Monthly Archives: October 2012

“So he was all, like, Pride, and I was all, like – nuh-uh, Prejudice?

Posted on October 12, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

It’s totally true, right, and everyone like knows, it’s like well obvious, that a bloke with like loads of bling, like as if he’s totally minted, needs fixing up with a girl?

If this bloke with loads of dollar, like, moves somewhere new, even if he doesn’t know he needs to hook up with like, a girl, all the families in the area are all like, hello here’s a rich geezer we need to like get him to get off with our daughter before someone else like bags him first. It’s all like, he belongs to us already, he’s like our property?

So, right, Mrs Bennett turns round to Mr Bennett and just goes “yeah, no, do you know what? NetherfieldPark has been snapped up”

And Mr Bennett is like, whatevs.

And then right, Mrs Bennett turns round and goes, “well yeah, it has been, and Mrs Long, she was all like, yeah Netherfield Park has been bought, and I was all, no way, and she was all like yes way, and I was all, not even, and she was like I totally mean it, and then I was all god, I must tell Mr Bennett”
And Mr Bennett is like, whatevs. Like he’s not really like into it, but Mrs Bennett can totally see through that, and she’s all, yeah right, like you’re really not bothered.

So she turns round and goes, “Don’t you, like, not even want to know who has bought it?”

And he’s all, “No,yeah, whatevs, you want to tell me, and I’m not even bothered either way, sup to you, innit?”

This was invitation enough.

[Clearly, I have reached the point of grumpy middle age, where the speech patterns of young people have ceased being fascinating and amusing and just annoy the hell out of me. It does worry me that the generation who have grown up talking in this way will be addressing Judges and like, have these horrible little verbal tics slip out? I do already, I have to say, see a lot of advocates who are under the impression that if you read out a long assertion and then raise your intonation slightly at the end, that somehow constitutes a question… which is the opposite of the young people who give the inadvertent impression that every statement is a question by doing the same thing]

1 Comment

Posted in stuff that isn't law at all and tagged like, modern vernacular, not even, pride and prejudice. Bookmark the permalink.

Can a person choose whether to be represented by the Official Solicitor?

Posted on October 12, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

A consideration of the ECHR decision in R.P and Others v The United Kingdom 2012

You may remember this case from 2008 in the Court of Appeal – it was an appeal brought on behalf of a woman who had been judged to lack litigation capacity, and who had been represented through the Official Solicitor in care proceedings. The Official Solicitor had eventually not contested the care order at final hearing, and the woman then contacted John Hemming MP, and an appeal was brought on the basis that :-

(a) The assessment of her litigation capacity was wrong

(b) The assessment of her litigation capacity was fundamentally flawed as it had been obtained by an expert report funded by all parties, and thus the expert had a financial interest in reaching a particular conclusion (i.e because the LA were paying some of the experts fees, the expert had a financial conflict of interest and delivered a verdict they wanted)

(c) That the entire principle of a person being unable to fight a Care Order when they wished to do so, purely because they lacked capacity was unfair and discriminatory against the most vulnerable persons in society.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and it is a judgment worth reading. I know that Mr Hemming disagrees with the conclusions, as he is entitled to, and I put that caveat in so that people know that there is a different perspective to that in the judgment. [That judgment is at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/462.html]

The case finally reached the ECHR and their judgment can be found at :-

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1796.html

The Claimant was unsuccessful on all counts, but I still think that the case raises some important issues. It does feel uncomfortable that every parent, no matter the quality of their case has the right to be legally represented and challenge the recommendations of the State and to test that evidence UNLESS they lack litigation capacity and the Official Solicitor takes a view that the case should not be contested.

It does seem to me that a person can lack litigation capacity to know what a care order is, or what a threshold criteria document is, or even to be taken through individual allegations and be able to respond to them, but I think fundamentally it is not difficult to judge whether the view of a parent in a care case is “I want my child back” or “I don’t want my child to be adopted” and I think that case ought to be put.

What RP didn’t really get massively into was the ability of the Official Solicitor to effectively throw the towel in on behalf of a parent who lacks capacity to instruct a solicitor but still has firm views on that central question of ‘I want my child back’. If the O/S always approached cases on the basis of ‘if the parent is saying they want the child back, that case must be put, but it will be for the O/S to instruct the solicitor on HOW to put the case’ I would be quite happy. Like John Hemming MP, I do feel uncomfortable when the O/S throws the towel in – even where the evidence is overwhelming.

[After all, there were probably stages of Alas Al Wray where the evidence looked overwhelming…]

The ECHR accepted the view of the UK that where a person lacks litigation capacity, the Official Solicitor can be appointed and conduct the litigation and that the O/S has to do what they consider is in the child’s best interests.

[Now, in my humble and trivial opinion, sometimes what the parents consider to be the child’s best interest and what the child’s best interest is completely overlaps, sometimes they are diametrically opposed and more often than either, sometimes it takes a Court hearing and a determination of the evidence to see whether those two views overlap or are incompatible – that’s why we have Court hearings]

And of course, the need to conduct the ligitation with the child’s best interests at the forefront, rather than the parents wishes, is not a stipulation that applies to those receiving instructions directly from parents. [With some caveats – a solicitor isn’t allowed to lie to a Court on your instructions, or conceal child abuse, but if a parent says ‘I want you to fight the case’ a solicitor isn’t obliged to decide whether fighting the case is good for the child, they let the Judge make that ultimate decision]

I think the submissions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission are interesting and worth reading.

58. 3. The submissions of the Third Party intervener

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”) submitted that learning-disabled parents in the United Kingdom were more likely to have their children removed from their care than other parents and frequently did not receive the support which they needed in order to retain custody of their children. Consequently, decisions about the removal of children from learning-disabled parents required very close scrutiny of the support offered to the parents.

The Commission further submitted that Articles 6, 8 or 14 could be breached if limitations were placed on a learning-disabled litigant’s right of access to a court which were not strictly necessary, or if a litigation friend did not take sufficient positive steps to ensure that the specific needs and interests of such a parent were properly taken into account. In particular, it was important that strong procedural safeguards existed to ensure that the parent’s views were properly, fully and fairly advanced before the court. In order for this to be the case, it was essential that decisions about the parent’s litigation capacity should not be taken on the basis of a joint report part-funded by an opposing party in family litigation; that the question of capacity be kept open, with a formal institutional/legal mechanism for it to be challenged by the learning-disabled person and reviewed if any evidence suggested it could be wrong or that the position had changed; and that the case put forward by the Official Solicitor or other litigation friend should be focused solely on the needs of the parent.

The ECHR were satisfied that the UK system has sufficient safeguards for establishing whether a person has litigation capacity and whether they are entitled to challenge such assessment, for the Official Solicitor role to operate properly and for this to be explained to the person, that the system did not discriminate against those with a disability, and that the system of jointly funding experts did not lead to a conflict of interest.

[Frankly, as a Local Authority lawyer who knows the financial budgetary problems, I’d have been delighted if the ECHR had decided that the LA could no longer share in the costs of instructing an expert]

Here is the reasoning on this element

In cases involving those with disabilities the Court has permitted the domestic courts a certain margin of appreciation to enable them to make the relevant procedural arrangements to secure the good administration of justice and protect the health of the person concerned (see, for example, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 68, 27 March 2008). This is in keeping with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which requires States to provide appropriate accommodation to facilitate the role of disabled persons in legal proceedings. However, the Court has held that such measures should not affect the very essence of an applicant’s right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In assessing whether or not a particular measure was necessary, the Court will take into account all relevant factors, including the nature and complexity of the issue before the domestic courts and what was at stake for the applicant (see, for example, Shtukaturov v. Russia, cited above, § 68).

It is clear that in the present case the proceedings were of the utmost importance to R.P., who stood to lose both custody of and access to her only child. Moreover, while the issue at stake was relatively straightforward – whether or not R.P. had the skills necessary to enable her successfully to parent K.P. – the evidence which would have to be considered before the issue could be addressed was not. In particular, the Court notes the significant quantity of expert reports, including expert medical and psychiatric reports, parenting assessment reports, and reports from contact sessions and observes the obvious difficulty an applicant with a learning disability would have in understanding both the content of these reports and the implications of the experts’ findings.

In light of the above, and bearing in mind the requirement in the UN Convention that State parties provide appropriate accommodation to facilitate disabled persons’ effective role in legal proceedings, the Court considers that it was not only appropriate but also necessary for the United Kingdom to take measures to ensure that R.P.’s best interests were represented in the childcare proceedings. Indeed, in view of its existing case-law the Court considers that a failure to take measures to protect R.P.’s interests might in itself have amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, §§ 79 – 89, 16 December 1999).

It falls to the Court to consider whether the appointment of the Official Solicitor in the present case was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued or whether it impaired the very essence of R.P.’s right of access to a court. In making this assessment, the Court will bear in mind the margin of appreciation afforded to Contracting States in making the necessary procedural arrangements to protect persons who lack litigation capacity (Shtukaturov v. Russia, cited above, § 68).

With regard to the appointment of the Official Solicitor, the Court observes that he was only invited to act following the commissioning of an expert report by a consultant clinical psychologist. In assessing R.P., the psychologist applied the test set out in Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co (Nos 1 and 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1889; Masterman-Lister v Jewell and another [2003] EWCA Civ 70, namely whether R.P. was capable of understanding, with the assistance of such proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case may require, the issues on which her consent or decision was likely to be necessary in the course of the proceedings. She concluded that R.P. would find it very difficult to understand the advice given by her solicitor and would not be able to make informed decisions on the basis of that advice, particularly when it involved anticipating possible outcomes. The psychologist produced two more reports in the course of the proceedings, the second of which contained a further assessment of R.P.’s litigation capacity. In that report she noted that R.P. did not have the capacity to give informed consent to a placement order as she could not really understand the proceedings, except at a very basic level. The Court is satisfied that the decision to appoint the Official Solicitor was not taken lightly. Rather, it was taken only after R.P. had been thoroughly assessed by a consultant clinical psychologist and, while there was no formal review procedure, in practice further assessments were made of R.P.’s litigation capacity in the course of the proceedings.

The Court considers that in order to safeguard R.P.’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it was imperative that a means existed whereby it was possible for her to challenge the Official Solicitor’s appointment or the continuing need for his services. In this regard, the Court observes that the letter and leaflet which the Official Solicitor sent to R.P. informed her that if she was unhappy with the way her case was being conducted, she could speak to either S.C. or to the Official Solicitor, or she could contact a Complaint’s Officer. Moreover, in his statement to the Court of Appeal the Official Solicitor indicated that R.P. could have applied to the court at any time to have him discharged. Alternatively, he indicated that if it had come to his attention that R.P. was asserting capacity, then he would have invited her to undergo further assessment. While the Court observes that these procedures fall short of a formal right of appeal, in view of the finding that R.P. lacked litigation capacity, it considers that they would have afforded her an appropriate and effective means by which to challenge the appointment or the continued need for the appointment of the Official Solicitor.

The Court does not consider that it would have been appropriate for the domestic courts to have carried out periodic reviews of R.P.’s litigation capacity, as such reviews would have caused unnecessary delay and would therefore have been prejudicial to the welfare of K.P. In any event, as noted above (see paragraph 69), assessments were in fact carried out of R.P.’s litigation capacity in the course of the proceedings. The Court would also reject R.P.’s assertion that she should have been encouraged to seek separate legal advice at this juncture. In view of the fact that she had been found to lack the capacity to instruct a solicitor the Court does not consider that this would have been a necessary or even an effective means by which to protect her interests.

As stated in paragraph 61 above, the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective and this is particularly so of the right of access to a court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (Airey v. Ireland, cited above, § 24). Consequently, any means of challenging the appointment of the Official Solicitor, however effective in theory, will only be effective in practice and thus satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention if the fact of his appointment, the implications of his appointment, the existence of a means of challenging his appointment and the procedure for exercising it are clearly explained to the protected person in language appropriate to his or her level of understanding.

In this regard, the Court recalls that the letter sent to R.P. indicated that the Official Solicitor would act as her guardian ad litem and would instruct her solicitor for her. It further indicated that S.C. would tell the Official Solicitor how R.P. felt about things and that he would consider her wishes and views before he filed a statement on her behalf. He would do his best to protect her interests but also had to bear in mind what was best for K.P. The leaflet accompanying the letter informed R.P. that the Official Solicitor made decisions about court cases, such as whether to bring, defend or settle a claim. Under the heading “Will the client be consulted” R.P. was informed that “the instructed solicitor will communicate with the client and attend court hearings and will report on the outcome to the case manager”. If she was dissatisfied with the way her case was being conducted, she was informed that she should discuss the matter either with S.C. or the Official Solicitor’s Office. If she remained dissatisfied she could write to the Complaint’s Officer. While the Court accepts that R.P. might not have fully understood, on the basis of this information alone, that the Official Solicitor could consent to the making of a placement order regardless of her own personal wishes, it cannot ignore the fact that she was at all times represented by S.C. and experienced counsel who should have, and by all accounts did, explain to her the exact role of the Official Solicitor and the implications of his appointment. Indeed, in this regard the Court recalls that S.C.’s conduct of the case was commended by the Court of Appeal which found, in its judgment of 8 May 2008, that R.P. had been fully informed of the involvement of the Official Solicitor and the nature of his role. Nevertheless, she did not seek to complain until ten months after his appointment and two days before the final hearing.

74. Consequently, the Court considers that adequate safeguards were in place to ensure that the nature of the proceedings was fully explained to the applicant and, had she sought to challenge the appointment of the Official Solicitor, procedures were in place to enable her to do so (cf. Stanev v. Bulgaria, [GC], no. 36760/06, 17 January 2012, where no direct access to court was open to the applicant to have his status as a partially incapacitated person reviewed by a court).

75. With regard to the role of the Official Solicitor in the legal proceedings, the Court recalls that he was to act “for the benefit of the protected party”. The Court has taken note of R.P.’s concerns about his focus in the present case on “what was best for K.P.”. However, the Court accepts that the best interests of K.P. were the touchstone by which the domestic courts would assess the case. Thus, in determining whether a case was arguable or not, it was necessary for the Official Solicitor to consider what was in K.P.’s best interests. Consequently, the Court does not consider that the fact the Official Solicitor “bore in mind” what was best for K.P. in deciding how to act amounted to a violation of R.P.’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

76. Moreover, the Court does not consider that “acting in R.P.’s best interests” required the Official Solicitor to advance any argument R.P. wished. On the contrary, it would not have been in R.P.’s – or in any party’s – best interests for the Official Solicitor to have delayed proceedings by advancing an unarguable case. Nevertheless, in view of what was at stake for R.P., the Court considers that in order to safeguard her rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it was imperative that her views regarding K.P.’s future be made known to the domestic court. It is clear that this did, in fact, occur as R.P.’s views were referenced both by the Official Solicitor in his statement to the court and by R.P.’s counsel at the hearing itself.

77. Moreover, the Court recalls that R.P. was able to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Although she was not legally represented in the appeal proceedings, this was through choice as she refused the assistance of pro bono counsel which the Official Solicitor had secured for her. Nevertheless, the Court notes that in the course of the appeal proceedings she was afforded ample opportunity to put her views before the court, and her arguments were fully addressed in the court’s judgment.

[If you have read the Court of Appeal decision, you will be aware that whether this letter was sent was a matter of great factual dispute, with it being alleged that it had been falsely inserted into the file by the solicitor as a ‘back covering exercise’ after the event but never actually sent. The Court of Appeal rejected that allegation fairly forcefully, but one can see the critical importance of proper documentation prepared in a way that the client can comprehend being provided in a timely fashion]

All of this seems to go away, of course, now that the Practice Direction suggesting that the Official Solicitor may cheerfully refuse to act on behalf of someone lacking litigation capacity and that the solicitor should take instructions from the client’s friends, family, neighbour, friendly milkman, local newsagent et al instead.

I am adding in the comment made by @thesmallplaces on the UK Human Rights blog post about this, because I think it raises some really important points and in an excellent way – so none of these are my words that follow, but I do agree with an awful lot of it, particularly the fine final paragraph.

I think it’s a real shame that this case has become overshadowed by the antics of John Hemming MP. Although it raised very serious Article 6 issues, every time these issues are raised they get swept aside by a discussion of Hemming’s behaviour. Valid as many of those criticisms are, this misses the point entirely. I’m really pleased to see that serious lawyers like Rosalind English and Richard Stein are talking about these issues.

My feeling is that the ECtHR gave a very superficial analysis of the situation. Prior to RP bringing the case in the Court of Appeal, it wasn’t even clear that a person who had been found to lack capacity to litigate had standing to (see paragraph 36 where Sir Nicholas Wall ‘says no more about it’ as neither the OS nor the LA raised a challenge on these grounds). I suppose the ECtHR ruling has at least made clear that people in RP’s position must have standing to apply to the court to displace their litigation friend. But there are several problems here. How is a person who may have borderline capacity, who is unlikely in the extreme to be familiar with CPR 21 or Court of Protection Rule 147, supposed to do so without being able to instruct a solicitor? These are precisely the circumstances which drive people into the arms of McKenzie friends like Hemming in the first place. Secondly, if they do wish to challenge the appointment of a litigation friend in court – is there public funding for them to do so? How are they supposed to secure and fund any expert reports they might need?

The ECtHR placed great store by the OS’s complaints mechanism. There is very little evidence that the complaints mechanism has ever been used in this way. Certainly none of the OS’s annual reports for the last four years suggests that he has withdrawn from a case on the basis of a complaint. The ECtHR also said that RP should have raised her challenge to his appointment earlier. There is very little discussion as to precisely what RP was told about the OS’s appointment at the outset. The role of a litigation friend seems baffling to most people outside the legal world. To be told that somebody has been appointed who will act in your best interests is very different to being told that somebody has been appointed who might argue a case which conflicts entirely with what you want. Surely that latter point is what must be pressed home to a person in order for them to fully understand the significance of being found to lack litigation capacity. Yet neither the CoA nor the ECtHR report that this is what RP was told.

One of the core principles of the MCA is that people should be offered support to promote their capacity in the relevant respect. If you look at the correspondence between RP and her solicitor quote in the CoA ruling, it’s very hard to see how this is geared towards supporting a young mother with learning disabilities who is extremely distressed. For somebody in RP’s position, the first stage should be to provide support for her to understand and make the requisite decisions herself. For people with learning disabilities, it may require skills which mainstream solicitors don’t have – yet there is very little provision of advocacy services or similar which could help people with litigation matters.

There is a wider question about whether it is even appropriate for a person’s ‘objective’ – as opposed to ‘subjective’ – best interests to be represented in court. There are cases where there is a danger that a person might run up excessive costs or settle for trifling amounts without the intervention of litigation friends – they often have a very valuable role in such cases. Likewise in cases where a person’s wishes and preferences cannot be discerned. But in cases like this, or cases in the Court of Protection, where the courts are already bound to give effect to the best interests of the child or the person themselves, what is the danger in pressing as hard as possible for what the person actually wants? To do otherwise distorts the case that is presented before the court so that a person’s rights to self-determination are never fully adversarially tested. What is tested instead, is other people’s views of what they should want.”

2 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged care proceedings, discrimination, ECHR, john hemming, litigation capacity, official solicitor, procedural unfairness, vulnerable adult. Bookmark the permalink.

Ultra Orthodox or Orthodox – which is best? Only one way to find out…

Posted on October 10, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

The case of Re G (Children) 2012 has attracted quite a bit of press attention, and it touches on some interesting issues; particularly on the role of the Courts in determining religious disputes and how deeply the Court will roll up its sleeves and plunge arms into those murky waters.

The case can be found here

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1233.html

The thrust of the case is fairly simple – the parents separated. The mother diverted from her previous religious beliefs, which were ‘ultra-orthodox’ Jewish specifically Chareidi and now described herself as ‘orthodox’. The father remained of the ‘ultra-orthodox’ Chareidi faith.

They could not resolve between themselves which school their children would be attending (the youngest child was 3, so for him it was an issue for the future). The father wanted the children to attend a Chareidi school, and the mother a Modern Orthodox school.

The Court was therefore faced with a Specific Issue Order application, arising within an application for a Residence order. It was very clear from the evidence that it was not a simple narrow ‘which school is better’ approach, but that the selection of the school would effectively be a determination of whether the children would have an ‘orthodox’ or ‘ultra orthodox’ way of life. It was central to the children’s lives in a way that it would not necessarily be where the religious principles were so intertwined with educational provision.

