RSS Feed

Comment rules

Not many

1. Don’t name people from a case unless the Bailii judgment I’ve linked names them.  [Nobody has ever done that here, but it is a golden rule of any discussion about Court cases involving children]

2. Disagreeing with me is fine

3. Disagreeing with other commentators is fine

4. Disagreeing with judgments, and judges is fine

5. Personal abuse of  other commentators, people involved in the judgments we are discussing is not fine.   ["Judge Tickletrout got this one wrong, because... " is okay  "Judge Tickletrout is a man-hating old hag" is not okay]

6. It is preferred if you can keep on topic  (or a digression arising from the topic that is interesting).  I don’t mind people who have a view that social workers are devils, but you don’t need to share that view  if what we’re discussing is something entirely different. I’m sure that a chance will come for you to raise that point, soon enough.

7. Godwin’s law does apply to this blog, and breach of it is an automatic loss of an argument

I’m afraid that I can’t give legal advice about particular cases. If you want to know ‘is there a case where such and such happened’ I usually try and find it, or if there’s a geeky technical point I’ll try and answer, but I can’t answer the ‘how do I get my kids back’ one, other than very generally.

If you are involved in court proceedings about children and want some specific advice, your starting points are :-  a solicitor on the Children Panel (google “Children Panel + your town” to find some), a McKenzie Friend (same again, or you can ask here and one of the ones who visit might contact you), Lucy Reed’s website for litigants in person http://www.nofamilylawyer.co.uk/     or Sarah Phillimore’s website http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk  – and actually mumsnet is pretty good.

 

9 responses »

  1. Re: Ethical Dilemmas And Blood Transfusions post~Blood is used only as a volume expander as it is dead heat treated and carries no oxygen also carries other persons DNA so body has a lot to fight. Blood being processed boosts cost and has short shelf life.
    Saline is salt water and humans are between 50 to 75% water. Ambulances carry saline which is the first blood alternative.

    Reply
  2. RE: “The pages of the most extravagant French novel…” How did it finish that proceedings? Do you know it?

    Reply
    • I don’t, I’m afraid. I imagine that there is a criminal investigation being undertaken, and that all of the divorce petitions will have been dismissed on the basis that none of the petitioners actually lived in England (but were Italian and using an English address that they didn’t actually live at)

      Reply
      • Well, IMHO it would be a bad end of a story developed between the folds of British justice..
        I say bad end because it could to be created a dangerous precedent.
        As far as I know, many of that petitions were yet in state of decree absolute, and most of those cases were 2-3 years old, so it could be established that a decree absolute, on the basis of circumstances which it should be determined whether they are illegal or not, since no degree of judgment until the decree absolute established this, could be canceled with severe social consequences on people who on the basis of that decree absolute made himself a new life.
        It seems a Don Quixote’s struggle against the windmills…

  3. you may find this of interest where hair strand testing in children’s hair is concerned there is no real science behind it…. http://researchingreform.net/2014/06/18/hair-strand-testing-in-children-an-imperfect-science-plaguing-the-family-courts/

    Reply
    • I hadn’t appreciated that hair strand testing of children was happening (other than that very weird case where there was a toddler who was hair-strand tested and her mother shaved her head the next day), but yes, I would be deeply troubled about this. I have long been concerned that the companies doing hair-strand testing won’t publish their false positive and false negative rates (for commercial reasons, but huge amounts of public money are being spent and important decisions being made without that key piece of evaluation information). I would want to see chapter and verse on how testing of children’s hair has been scientifically established to be accurate. Am surprised that Courts are authorising this other than in highly extreme set of circumstances.

      Reply
  4. Hi, I wanted to ask a question regarding your section 20 blog post.

    I have a special needs daughter who is violent towards her younger brother who is only 3 year. The hospital have raised this as a safeguarding issue. Social Services think that this behaviour can be managed at home with support, but we disagree and have had to resort to our MP and Councillors for them to accommodate her under section 20.

    They have now sent us a bill to pay for her care at a weekly rate.

    Social Services are taking this as a voluntary looked after child.

    Is there any legal point we can argue here that due to the safeguarding issue at home that is not a voluntary looked after child case but a mandatory one? If its a mandatory one, do we stil have to pay?

    We have had an incident where we ended up in A & E whilst trying to deescalate an incident.

    Thank you in advance for your kindness

    Reply
  5. Two of my sons were removed by care order in 2005 and are now held under a Court of Protection Order.I “might at some future time show a lack of deference to social services”.(I put the phone down on the Assistand Director of Children’s Services when he said my estranged wife was well enough to look after our two youngest children who are both autistic.She died 7 weeks after the full care order was made,having again been granted residence.
    The council intended to turn her bungalow into a small group home for the two but were startled at the speed with which she died-breast cancer,lung cancer,chronic diabetes leading to the amputation of her legs.
    Unsupervised contact continued with me for a year,and still continues,while they designated her home a Children’s Home.(The boys were in respite care for 10 months).The eldest had the care order applied the day before his 17th birthday-the last legal day-moved into the Home three weeks before his 18th birthday,and spent the next three years in a registered Children’s home,identified by Ofsted as containing “two males under 18″.
    They are now being held under CoP Orders,but not full Deprivation of Liberty Orders.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,297 other followers

%d bloggers like this: