do my small part by telling my readers about it.


Back to this November 2015 judgment.  (I haven’t read the end of it yet, but I hope it ends in a whacking big cheque being written, or indeed the judgment being sent to the Attorney General)

The Judge had sent everyone away in December to conduct fresh assessments and also for the parents to be given therapy – there were problems with their parenting, but clearly in light of everything above, they had not been given a fair assessment.

There is a bit in the judgment about the mother clandestinely recording meetings with professionals (it is rather hard to blame her for doing that)


During the mother’s evidence she mentioned that she and F had covertly recorded a meeting with the Guardian and some contacts. The M had used her phone and F a digital recorder that looked like a slightly fat pen. He produced the pen recorder and 4 recordings. As the Court security staff had not come across such a device before I took steps to inform HMCTS of the existence of such devices. The recordings provided by F were not listened to by me and no one sought to rely on their contents.



Sadly, the assessment work with Symbol – an independent specialist assessment service had not gone as well as one might have hoped.  Against the backdrop of everything above, it is perhaps no surprise that the parents found it difficult to trust professionals.


         She [The Symbol worker] told me that it became clear that the parents have an absolute antipathy towards the LA and social workers to the extent that they even objected to Ms Hinton being involved in the assessment. In her and Symbol’s opinion it was an impossible task for the parents to work with or trust any professional which was a significant barrier to moving on. She said that whilst professionals were not challenging or agreeing goals, things went fine but when they tried to work with the parents the situation broke down “sharply, remarkably and quickly”. Anyone who attempted to monitor or change their parenting behaviour would she opined, meet great hostility.

116. She was criticised by the parents for not acknowledging properly or at all the enormity of the emotional toll and distress on the parents and the children caused by the events of the summer of 2013. In particular Symbol were criticised for not going through the judgment with the parents and not recording any discussion about these topics. If they had it was submitted, the parents could have ‘moved on’ and the assessment would not have stopped

The Judge spends several pages discussing the assessments and the evidence, and that I’m afraid would make an already long article too long. Sadly, he reaches this conclusion

 In my judgment it has not been evidenced that the parents have made the necessary changes that could allow them to make sustained improvements to their parenting styles or allow them to co-operate with professionals. Whilst they have demonstrated some ability to engage with therapy and have attended a parenting course they have not demonstrated that their fundamental attitude towards professionals has changed. Indeed I saw evidence during their oral evidence of their continued, deep seated mistrust and their tendency to accuse professionals of lying when challenged or disagreed with. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the failure of the Symbol assessment has reinforced in their minds that professionals cannot be trusted and this will make it even more difficult than before for professionals to work with them.

One can quite see how it would be extremely difficult for any parent to trust professionals after that December hearing – even with wholly fresh professionals to work with and therapeutic help, there was just too much damage done for the relationship to be repaired.

406. I am therefore satisfied that I must make care orders with respect to all five children to Hampshire County Council. I approve the plans for their placements as they are the plans that will promote the children’s welfare throughout their minority and protect them from significant harm. I am satisfied that no lesser intervention or order can achieve this aim due to the parents’ inability to work with professionals, in particular the LA.

It is very hard to feel comfortable about this. The Judge was clearly a Judge who was prepared to take on the Local Authority when they had been unfair and dishonest and who set up fresh and independent assessments and ensured that the parents got therapeutic help. So the parents got a fair hearing from the Court. But weren’t they just screwed by a system that says “you’ve got to work with professionals” and condemned them for not being able to, even though almost anyone in the same position would not have been able to trust again after the most shocking breaches of trust?  Very hard.

Even though I’ve had nothing at all to do with this case, or any of the sort of things that have happened in it and I never would, today is one of those days where I feel ashamed to even be part of the Family Justice system.

The damages bit hasn’t yet been dealt with. When I see the report of that, I will share it.

I was reminded by the parties that the parents and children have outstanding damages claims for the breaches of their Human Rights. As I indicated at the beginning of the hearing I have agreed with Hampshire’s DFJ that he should hear this part of the case. I will direct as part of the order arising from my judgment that a directions hearing be listed before him at his convenience.

417. I was concerned to learn that the three social workers who I previously criticised had not apparently been subject to disciplinary proceedings. I direct that my December judgment and this one be sent by the Director for Children’s Services to the Director of Social Services, Ofsted and those social workers’ supervisory bodies with a view to them considering whether further action against them is required.

I know that my commenters will want to talk about this case, and will probably be very cross about it. Please try to stay away from defamatory remarks (what the workers did in this case and what you think about it is fair game, what you think of them as people is for somewhere else, not here)

I also know that some of you will be wondering about perjury.  It is true that lying under oath is a criminal offence.  The police aren’t able to investigate perjury unless directed to do so by a Judge and a prosecution for perjury can only take place if the Attorney General authorises it

The Perjury Act 1911

1 (1)If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine

section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911, which sets out the corroboration needed to prove perjury can sometimes be difficult

A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Act, or of any offence declared by any other Act to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.


[I.e Victoria saying that Colin is lying is not sufficient, there needs to be something more. Here of course, there were the computer records and emails in addition. The criminal standard of proof is high, and perjury prosecutions are very rare. And I am no expert in criminal law, so the furthest I can go is to say that it is a possible case where the Atttorney General might have a decision to make if asked]


Misfeasance in a public office is the other one that comes up from time to time. Not a criminal offence, but a civil tort.  That’s probably not much use because the compensation for that would be something that could be awarded under the Human Rights Act for the breaches already found in any event.  Though it is possible that the damages would be higher.

[Watkins v Home Office 2006

There is great force in the respondent’s submission that if a public officer knowingly and deliberately acts in breach of his lawful duty he should be amenable to civil action at the suit of anyone who suffers at his hands. There is an obvious public interest in bringing public servants guilty of outrageous conduct to book. Those who act in such a way should not be free to do so with impunity.[1]

[1] [2006] UKHL 17, paragraph 8.  ]


And there’s the social work regulatory bodies who could be asked to take action. Social workers can and have been disciplined for bad conduct.

Cracking a case at IRH without father present – robust case management or jumping the gun?


This is a Court of Appeal decision


RE v North Yorkshire County Council and Others 2015


(Making me wonder if it is going to get shortened to “Re RE”)

It has an unfortunate typo in the very first line of the case report which will delight those like me with a childish mind – you really do need to be very careful with the spelling of the word “Public” in Public Law Outline.


Though this version has a certain aptness – in many parts of the country it doesn’t really exist at all, in some areas only a sliver of it can be observed,  everyone can agree that some pruning and trimming is wholly desirable, and nobody really pays it much attention until a bit gets stuck in your throat…


Anyway, the nuts and bolts of the case. The parties attended an Issue Resolution Hearing. The father was not in attendance – he was in prison and a production order was not sought.  [As a person in prison is not in a position to simply saunter out and wander down to Court of their own volition, what needs to happen is for their solicitor to apply to Court for a Production Order so that the prison staff know that the person is required in Court on that date and must be brought there. Without a Production order, the prisoner won’t be produced. With one, they will be produced two hours later than you asked for…]


The Court made a series of final orders


i) A Care Order in favour of the Local Authority, North Yorkshire County Council;

ii) Permission to the Local Authority, to refuse contact between the child (A) and his father (F) pursuant to section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989;

iii) Leave to the Local Authority to apply for a declaration removing responsibility to consult F in relation to A;

iv) A declaration that the Local Authority should be absolved from the statutory responsibility of consulting F in relation to A’s care and their obligation to involve him in the Looked After Children (LAC) consultation process;

v) A non-molestation order (granted until further order) prohibiting F from:

a) Contacting M, A or the maternal great grandmother (MGGM) either directly or indirectly or through any third party except through lawyers or through the Local Authority for the purpose of the letterbox contact;

b) Attending within 100 metres of any address where he knows M and A or MGGM are living;

c) Should F meet M in any public or private area he is ordered to leave immediately to a distance of at least 100m away.

A power of arrest was attached to the non-molestation order.



The father appealed the order, on the following grounds


  1. The Grounds of Appeal have been drafted in very general terms (even as amended) but the thematic basis, which embraces each of the orders set out above, is identified in Ground 1 of the Appellant’s Amended Grounds of Appeal:

    “The Judge was wrong to have made final orders at interim hearing which:

    1. Prevent a child from maintaining personal relations with a parent; and

    2. Prevent a child having a future determined by which both parents have played a part.”

    It is argued that at the IRH the Judge was not in a position to conduct the ‘holistic analysis’ of the available options that was required in order properly to do justice either to the interests of the child or the father. In particular, at Ground 3, which is really an amplification of the same point, it was contended:

    1. Before reaching the determination that it was necessary and proportionate to the identified risks, that ‘nothing else would do’ the Judge needed to be sure that all the evidence was before the Court. The Judge was wrong to have proceeded to make Final Orders at an interim hearing;

    i. Without the court bundle;

    ii. Without the father having had notice that the IRH might be dealt with as a final hearing;

    iii. Without the father having been produced from prison

    iv. Without having heard any evidence or allowed father the opportunity to properly challenge the evidence of the Social Worker and Children’s Guardian;

    v. Without some form of contact being tested, the father, having made requests for contact, photographs and for the Social Worker to visit him, had the father having never met A or received any update in respect of his developments except the redacted Care Plans when the child was nearly 5 months old.

    vi. Where despite a large number of concessions and acceptances by Father, enough for a court to consider the Threshold Criteria for making s.31 orders was crossed, the Threshold Criteria annexed to the order had only been agreed by the Mother and not by Father,

    vii. Without having proper evidence before the court as to the impact upon the child of having no contact with the paternal family.