[Given that orthodox means ‘true belief’ or ‘having the right opinion’ loosely, being orthodox is good, and perhaps etymologically speaking being ‘ultra orthodox’ is either better, or a tautology]

The judgment in the Court of Appeal would be a very good start for distilling the essential principles of how the Court is to approach matters of religious difference.

It is not the place of the Court to weigh one religion against the other, not to comment or criticise religious practices (although they are entitled to look at the impact of those practices on the child), and all religions are entitled to equal respect as long as they are legally and socially acceptable. The Court would have a view on religious practices such as forced marriage or female circumcision on that basis.

Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is not the business of government or of the secular courts, though the courts will, of course, pay every respect to the individual’s or family’s religious principles. Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, after all, demands no less. The starting point of the common law is thus respect for an individual’s religious principles, coupled with an essentially neutral view of religious beliefs and a benevolent tolerance of cultural and religious diversity.

It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. The court recognises no religious distinctions and generally speaking passes no judgment on religious beliefs or on the tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society. All are entitled to equal respect, so long as they are “legally and socially acceptable” (Purchas LJ in Re R (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 FLR 163, 171) and not “immoral or socially obnoxious” (Scarman LJ in Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239, 244) or “pernicious” (Latey J in Re B and G (Minors) (Custody) [1985] FLR 134, 157, referring to scientology).

The Strasbourg jurisprudence is to the same effect. Article 9 of the European Convention provides as follows:

“1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The protection of Article 9 is qualified in two ways. In the first place, the Convention protects only religions and philosophies which are “worthy of respect in a ‘democratic society’ and are not incompatible with human dignity”: see Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom (No 2) (1982) 4 EHRR 293, [36]. I mention the point only for completeness; it plainly does not arise in this case, because the parents’ beliefs are in each case clearly worthy of respect. Secondly, whilst religious belief and thought are (subject to that overriding qualification) given absolute protection by Article 9(1), the “manifestation” of one’s religion in “worship, teaching, practice and observance” is subject to the qualifications referred to in Article 9(2).

The important point for present purposes is that the Convention forbids the State to determine the validity of religious beliefs and in that respect imposes on the State a duty of what the Strasbourg court has called neutrality and impartiality: see, for example, Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v Russia(2007) 44 EHRR 46, [58], where the court said that:

“The State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality … is incompatible with any power on the State’s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs.”

Within limits the law – our family law – will tolerate things which society as a whole may find undesirable. A child’s best interests have to be assessed by reference to general community standards, making due allowance for the entitlement of people, within the limits of what is permissible in accordance with those standards, to entertain very divergent views about the religious, moral, social and secular objectives they wish to pursue for themselves and for their children. We have moreover to have regard to the realities of the human condition, described by Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, [50]:

“… society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

Where precisely the limits are to be drawn is often a matter of controversy. There is no ‘bright-line’ test that the law can set. The infinite variety of the human condition precludes arbitrary definition.

Some things are nevertheless beyond the pale: forced marriages (always to be distinguished of course from arranged marriages to which the parties consent), female genital mutilation and so-called, if grotesquely misnamed, ‘honour-based’ domestic violence. Plainly, as I wish to emphasise, we are not here in that territory.

Some aspects of even mainstream religious belief may fall foul of public policy. A recent striking example is Westminster City Council v C and others [2008] EWCA Civ 198, [2009] Fam 11, where this court held on grounds of public policy that a ‘marriage’ valid under both Sharia law and the lex loci celebrationis, despite the manifest incapacity of one of the parties, was not entitled to recognition in English law. Again, I emphasise, we are not here in that territory.

Some manifestations of religious practice may be regulated if contrary to a child’s welfare. Although a parent’s views and wishes as to the child’s religious upbringing are of great importance, and will always be seriously regarded by the court, just as the court will always pay great attention to the wishes of a child old enough to be able to express sensible views on the subject of religion, even if not old enough to take a mature decision, they will be given effect to by the court only if and so far as and in such manner as is in accordance with the child’s best interests. In matters of religion, as in all other aspects of a child’s upbringing, the interests of the child are the paramount consideration.

There are many examples of the working out of these principles in the family courts. Sometimes, as in the cases involving blood transfusions for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the issue is literally one of life or death (using those words in the secular sense). The tenets and faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses will not prevent the court ordering a child to receive a blood transfusion, even though both the parents and the child vehemently object: see, for example, Re E (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993] 1 FLR 386.

But the clash between a parent’s religious beliefs and a loved child’s welfare may arise in many other contexts. Consider, for example, the wrenchingly sad case of Re S; Newcastle City Council v Z [2005] EWHC 1490 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 861, where the question was whether, within the meaning of section 16(2)(b) of the Adoption Act 1976, a mother was unreasonably withholding her consent to the adoption of her son on the basis of religious beliefs that were reasonable and genuinely held. I adjudged that she was. As I said [56]:

“Religious belief is no more determinative of whether a parent is acting reasonably than it is of whether something is in a child’s best interests. Whilst the court will no doubt be slow to conclude that a parent faithfully striving to follow the teachings of one of the great religions of the world is acting unreasonably, there is nothing to prevent the court coming to that conclusion in an appropriate case. Everything must depend upon the facts and the context. In this, as in so many other areas of family law, context is everything.”

Often issues of this kind arise, as in the present case, following the breakdown of the parental relationship in a situation where the parents have different religious beliefs or follow different religious observances. Examples to which we were referred are Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Muslim Upbringing and Circumcision) [1999] 2 FLR 678, affirmed Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision) [2000] 1 FLR 571, where there was a dispute between a Muslim father and a Christian mother as to the circumcision of their 5-year old son, and Re S (Specific Issue Order: Religion: Circumcision) [2004] EWHC 1282 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 236, where a similar dispute arose between a Muslim mother and a Hindu (Jain) father. We were also taken, and appropriately in some detail, to Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239, where custody was in dispute between a father who was a member of the Church of England and a mother who was a Jehovah’s Witness, and to Re R (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 FLR 163, where residence and contact were in issue because the father was a member of the Exclusive Brethren.

None of this is at all controversial but it requires to be clearly understood because it is the essential legal landscape against which the issue in the present case falls to be determined.

In the present context I can do no better than to set out what Scarman LJ (as he then was) said in Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239, 244-245, in a passage understandably much relied upon by Miss Platt. It is a long passage but it demands citation in full as a powerful and compelling statement of principle by one of the greatest and most socially sensitive judges of his generation. He was speaking in 1975, although for some reason the case was not reported until 1981, but his words remain as true today as then:

“We live in a tolerant society. There is no reason at all why the mother should not espouse the beliefs and practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is conceded that there is nothing immoral or socially obnoxious in the beliefs and practice of this sect. Indeed, I would echo the words of Stamp LJ in T v T (1974) 4 Fam Law 190 in which he said this of the Jehovah’s Witnesses – and what he said is, indeed, borne out by such evidence as we have in this case:

“Many families bring up their children as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the children are good members of the community, although perhaps a little isolated from other children in certain respects. They are different but the same thing could be said of Presbyterians, Catholics and indeed any other religious faith.”

It is as reasonable on the part of the mother that she should wish to teach her children the beliefs and practice of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as it is reasonable on the part of the father that they should not be taught those practices and beliefs.

It is not for this court, in society as at present constituted, to pass any judgment on the beliefs of the mother or on the beliefs of the father. It is sufficient for this court that it should recognize that each is entitled to his or her own beliefs and way of life, and that the two opposing ways of life considered in this case are both socially acceptable and certainly consistent with a decent and respectable life. What follows from that? It follows, in my judgment, that there is a great risk, merely because we are dealing with an unpopular minority sect, in overplaying the dangers to the welfare of these children inherent in the possibility that they may follow their mother and become Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, most of us like to play games on Saturdays, to go out to children’s parties and to have a quiet Sunday – some of us will go to church, and some of us will not. This appears to be the normal and happy, even though somewhat materialistic, way of life, accepted by the majority of people in our society. It does not follow, however, that it is wrong, or contrary to the welfare of children, that life should be in a narrower sphere, subject to a stricter religious discipline, and without the parties on birthdays and Christmas that seem so important to the rest of us. These are factors that must be considered, but I think it is essential in a case of this sort to appreciate that the mother’s teaching, once it is accepted as reasonable, is teaching that has got to be considered against the whole background of the case and not as in itself so full of danger for the children that it alone could justify making an order which otherwise the court would not make.”

How then is the court to decide in such a case? I quote again from Scarman LJ (at 248):

“… when one has, as we have here, two good parents, indeed, two unimpeachable parents, each of them following very different ways of life, which have led to the matrimonial breakdown, it does not follow that, because one parent’s way of life is more acceptable to most of us, it is contrary to the welfare of the children that they should adopt the way of life of the other parent that is acceptable only to a minority, and a tiny minority at that.”

So, in essence, both of the religious practices espoused by the parents were legal and legitimate and the Court had no basis for determining that one was in any way inferior or less proper than the other. Equally, it was not right to consider that one was more socially common than the other, and to prefer the one which seemed to our eyes more usual. Or even that one seemed more normal than the other to secular eyes.

How then, were the Court to resolve a problem between two parents, each with Parental Responsibility, and each with a valid and legitimate viewpoint and desire?

Lord Justice Munby goes on a digression here which was fascinating to a law geek like me; and explains exactly why the historical starting point in English law that it was for the father to decide what happens with his children is no longer how the Courts settle things. [And an interesting side note for those who consider that mothers have the upper hand in family courts – there’s 1925 statute law, still in force, to say otherwise. Whether that is followed, or indeed known, much I could not say]

Time was when the solution to a case such as this would have been simple. The court would have declined to become involved and deferred to parental authority, that authority being of course exclusively the father’s. According to Sir William Balliol Brett MR, the court could not interfere with “the sacred right of a father over his own children.” A father had a legal right to control and direct the education and bringing up of his children, and the court would not interfere with him in the exercise of his paternal authority, unless by his gross moral turpitude he forfeited his rights or had by his conduct abdicated his paternal authority: In re Agar-Ellis, Agar-Ellis v Lascelles (1883) 24 ChD 317. That was, to quote the words of Lord Upjohn in J v C [1970] AC 668, 721, the dreadful case where the Court of Appeal permitted a monstrously unreasonable father to impose upon his daughter of 17 much unnecessary hardship in the name of his religious faith.

The retreat from that high water mark of judicial abstention is traced in the speeches of the Law Lords in J v C and subsequently in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112. The speech of Lord Scarman in the latter case demands particular attention. For present purposes there are two centrally important developments to be noted.

The first was the eventual realisation that the child’s welfare as judicially determined is paramount. In 1924 Lord Cave LC could treat this as established principle: Ward v Laverty [1925] AC 101, 108. The principle was put on a statutory basis in section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925. It has been part of our statute law ever since, now enshrined in section 1(a) of the Children Act 1989 which provides that:

“When a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child… the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

The other equally important development was the dethroning of the father from his privileged position vis-à-vis the mother. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 marked an important step in that direction, but the 1925 Act put the matter beyond all argument. The preamble to the 1925 Act read as follows:

“Whereas Parliament by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, and various other enactments, has sought to establish equality in law between the sexes, and it is expedient that this principle should obtain with respect to the guardianship of infants and the rights and responsibilities conferred thereby:”

The second limb of section 1 was in the following terms:

“the court … shall not take into consideration whether from any other point of view the claim of the father, or any right at common law possessed by the father, … is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father.”

Ever since then, men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers have come before the family courts, as they come today, on an exactly equal footing. The voice of the father carries no more weight because he is the father, nor does the mother’s because she is the mother. The weight to be attached to their views, if opposed, is to be determined on the basis of the merits or otherwise of the views being expressed, not on the basis of the gender of the person propounding them. The second limb of section 1 of the 1925 Act finds no place in section 1 of the 1989 Act, though it still appeared in section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, no doubt because by the late 1980s Parliament thought that it went without saying. And no doubt for that reason the true significance and importance of section 1 of the 1925 Act is sometimes forgotten. But it was, and remains, fundamental.

So, it was for the Court to determine what was in the children’s best interests (given that the parents could not agree and had asked the Court to resolve it – Munby LJ was at pains to make clear that this was not the State interfering uninvited with the parents religious arrangements and preferences, but that the Court had been asked to determine the dispute and could not decline to do so). That’s quite a long route to decide that it is a welfare checklist issue, but it was necessary to take the route in this case, to clear out what was important and relevant and what perhaps only appeared to be.

The trial judge had heard evidence about the two schools and the two ways of life, and the impact on the children of following either educational course. In the end, he made the determination that the children would have better opportunities in life by attending the ‘Orthodox’ school as mother desired, rather than the ‘ultra-Orthodox’ school that father wished.

There was then an issue about whether that was too narrow a construction and whether the trial judge had placed far too much emphasis on the ‘pure’ educational component and not enough weight on the ‘entire way of life’ component.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father’s appeal and did not feel that the Judge had been plainly wrong (indeed, they indicate that they would have been likely to reach the same decision, had they heard the case in its entireity)

In the first place, he had to take into account the present reality that, following the parental separation in October 2010, the children had not been following an exclusively Chareidi way of life. When with their mother they were inevitably exposed to her significantly less strict form of observance. So already, and in significant part, what the father would have wanted for his children, was simply not possible. But the father’s case was, of course, and correctly, that one must not overstate the significance of what had happened. If the children continued within the Chareidi educational system they would have less – very much less – exposure to the non-Chareidi way of life than if they were educated in the way the mother wanted. Judge Copley, as we have seen, was acutely aware of this reality.