  2. Further, the Declaratory Relief granted by the Judge is attacked on the separate ground that the Judge lacked a jurisdictional basis to grant such relief and accordingly exceeded the ambit of her lawful powers. No party now seeks to uphold these declarations recognising and conceding their lack of jurisdictional foundation. The Appellant however goes further and contends that ‘even had there been jurisdiction, it would have been wrong to make the orders’. Furthermore, it is asserted ‘the declarations were in breach of the F’s Article 6 rights and were unlawful.’



The Court of Appeal tackled the declaration first, and had no difficulty in saying that it ought not to have been made. Firstly, the Judge had not been sitting in the High Court or as a s9 Judge and had no jurisdiction for a declaration of that type,


As I have already foreshadowed, none of the advocates seek to salvage the declaration releasing the Local Authority from its obligation, pursuant to statute, to consult F in relation to A’s care and to involve him in the Looked After Children (LAC) consultation process. I propose therefore to address this point first. HHJ Finnerty was sitting as a Judge of the Family Court. Though she is an experienced Judge who sits regularly as a Deputy High Court Judge of the Family Division, she was not sitting in that capacity in this case on the day of the IRH. No application had been made for her to seek permission from her Family Division Liaison Judge or other Judge of the Division to sit as a Section 9 Judge of the High Court. It is plain that, through oversight, no thought was given to the jurisdictional basis of the declaration by either Counsel or the Judge. Such declarations are made pursuant to the inherent jurisdictional powers of the High Court, they have no other foundation. If this had been the sole difficulty here and had they been otherwise sustainable I would, for my part, have been prepared to investigate some pragmatic resolution, perhaps a speedy remission to the Judge inviting her to reconstitute herself in the High Court to authorise the declarations on a free standing application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. It may well be that there is no such solution. However, it is unnecessary for me to investigate further as I am of the clear view that the declarations are more generally flawed.


  1. There are sound reasons why declarations are required to be made under the Inherent Jurisdiction and commenced in the High Court. Frequently, as here, they involve authorisation of actions which fall outside statutory obligation or may, again as here, be directly contrary to it. Thus, these are invariably complex issues which require to be dealt with in the High Court. This is given effect to, unambiguously by Rule 12.36 (1) and PD 12D.
  2. In Re B [2013] EWCA Civ 964, the Court of Appeal considered whether there needs to be a formal transfer where the Circuit Judge is authorised to sit as a s.9 Judge. At para 7, Black LJ observed:

    Where a circuit judge is to sit as a High Court judge, it seems to me that this needs to be arranged deliberately, with the proceedings commenced in or transferred to the High Court. The mere fact that the judge who has heard the case happens to be authorised to sit as a High Court judge or to try Administrative Court cases might not redeem a failure to observe proper practice.’

  3. I note that Black LJ does not completely exclude some pragmatic resolution, limiting herself to the observation that the matter ‘might not’ be capable of being redeemed. Here, as I have stated, Counsel on behalf of the Respondents all agree that the declarations cannot be sustained for these jurisdictional reasons.


Secondly, that a declaration of that seriousness could not be made lightly and not on the sort of facts that this case presented

  1. Ms. Bazley submits the case law establishes that a Local Authority may only be absolved from its duty to consult and to provide information to a parent in ‘exceptional circumstances’. I agree.
  2. The duty, pursuant to s.26, is directory not mandatory. But, as Ms. Bazley submits, the result of non-compliance is treated as an irregularity: Re P (Children Act 1989, ss22 and 26: Local Authority Compliance) [2000] 2 FLR 910. Ms Bazley further directs this Court’s attention to Re C (Care: Consultation with Parent not in Child’s Best Interests) [2006] 2 FLR 787; [2005] EWHC 3390 (Fam). There Coleridge J granted a declaration to the effect that the Local Authority was absolved, in what were described as ‘exceptional circumstances’, from any obligation to consult the father. In that case the father was serving a lengthy sentence for raping the child, who did not wish the father to be informed or consulted at all in relation to her future. The child had applied, successfully, to discharge the father’s Parental Responsibility. The applications were decided on the basis of C’s best interests. The Court concluded that the father’s total disregard for C’s best interests in committing the offences, coupled with her consistently and strongly articulated wish that he be excluded from her life entirely, led to a clear conclusion that he should not participate in any discussions about her future welfare. Nonetheless even there, the court directed that he would be informed if the Local Authority intended to make significant changes to the Care Plan, such as applying for adoption. Coleridge J observed:

    “[30] The conclusions that I have come to are really these: the considerations which govern the dismissal of this father from further involvement in the proceedings, and the granting of the declarations seem to me to be the same. Indeed, there is little point in him remaining a party if he is not going to be given any information; indeed, it would be impractical for him to remain a party if he was not going to be given information.”

    [31] The second pivotal point, of course, is that this application is decided, first and foremost, on the basis of s 1 of the Children Act 1989 – that is to say, what is in S’s best interests. Of course, hers are not the only interests, but they are the ones which are of paramount concern to the court.