At this point a fundamental issue has to be grappled with. What in our society today, looking to the approach of parents generally in 2012, is the task of the ordinary reasonable parent? What is the task of a judge, acting as a ‘judicial reasonable parent’ and approaching things by reference to the views of reasonable parents on the proper treatment and methods of bringing up children? What are their aims and objectives? These are questions which, in the forensic forum, do not often need to be asked or answered. But in a case such as this they are perhaps unavoidable.

In the conditions of current society there are, as it seems to me, three answers to this question. First, we must recognise that equality of opportunity is a fundamental value of our society: equality as between different communities, social groupings and creeds, and equality as between men and women, boys and girls. Second, we foster, encourage and facilitate aspiration: both aspiration as a virtue in itself and, to the extent that it is practical and reasonable, the child’s own aspirations. Far too many lives in our community are blighted, even today, by lack of aspiration. Third, our objective must be to bring the child to adulthood in such a way that the child is best equipped both to decide what kind of life they want to lead – what kind of person they want to be – and to give effect so far as practicable to their aspirations. Put shortly, our objective must be to maximise the child’s opportunities in every sphere of life as they enter adulthood. And the corollary of this, where the decision has been devolved to a ‘judicial parent’, is that the judge must be cautious about approving a regime which may have the effect of foreclosing or unduly limiting the child’s ability to make such decisions in future.

The point arises in its most obvious and extreme form where the issue before the court is whether to require a teenager to submit against their wishes to life-saving medical treatment. There, as Nolan LJ once observed (In Re W. (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction) [1993] Fam 64, 94), the duty of the court is to ensure so far as it can that children survive to attain the age of 18 at which an individual is free to do with his life what he wishes. A poignant example is provided by the aftermath of Re E (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993] 1 FLR 386, where Ward J (as he then was) had required a 15¾ year old Jehovah’s Witness to have a blood transfusion despite his, and his parents’, vehemently expressed religious objections. A few years later, not long after he had attained his majority, E’s leukaemia returned. He refused a blood transfusion, going bravely to his death steadfast in his religious faith.

But the point arises equally, if in less extreme form, in the kind of case with which we are here concerned. So, in my judgment, Judge Copley was entitled to proceed as he did, just as he was entitled to accept Miss Adams’ analysis. To repeat:

“Whilst it is evident that either decision regarding schooling will result in losses, I have viewed this dilemma as one where I have tried to assess in which situation the children will have the most choices about relationship with both parents in the future, and the most choice about how they wish to live in the future.”

Applying that approach to the particular facts of the present case, and bearing in mind his acceptance of Mrs Adams’ analysis, it seems to me that there were four key strands in Judge Copley’s reasoning.

The first focused on educational opportunity. Here the evidence was clear and the choice stark. Whatever may be the practice in relation to education down to the point when children takes GCSEs, it is clear that, even for boys, the educational options narrow drastically thereafter in the Chareidi system and that tertiary education as generally understood hardly features at all. Career opportunities for boys in professions such as medicine and the law are very limited indeed, for girls virtually non-existent. The contrast with the wider community could hardly be greater. It is hard to imagine how either law or medicine could operate today without the women who at every level and in such large numbers enjoy careers which they find fulfilling and from which society as a whole derives so much benefit. Take the law: when I was called to the Bar in 1971 there were 2,714 barristers in practice at the independent bar of whom only 167 (some 6%) were women; by 2011 there were 12,673 of whom 4,106 (some 32%) were women. That is a measure of just how far society has moved in the last 40 years. And that, in my judgment, is the kind of societal reality to which a family judge must have regard in a case such as this. It is, after all, the reality which is daily on display in our family courts. The present case, as it happens, is typical of many: all three counsel who appeared before us were women, so too were the two solicitors, and so too was the CAFCASS officer. Judge Copley, in my judgment, was plainly entitled to conclude, as he did, that:

“the schools to which she wishes to send them will provide infinitely superior opportunities for these children to gain a much fuller and wider education, not only at secondary level but also at tertiary level should they choose that – the father’s own evidence and that of his witnesses bears this out – and thereafter they will have much greater job opportunities”,

just as he was entitled to accept Mrs Adams’ view that it was:

“more likely that the children will achieve greater economic success if they are given aspirations in relation to careers that exist outside the Jewish community.”

The second strand in Judge Copley’s reasoning was his acceptance of Mrs Adams’ analysis of the emotional impacts on the children:

“If the children were to go to the schools of [father’s] choosing, I think there is a high risk that their relationship with their mother would become problematic … Conversely, if the children go to a school of [mother’s] choosing, there will be considerable losses also … I also think that there is some merit in the observation that a more accepting community composed of children from a variety of backgrounds will make it easier for the children to adjust to being children of a separated family … I think it will be easier for them to make the transition at a younger age, when children are often more adaptable in terms of peer groups.”

In relation to this Mrs Adams made a particularly powerful point:

“It would cause emotional confusion for them to depend upon their mother for love and care, yet have her choices presented as undesirable, and maybe feel that they should not listen to her.”

In my judgment, Judge Copley was plainly entitled to proceed on this basis.

The third strand in Judge Copley’s reasoning was his acceptance of a very important point made by Mrs Adams:

“I am concerned that the children would have difficulty making a decision to embrace their mother’s lifestyle when they are older as they would be fearful of leaving behind everything they had grown up with … On the other hand, within the sort of community their mother proposes, they would be able to return to their religious roots when older.”

Again, in my judgment, Judge Copley was plainly entitled to proceed on this basis.

The fourth and final strand in Judge Copley’s reasoning was his view, shared with Mrs Adams, that on balance the children’s interests were best served by what the mother was proposing. He was, in my judgment, plainly entitled to come to that conclusion.

It follows that the father’s appeal must in my judgment be dismissed. This court can interfere only if it can be shown that Judge Copley was plainly wrong. He was not. I would, however, go further. Far from being plainly wrong Judge Copley was, as it seems to me, in all probability right in the decision to which he came. I suspect that, had I been in his position, having heard all the evidence he heard, I would have come to precisely the same conclusion.

1 Comment

Posted in case law, private law and tagged choice of school, education, orthodox, Re G (Children) 2012, religious preference, resolving religious dispute, ultra orthodox. Bookmark the permalink.

The Great Starvation Experiment

Posted on October 5, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

(not law, but it is something that I found to be interesting, and wanted to share)

In 1944, towards the latter part of the Second World War, Nazi scientists wanted to know what the physical and psychological impact of starvation on human beings was. They devised an experiment in which conscientious objectors who did not want to fight in the war were given a diet in which their calories were cut to a level of 1800 kCalories per day, consisting of potatoes, turnips, dark bread and macaroni. This starvation diet lasted for 24 weeks. The idea was that the subjects would lose, over that period, one quarter of their body weight. These conscientious objectors were also made to exert themselves, so that they were burning 3000 KCalories per day, walking 22 miles per week.

The effects of this were dramatic – one of the subjects cut off three of his fingers with an axe – it is not certain whether that was deliberate, or an accident brought about by the effects of hunger. Another began having violent dreams of cannibalism and suffered a full nervous breakdown.