    [32] The third factor, self-evidently, is that it is a very exceptional case only which would attract this kind of relief. Self-evidently – and it hardly needs the human rights legislation to remind one – a parent is entitled to be fully involved, normally, in the decision-making process relating to his, or her, child, and if not to be involved, then at least informed about it. However, insofar as that engages the father’s rights to family life, then by the same token it engages S’s right to privacy and a family life.”

  3. The factual background, giving rise to this appeal, though undoubtedly very troubling does not, in my judgement, amount to ‘exceptional’. It is not difficult to contemplate strategies which enable the privacy and security of the placement to be protected by a far less draconian level of intervention. Accordingly, Ms. Bazley submits and I agree that: ‘even had it been lawful to make the declaration, the circumstances of this case were not so exceptional as to justify it being made‘.



The appeal was granted and the declaration set aside.

Next, the substantive part of the appeal – was it wrong for the Judge to have made final orders, particularly final orders which in effect ended the father’s relationship with the child when the father had not expressly agreed, had not attended Court (as a result of Production Orders not having been obtained) and had not had the opportunity then to oppose those final orders?

That may seem something of a no-brainer, but bear with me.  All advocates will need to be aware of particularly paragraph 49 and the duty that this places upon them


  1. The following uncontentious facts require highlighting:

    i) The Care Plan provided for mother and baby to remain together;

    ii) No Party opposed the plan;

    iii) It was agreed by all the parties that the question of A’s direct contact with F was not an issue for the final hearing, in consequence of F’s incarceration;

    iv) All agreed that a Care Order was the appropriate order;

    v) All agreed as to the extent to which F should be able to provide photographs / cards to A;

    vi) All Parties and the Judge were aware of the indeterminate Restraint Order passed by the Crown Court preventing F from having contact with M (and others);

    vii) F had not asked to be produced from custody at any stage in the case.

  2. It is axiomatic that this was precisely the kind of case that had every potential for resolution at the IRH. It was the professional duty of all concerned to ensure that it did. I regret to say that the profession fell short in that duty. The Judge had done everything she could. By contrast, the Advocates’ Meeting appears to have been formulaic and ineffective. It was plain that F wished to have photographs of his son. F’s solicitors had not obtained a Home Office Production Order to facilitate F’s attendance at Court. Accordingly, F’s counsel was not in a position to take instructions on last minute and important details. Ms. Bazley asserts that F repeatedly elected not to come to court because he considered his presence to be an impediment to the mother’s case. The obligation of his lawyers here was to ensure that F’s own case was not compromised by his non-attendance.
  3. It requires to be stated that Court Orders are there to be complied with, they are not aspirational targets. I strongly suspect that if the advocates’ meeting had absorbed the true objectives of the IRH, and F produced at court, this case would have resolved by agreement. Moreover, I have no doubt at all that had there been proper thought given to concluding the case, the advocates would, at the final meeting, have paid greater attention to the legal basis of the Local Authority’s application for a declaration.
  4. I agree with King LJ in Re S-W (supra) that a Final Order at a CMH will be appropriate only occasionally. However, the message must go out loudly and clearly that the Court will and must always consider the making of Final Orders at the IRH. It must be understood that it is the professional duty of the advocates and all the lawyers, in every case, to direct their attention to the obligation to achieve finality at the IRH wherever possible. It follows that the lay Parties are always required to attend. If a Party is in custody a Home Office Production Order should be obtained and, if necessary, at the instigation of the Judge.
  5. In granting permission to appeal Ryder LJ considered that this case raised an important issue. Though the Court of Appeal has considered these points before it has been in the context of Judges who have been too robust in concluding cases where evidence required to be tested. This case, for the reasons I have set out, is one of wholly different complexion. It provides an opportunity to signal the cultural shift brought about by the Family Justice Reforms and the particular responsibilities on all involved at the IRH.
  6. Though I regret to say it, where the Judge’s objectives (i.e. to facilitate the potential for resolution of the case) are thwarted by non-compliance with Case Management Orders then this may in future have to trigger the consideration of appropriate sanctions in costs. Such orders are counterintuitive in a court arena where much reliance is placed on cooperation and common endeavour. However, the Family Justice Reforms are not merely administrative; they are designed, as I have emphasised above, to reconnect the profession with a core welfare principle: the avoidance of delay.
  7. The approach of the first instance Judge has been entirely vindicated in this Court. The Parties have been asked to consider whether the key issues were capable of resolution given the very narrow ambit of dispute. It struck me that it would have been hugely disproportionate to adjourn them for hearing before a High Court Judge, as it was submitted the outcome should be.


In the event, the parties at the Appeal hearing were able to reach agreement on indirect contact and Christmas cards etc, so in part the appeal fell by the wayside. But putting that to one side, was the Judge wrong to have made final orders when father’s attendance had not been facilitated, or was this robust case management?  It seems from my reading that the Court of Appeal would have backed the trial Judge here (other than on the declaration) and the appeal if it had been on those grounds alone would have failed. The responsibility here was with the advocates for not ensuring that either father’s position was entirely in keeping with the orders sought or to obtain a Production Order so that negotiations / representations could have been dealt with at the IRH.