Right now, you are thinking how awful it was for the Nazi’s to do this.

Only that’s not what happened. That’s not what happened at all.

The experiment was exactly as I have described, except that the scientists were from Minnesota, America, and the conscientious objectors had volunteered.

There’s an excellent article about it here http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full.pdf+html

The experiment came about not from any desire to inflict horrors on people to see what would happen out of sick curiousity, but because the US Government was aware that as Europe was being liberated, that there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, who had been under-nourished, and who would struggle to get food. What would be the impact on them, what was the best way of restoring them to health, what would be the long-standing consequences for them?

Nobody knew the answers to any of these questions, which were going to become massively important in the real world. Ancel Keys therefore devised an experiment in which volunteers would undergo a period of starvation, and then a variety of methods be used to assess the impact on them and a variety of approaches aimed to nurse them back to health to see which worked well and which didn’t.

One of the greatest killers of World War II wasn’t bullets or bombs, it was hunger. During just one battle, the Siege of Leningrad, a thousand people a day died of hunger. So finding out how starvation could be remedied, what you would need to do to save the victims of it was desperately important.

Obviously, you can’t do a starvation experiment, even on volunteers, on children or people who are already ill, so they needed healthy fit men to undergo it. But during a war, almost all healthy fit men were already in the Army, so the supply was short.

Conscientious objectors, who were fit and healthy but were not willing to take up arms and kill other human beings, were undertaking a variety of public services. Many of them wanted to do their part, short of taking a life, to help the war effort (there’s an obvious difference between not wanting to shoot Germans and being opposed to the war against Nazi Germany, and many conscientious objectors wanted to help the war effort, just not by shooting guns).

Some were therefore recruited. 4000 volunteered, and 36 were chosen. It was made very plain to them that the process was going to be horrible, that the scientists had no idea what impact the process would have on them, and that nobody knew if there might be long lasting adverse consequences.

They explained what was going to happen. There was nothing held back. They explained that they could not assure me that there would be no permanent damage . . . They did not know what would happen. This is what they were trying to find out . . . really they emphasized the discomfort . . . this was not going to be an easy task down the road

I think it is already pretty brave to stand by your principles and refuse to join the army in a time of war (especially if you can see that the war is about freedom and oppression rather than land and wealth and self-aggrandisement as is traditionally the case), but these volunteers went beyond even that.

Here’s a quote from the study where those volunteers who were still alive talked about their experiences sixty years later.

Participants were supposed to lose _2.5 lb (1.1 kg)/wk to reach the desired 25% weight reduction by the end of the semi-starvation period.

The amount of food each man received at mealtimes depended on how well he was progressing toward his weekly goal. Usually reductions and additions were made in the form of slices of bread. Daniel Peacock remembered that emotions could run quite high in the cafeteria when one man received even just a little bit more food: “We were given our food along a cafeteria line and if the guy ahead of you is given five slices of bread, that’s pretty hard to conceal. And if you’re only getting three, that’s pretty touchy.”

He also spoke of the anxiety that accompanied the Friday night posting of the upcoming week’s rations: “. . . every Friday late in the day . . . they would post a list of all our names and what our rations would be for the following week . . . [the] calories . . . either minus or plus . . . Some of us . . . we’d go off to a movie. In other words, we delayed seeing that list; we dreaded seeing that list for fear that it was certainly going to reduce our rations . . . It’s pretty darn certain that it’s going to be bad news because we’re supposed to be descending.

Food became an obsession for the participants. Robert Willoughby remembered the often complex processes the men developed for eating the little food that was provided: “. . . eating became a ritual . . . Some people diluted their food with water to make it seem like more. Others would put each little bite and hold it in their mouth a long time to savor it. So eating took a long time.” Carlyle Frederick was one of several men who collected cookbooks and recipes; he reported owning nearly 100 by the time the experiment was over.

Harold Blickenstaff recalled the frustration of constantly thinking about food:

“I don’t know many other things in my life that I looked forward to being over with any more than this experiment. And it wasn’t so much . . . because of the physical discomfort, but because it made food the most important thing in one’s life- . . . food became the one central and only thing really in one’s life. And life is pretty dull if that’s the only thing. I mean, if you went to a movie, you weren’t particularly interested in the love scenes, but you noticed every time they ate and what they ate.”

Whatever one thinks of the ethics of the experiment, and I have to say that I lurch quite a bit from it being an inspirational testament to human spirit that healthy people would undergo such deprivations purely in order to inform scientists to be better able to help the starving masses, and it being something I find quite ethically uncomfortable, the experiment did produce meaningful results.

Ancel Keys found that when treating people who had been the victims of starvation, putting them on a normal calorific intake (say 2,000 kCalories per day) would do no good at all, and that they really needed 4000 kCalories per day for several months, and that the nutritious quality of the food – mineral and vitamins etc, made relatively little difference unless there was that sheer volume of calories accompanying it. This was dramatically different to what had been predicted, which was that nutritious food and at a normal level would be what would be needed. [It is obviously massively important, since the immediate consequence is that on liberating any city, you would need twice as much food as you thought you were going to need, in order to restore the starving citizens to health]

A great deal was also learned about the psychological impact – most of the subjects suffered periods of extreme emotional distress and depression during the experiment.

There are some interesting results which have pertinence for anorexia and bulimia, for example that many of the psychological effects associated with those conditions are actually a result of the lack of calorific intake rather than the condition per se, and that work on addressing those problems can only really stick if the calories are consumed. Many of the men, although they were painfully thin, with their bones protruding, thought that they were not thin, but that others around them were sickeningly fat. They began to view their own physiques as normal, rather than thin.

Many of the subjects found the recovery portion of the experiment, where the calories were built back up to be even harder than the starvation period – many continued to lose weight and that psychologically there was no release from the constant feelings of hunger.

Some of the men were kept on after the recovery period, and were allowed to consume what they wanted. Some consumed up to 11,500 kCalories in a single day, reporting that nothing could satisfy their hunger.

At times, the men seemed almost apologetic about the relative medical safety, wanting to make clear that they distinguished their hunger from that of those starving in unmonitored environments. Samuel Legg’s concluding comment related to this issue: “The difference between us and the people we were trying to serve: they probably had less food than we did. We were starving under the best possible medical conditions. And most of all, we knew the exact day on which our torture was going to end. None of that was true of people in Belgium, the Netherlands, or whatever.”

I found that incredibly moving and courageous, frankly.

Many of the subjects went on to continue in public service, devoting their lives to helping others and all of them report that they consider the Great Starvation Experiment to be the most important and meaningful things they ever did in their lives.

Comments Off on The Great Starvation Experiment

Posted in stuff that isn't law at all and tagged ancel keys, great starvation experiment, medical ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

Practice directions make perfect?