The Court of Appeal put down a marker here that advocates must always be alive to the possibility that the case may be concluded at IRH and turn their minds to the final orders.   [They didn’t actually expressly deal with some of the important issues in the appeal – to whit, whether this Judge had made such serious final orders without a Court bundle i.e reading all of the papers, and the threshold having been finally determined taking into account mother’s concessions but including within it matters that father disputed without the Court hearing evidence about the disputed matters and making findings]






High Court Judges have no magic wand



NOT Mr Justice Holman and friend

Absolutely NOT Mr Justice Holman and friend  (I don’t like the look of New Sooty here – he is frankly quite disturbing, but I wanted a wand picture with Sweep in it to please my Twitter followers)




In Re D (Children) 2015 , Mr Justice Holman made some very important observations about the importance of judicial continuity, particularly in cases where there are intractable difficulties about contact. He also expressed some exasperation that cases often reach a point where the Judges just give up trying and transfer the case to the High Court in the hope that somehow the High Court can magically fix everything.


  1. Cases concerning intractable contact, probably more than any other case within the field of family law, require judicial continuity. There tends to be a need for a number of hearings, and it is of the utmost importance that one single judge deals with such a case from first to last so that he or she becomes very familiar with the dynamics of the a case, and the parties, in turn, become familiar with the judge who is dealing with their case. This makes it particularly inappropriate and unsuitable that a case of this kind is ever listed before an occasional visiting High Court judge unless that judge is known to be making repeated return visits to the area in question.
  2. I myself am currently sitting here in Leeds for about three weeks. I am not scheduled to be sitting again in Leeds or anywhere in Yorkshire throughout 2016, and I have no idea where I will be sitting after that. In other words, I cannot give to this case any judicial continuity whatsoever. I am merely, as it were, passing through it. For the reasons I have indicated, that is highly undesirable, and listing officers should take great care to ensure that it does not happen in relation to a case of this kind.
  3. I am aware that in some cases involving intractable contact judges of a lower tier sometimes believe that in some way a High Court judge can bring a new insight to the case, or bring about change which the lower tier judge has been unable to achieve. The fact of the matter is that I do not have any power in relation to this case which is not possessed also by a local circuit judge. I have no “magic wand”, and any advantage in the case being heard by a High Court judge is more than outweighed by the disadvantage that there can be no judicial continuity.


This case bizarrely turned on an alleged telephone conversation between mother and the CAFCASS officer, who records in the very short “initial safeguarding enquiries”


“[The mother] stated that whilst she was in a relationship with [the father] he once threw [the elder son] across the bedroom on to a mattress whilst he was angry. She stated that he had never been physically violent towards her or the children but he had bullied her through verbal taunts during their relationship. [The mother] stated that [the father] has sleep problems and this has led to him on occasions wrapping blankets around [the elder son’s] head whilst they shared a bed. She also stated that [the father] has also made unwanted sexual advances towards her whilst he has been asleep and she fears that the children would be at risk if he were to be in the sole care of the children at night time.”


The mother instead says that she did not say that the father had not been violent to herself or the children and that there were very substantial allegations of domestic violence to be determined.

She had contacted four solicitors, each of whom she says told her that she would be unable to get legal aid because the CAFCASS report said that there was no violence.  [I think there might be more to this than meets the eye, as I’d expect at least one of them to have said “But if you dispute that you said that, and you do say there was Domestic violence, lets have a look at how you evidence it”, but the Judge was satisfied that this is what had happened]


When she raised the issues before the Family Court in person, the Judge there relied substantially on the passage quoted above to show that there was no violence, but did not contact the CAFCASS officer to ask for clarification as to why the report says that but mother disputed it, or call the CAFCASS officer to give evidence. Instead, the passage was rather taken as gospel.  Also rather oddly, when hearing the disputed evidence, rather than having the parents in the witness box giving evidence and cross-examining each other, it proceeded more on the basis of a conversation going backwards and forward.


  1. The reality of the matter is that the mother makes very considerable allegations of serious aggression and violence by the father towards her, and separately the children, including her daughter. This case is a very serious one. There are very serious allegations and issues at stake; and, subject to means (but she says she is entirely dependent on state benefits), this mother desperately needs proper legal representation and the court desperately needs the mother (and ideally also the father) to be properly legally represented if it is to get to the bottom of the truth of the matter. To date, however, neither parent has had any legal representation.
  2. So it came about that the case was listed for a fact finding hearing before a district judge which took place on 30th and 31st March 2015. Both parents represented themselves. I wish to make crystal clear that in what I am about to say I do not intend any criticism whatsoever of the district judge concerned (whom I do not know) who obviously did his very best in a difficult situation.
  3. The unsatisfactory nature of the hearing perhaps emerges from paragraph 15 of the transcript of his ex tempore judgment in which he says:

    “Because both parties were unrepresented, as opposed to cross-examination I allowed both parties to have their say and move the matter backwards and forwards and I heard at length from both the parties who confirmed the contents of their written documentation and gave oral evidence. I am satisfied I heard sufficient yesterday to enable me to reach some conclusions.”

    Importantly, he went on to say:

    “I do not doubt that mother genuinely wants what is best for her children and the views she expresses are her genuinely held views.”

  4. However, I have to say that the judgment as a whole contains little account of the detail or content of the evidence that was given, or any real analysis of it. The judge said at the end of paragraph 16 of his judgment:

    “At the end of the day what this court has to grapple with is whether this father is a risk to his children.”

    He then referred to that initial safeguarding report by CAFCASS and the fact that within it the mother is reported as having:

    “…stated that he had never been physically violent towards her or the children…”

    Shortly after that he says in his judgment:

    “I cannot ignore the fact that that is what it is said that mother is reporting, but other than those matters specifically referred to he had never been physically violent towards her or the children.”

  5. I have been told by the mother yesterday, and this was confirmed by the CAFCASS officer who is now the children’s guardian and was present at the hearing on 30th March 2015, that the mother strongly said then, as she says now, that she did not say to that first CAFCASS officer what he recorded her as having said. Deeply regrettably, the officer was never contacted. He was never asked to come to court. Whatever notes he may have made of the telephone conversation have never been produced or examined.
  6. The upshot is that this case has been very decisively affected by a few challenged lines in that initial safeguarding report, which are themselves based purely on a single telephone conversation of which no original record has been produced. They appear to have had the effect that the solicitors whom the mother approached thought that it was forlorn even to apply for legal aid. They appear clearly to have decisively influenced the district judge in the decisions that he reached on the facts.
  7. The upshot is that so far as any allegations of aggressive or violent behaviour towards the children are concerned, the district judge was not satisfied that anything had happened except for one incident, which became known as the “bedroom incident”, in which he concluded that the facts lay somewhere in the middle of what the mother alleged and the father admitted.
  8. In relation to the mother’s allegations of aggression and violence towards herself, the district judge simply said at paragraph 28:

    “Insofar as allegations of behaviour directed against the mother are concerned, again I hear what mother says. I make no specific findings one way or the other, but these are allegations relating to the mother. Mother is not suggesting to her credit that the behaviour was such that she is living in fear of father. They are now separated. If there had been incidents, they are not going to re-occur because the parties are not together. Again, I am not satisfied that anything I have heard satisfies me that this father is a risk to his children.”

    When I say that the allegations made by the mother (I stress very clearly that I have no position whatsoever as to the truth or otherwise of them) include an allegation of raping her, it can be seen that that particular paragraph fails adequately to analyse the evidence and reach conclusions in a situation where conclusions were required.

  9. At all events, the thrust of the judgment and decision of the district judge was that there was nothing in the past behaviour or attitudes of the father which represented any risk to the two boys in having contact, including unsupervised and ultimately staying contact with him. The district judge then made an order dated 31st March 2015 which provided that the children shall live with their mother and should have specified periods of contact with their father, initially supervised and later unsupervised but based on a specified contact centre.



Holman J determined that the only real approach here was to treat the mother’s case as application for permission to appeal, he granted that permission, and he set the findings aside and directed that there must be a re-hearing of the evidence.  That wasn’t to say that he was ruling that mother’s allegations were correct, rather that they needed to be properly heard and tested, and not to simply place reliance on one sentence of a CAFCASS officer’s recollection of a telephone conversation when that recollection was disputed.


  1. For those reasons I have concluded, however unusually, that I should treat the mother’s strongly stated position that the district judge made mistaken findings, as representing an oral application for permission to appeal and permission to appeal out of time from those findings of fact. I propose to grant her permission to appeal. I propose to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of fact reached by the district judge. I will give detailed orders and directions, in terms that have already been fully discussed, for this whole matter to be allocated with a fresh start to a local circuit judge who must now deal with the case with maximum judicial continuity. There will be directions designed to achieve that there is a satisfactory complete re-consideration of the true facts.
  2. I strongly hope that the mother, who in my view is clearly entitled to it in view of the serious allegations she makes, can obtain legal aid. I regret that the father is unlikely himself to be able to obtain legal aid, both because he is the respondent rather than the maker of the allegations of violence and abuse, and because his income may make him financially ineligible. The rest of the detailed orders and directions are, I think, self-explanatory and do not require further reference in this judgment.


Even without his wand, Holman J can still work magic and ‘get busy’ …

Sweep being rather startled by the facts of this case

Sweep being rather startled by the facts of this case

Barking up the wrong tree


Sometimes a case comes along that I just can’t resist, although it is not really family law.


Moosun and Others v HSBC (T/A First Direct) 2015


This is a case where there had been a quarrel between Ms Moosun and her bank (or rather former bank) and just about every form of litigation that could be issued by her had been issued. The bank responded by asking for a civil restraint order to prevent her issuing any more hopeless litigation.


Why I am I writing about this? Well, because of these paragraphs.


  1. The second application is dated 19th October 2015 and seeks to strike out the claim in action HC-2015-004041 which was issued on 21 September 2015. That claim is sought to be brought by Mrs. Moosun, her two infant children, and two dogs who are identified as Goldie, aged 18 months, and Diamond, aged 2 years. Again, Miss Wilmot-Smith takes the point that the claims by the children should be struck out as they are brought in circumstances where no litigation friend has been appointed on behalf of the children and no order has been made permitting the children to bring proceedings. That is right, and for the same reasons as in relation to the first claim, I shall strike out the claims by the children.
  2. Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out.


Yes, the dogs were also suing the bank.


I also note that in previous litigation


For her part, Mrs. Moosun raised a considerable number of points concerning the actions by the bank, both as a matter of contract and in relation to an alleged denial of her rights under the European Human Rights Convention, among other things by reason of the fact that the original order made by District Judge Banks had been made in her absence. She also alleged that what was happening to her involved “satanic freemasons”.


Well, now we all definitively know (for those of us who had any doubt at all) that dogs cannot bring Court proceedings. That is merciful to me, because otherwise my dog would be bringing claims under the Canine Rights Act because I made him return from his holiday in Cornwall, where he was spending his days playing on beaches, swimming in the sea and eating Cornish pasties.

Foster to adopt – two small but significant issues


As Foster to Adopt placements  (where a child is placed with foster carers who are also approved as adopters and might go on to adopt the child if the Court decides to make a Placement Order) become more prevalent, both as a result of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the political drive to have more such placements, this particular case resolves two issues that might be significant in the future.


Or at least, flags up what I’d consider to be the correct answer in law and we await a decision from the High Court or Court of Appeal in the future to definitively confirm it, as this is a case determined by a Circuit Judge and thus not binding on future cases.


[It is very well reasoned though, and I’d be rather surprised if a higher Court were to disagree. ]


Re B (A child :adoption) 2015


Question 1 – when is the child “placed” for adoption?


There are three possible answers generally – when the Match is made (i.e  an Adoption Panel agrees that little Richard Starkey can be adopted by Mr and Mrs Ringo), or, when Richard first meets Mr and Mrs Ringo, or when the child moves into the home of prospective adopters when a Placement Order has been made. The Courts spent quite some time wrangling about that, finally deciding in Coventry City Council v O (Adoption) [2011] 2 FLR 936  that “placed for adoption” began once Richard begins to live with Mr and Mrs Ringo  (in a practical sense, on the first night that he stays with them with no plan for him to be collected by the Local Authority from then on)


But with Foster to Adopt children, the move into the home can come much earlier than the Placement Order.  The child is already living with the prospective adopters.  Why is this relevant? Well, because “placement” with prospective adopters can limit the parents, who cannot for example make an application to revoke a Placement Order once the child is “placed” with prospective adopters, and have to wait until an Adoption Order application is made by the prospective adopters.


The Judge here, His Honour Judge Booth, confirmed that the child is not “placed with adopters” until the child is in a position to be adopted (a Placement Order made) and the match is approved AND the child is living with the adopters. So in a Foster to Adopt placement, the “placed with adopters” begins as soon as the Adoption Panel and Agency Decision Maker have approved that Mr and Mrs Ringo are to be the adoptive carers of Richard.


  1. The July 2014 statutory guidance for Early Permanence emphasises that the status of Section 22C(9B(c) placements changes when the court has made a placement order and the ADM has approved the adoptive placement:

    “Section 22C(9B)(c) placements are foster placements: the carers must be approved foster carers as well as approved prospective adopters before the child can be placed with them. The carers are entitled to the fostering allowances that the fostering provider would normally pay. When the local authority receives a placement order or parental consent and the ADM has approved the adoptive placement, the section 22C(9B)(c) placement will become an adoptive placement. At that point the carers will become eligible for adoption pay and leave and the fostering allowance ceases”.

  2. The local authority acting in its role as an adoption agency re-approved Mr and Mrs X as Lancashire County Council adopters on 6th May 2015 and they were linked as B’s prospective adopters at an Adoption Panel on 13th May 2015. The ADM approved the decision of the panel on 22nd May 2015. It was on this date, when the third and final stage identified by Thorpe LJ in Re S was accomplished and therefore B was placed for adoption. To employ Lord Wilson’s language in Coventry v O, 22nd May 2015 was the date when the adoption agency formally allowed B “to continue to live with the applicants in their fresh capacity as prospective adopters”.
  3. From the time the placement order was made on 31st March 2015 until B was placed for adoption with Mr and Mrs X there was an opportunity for his parents or anybody else to apply for leave to seek revocation of the placement order. That opportunity ended when B was placed for adoption by the decision of the ADM on 22nd May 2015. Such is the effect of section 24 (5)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The closure of that opportunity is by operation of law rather than any physical movement of the child.


Thus, the window of opportunity for a parent to apply to revoke the Placement Order is limited to the period between the making of the Placement Order and the Agency Decision Maker (ADM) approving the match. In this case, that was between 31st March and 22nd May. About eight weeks. Bearing in mind that the test for granting leave to apply to revoke a Placement Order is that the parent must show a “change in circumstances” since the Placement Order was made, that’s not much time to bring about such a change.


Question 2  – for the purposes of making an application under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, when does the child start to “have his home” with the prospective adopters?


This is significant because the prospective adopters can’t make their application until the child has been in their home for ten weeks. Does that ten weeks start from the time that the child was “placed” as above? Or from when the child was actually physically living with them?  If the latter, then Foster to Adopt carers can technically make their application almost immediately after the match if they so desire.


The Judge  ruled that it is the latter. That ten week period can start to run from the moment that Richard begins to live with Mr and Mrs Ringo, and doesn’t have to wait until he is “placed” there.  So Foster to Adopt carers can lodge their adoption application seconds after the ADM approves the match and “places” the child, if they so wish.


  1. The adoption application
  2. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 sets out a number of adoption gateway requirements in s42 before an adoption order can be made. The relevant section for the purposes of Mr and Mrs X’s application is s.42(2) which states:

    “If —

    (a) the child was placed for adoption with the applicant or applicants by an adoption agency or in pursuance of an order of the High Court, or

    (b) the applicant is a parent of the child

    the condition is that the child must have had his home with the applicant or, in the case of an application by a couple, with one or both of them at all times during the period of ten weeks preceding the application.”

  3. B was ‘placed’ for the purposes of adoption on 22nd May 2015. The wording of the statute appears to deliberately avoid the terminology of a child being ‘placed’ when referring to the period of time that a child is required to live with the applicants prior to an application for an adoption order. Instead, the statute requires that the child “must have had his home” with the applicant(s) for 10 weeks preceding the application.
  4. There is no definition of ‘home’ in the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002, however it is clear from the observations of Sheldon J in Re Y (Minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136, [1986] 1 FLR 152 at 140 and 157 that it has been considered to be a concept incapable of precise definition and that definition should not be attempted beyond the principal features a home should be expected to embody which, by reference to the OED definition, includes a “dwelling-place, house, abode; fixed residence of a family or household”. The Court in that case considered that the issue of whether something amounted to a home “must be a question of fact in any particular case”.
  5. This was endorsed more recently in the case of ECC v M and Others [2008] EWHC 332 (Fam) where Black J said at para [67]

    “I am entirely in agreement with Sheldon J that it is a question of fact in any particular case whether or not a home has been established here within the meaning of the 2002 Act”.

  6. My conclusion is that the time spent by B with the Mr and Mrs X amounts to him having had his home with them for the duration of the period he has lived with them. He has resided there continuously since 2nd December 2014 and they undertake all of his caring tasks. I am told that they have attached to him as their potential adoptive son and he has been treated as such within the immediate and wider family and that B identifies them as his primary attachment figures. They have acted as his parents since he was a day old and he has had his home with them since that date.
  7. There is no restriction in either statute or case law to the effect that the child cannot have their home with the Applicant prior to a placement order or, indeed, prior to his being ‘placed’ with the applicants for the purposes of adoption. For these purposes the clock began ticking in that respect from the moment B was physically placed with them on 2nd December 2014.
  8. This interpretation is consistent with the spirit of the Act and what it was intended to achieve in relation to adoptive placements prior to adoption orders being applied for. The purpose of the requirements set out in s.42 has been the subject of judicial consideration in Re A (Adoption: Removal) [2009] EWCA Civ 41, [2009] 2 FLR 597 when Moore-Bick LJ said at para 106:

    “The section … is concerned to ensure that the child has spent sufficient time living with the applicant in a home environment to enable the Court to be satisfied they are sufficiently well-matched for the adoption to be likely to be successful”.

  9. This was endorsed by Theis J in Re X (Adoption Application: Gateway Requirements) [2014] 1 FLR 1281 at para [33].
  10. The question of where a child has had his home is a question of fact independent from his legal status within that home.


The very purpose of Foster to Adopt is to ensure that in cases where the Court approve adoption as the plan that there are shorter delays in the adoption order being made, and less moves for the child, so it does make sense that such carers are allowed to take the ten weeks as being the time that the child has been in their care, rather than making them wait for ten weeks after the match is formally approved.


Of course from the other side of the coin, and remembering that a parent needs to show that there has been a Change of Circumstances since the Placement Order was made if they are going to get leave to oppose the adoption order application, realising that there might be a very short window – more likely weeks than months between the Placement Order and adoption order application might make it virtually impossible to effect such change.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,998 other followers