Posted on October 5, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

Gosh, this is an insanely bloggy week. Some consultation documents for new family law practice directions have flitted across my inbox today. I read them, so you don’t have to…

There are three big ones

One on experts pre-proceedings, which is obviously going to become more and more pertinent as the Government move the goalposts to artificially reduce the timescales for Court proceedings , sorry ‘shift the assessment process to pre-proceedings’. It seems to me eminently sensible – there should be a proper LOI, documents shown to the expert should be particularised, and the expert should be told that they are to treat themselves and the assessment in exactly the same way as if it were being done within proceedings.

One on the Official Solicitor, which is jawdropping.

1.1 The court will investigate as soon as possible any issue as to whether an adult party or intended party to family proceedings lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to conduct the proceedings. An adult who lacks capacity to act as a party to the proceedings is a protected party and must have a litigation friend to conduct the proceedings on their behalf. The expectation of the Official Solicitor is that the Official Solicitor will only be invited to act for the protected party as litigation friend if there is no other person suitable or willing to act.

1.2 Any issue as to the capacity of an adult to conduct the proceedings must be determined before the court gives any directions relevant to that adult’s role in the proceedings.

We all know that this has been the direction of travel for the Official Solicitor for some time – they simply can’t cope with the volume of cases that have come their way. But this is a recognition in a Practice Direction that for most cases, a person lacking capacity will have to instruct solicitors through a friend or member of their family.

No prospect for difficulties there. There’s never anything massively sensitive within care proceedings about an adult that might not be appropriate to share with their family member. There’s never any conflict between family members and any shifting allegiances or falling out. And there’s never any conflict of interest between say a mother who wants to fight for her child, and the grandmother who is now instructing the mother’s representatives but who actually wants the child to live with her (grandmother) rather than the mother.

I can see that in some quarters, John Hemming MP for one, it might be thought desirable to take the Official Solicitor out of the picture, and have the family help the parent to give instructions to a solicitor, rather than have some remote figure of the State make those decisions. I have some sympathy with that, and think that it is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate and if it is after scrutiny found to be BETTER to have the family do it than the State, then make the change.

But what’s happening here is a dramatic shift in public policy from “where a person is incapable of instructing a solicitor, someone independent should represent their best interests” to “anyone suitable in the family can instruct a solicitor on the parents behalf”, not as a result of debate, or research, or analysis, but because the current workload is too much.

Just as we massively scaled down the role of Guardians because CAFCASS was overstretched (and look what that did – ushered in an era of getting three or four experts on every case, delaying and obfuscating and costing the country), we’re making the same error here. Instead of properly resourcing the Official Solicitor, we’re just abandoning the principle.

I am mystified as to what a parent’s representative is supposed to do, faced with a capacity certificate saying the parent can’t give instructions, and two competing people who want to be the litigation friend. The solicitor can’t chose, the client can’t chose. How do you resolve that? What if the papers you’ve seen show that the person being put forward as the litigation friend failed to protect the client as a child and is largely responsible for the mess the client now finds themselves in as an adult?

The third one is on the instruction of experts within proceedings. Everyone follows the current practice direction on experts slavishly, as we know, so a fresh one is bound to fix any problems.

Here’s the gist of it – try to go for single jointly agreed experts rather than going off to get one each, as if we were in 1980s civil litigation.

Well, we already do. Ah, but now they have an acronym SJE (Single Joint Expert) so that is going to make all the difference.

The Practice Direction does clarify that telling a prospective expert something at all about the case so that they can (a) tell you whether it is the sort of thing they can do (b) when they can do it by and (c) how much they would like to be paid for it, knowing full well that the estimate they give is subject to the whim of the LSC, is definitely not a contempt of Court.

[That is of course, helpful – but given that the Practice Direction is not in force yet, raises the unfortunate spectre that if it is necessary to have a change in law to make sure that doing that WON’T be a contempt of court in the future, that it sort of is now?]

And then what will be necessary in the application for an expert – underlining is mine.

an application or the court’s permission to call an expert or put in evidence an expert’s report, for an expert to be instructed or for the child to be medically or psychiatrically examined or otherwise assessed for the purpose of obtaining expert evidence for use in the proceedings must state-—

(a) the discipline, qualifications and expertise of the expert (by way of C.V. where possible);

(b) the expert’s availability to undertake the work;

(c) the timetable for the report;

(d) the responsibility for instruction;

(e) whether the expert evidence can properly be obtained by only one party (for example, on behalf of the child);

(f) why the expert evidence proposed cannot properlybe given by an officer of the service, Welsh family proceedings officer or the local authority (social services undertaking a core assessment) in accordance with their respective statutory duties or any other party to the proceedings or an expert already instructed in the proceedings;

(g) the likely cost of the report on an hourly or other charging basis;

(h) the proposed apportionment (at least in the first instance) of any jointly instructed expert’s fee; when it is to be paid; and, if applicable, whether public funding has been approved.

And then what is to go into the order – note that it is going to be necessary to append the questions so that the Court can determine that they are kept to a manageable number and are clear and focussed. That’s good news for solicitors, since it means an end to the interminable tedium of back and forth emailing about questions and the questions being settled by counsel at Court.

I think that this is a GOOD thing. It will mean that CMC’s will take substantially more court time than previously, as the questions will have to be drafted before an order can be lodged.

The terms of the draft order to be attached to the application for the court’s permission

3.8 FPR 25.7 provides that a draft of the order giving the court’s permission mentioned in FPR 25.4 is to be attached to the application for the court’s permission. That draft order must set out the following matters—

a) the issues in the proceedings to which the expert evidence is to relate and which the court is to identify;

b) the questions relating to the issues in the case which the expert is to answer and which the court is to approve ensuring that they

(i) are within the ambit of the expert’s area of expertise;

(ii) do not contain unnecessary or irrelevant detail;

(iii) are kept to a manageable number and are clear, focused and direct;

c) the party who is responsible for drafting the letter of instruction and providing the documents to the expert;

d) the timetable within which the report is to be prepared, filed and served;

e) the disclosure of the report to the parties and to any other expert;

f) the organisation of, preparation for and conduct of any experts’ discussion (see Practice Direction 25E – Discussions between Experts in Family Proceedings);

g) the preparation of a statement of agreement and disagreement by the experts following an experts’ discussion;

h) making available to the court at an early opportunity the expert reports in electronic form;

i) the attendance of the expert at court to give oral evidence (alternatively, the expert giving his or her evidence in writing or remotely by video link), whether at or for the Final Hearing or another hearing; unless agreement about the opinions given by the expert is reached at or before the Issues Resolution Hearing (“IRH”) or, if no IRH is to be held, by a date specified by the court prior to the hearing at which the expert is to give oral evidence.

I think the two on experts are fine, and the one on the representation of vulnerable adults who lack capacity is awful.

It looks as though the plan is for these Practice Directions to come in some time before the end of this year. Sadly, the consultation process is over before I ever saw the documents, such is life. I doubt my snarky mutterings would have made any difference anyway.

And in the words of Meat Loaf – two out of three ain’t bad.

1 Comment

Posted in consultation, costs, experts, family justice modernisation and tagged adult without capacity, expert pre-proceeding, instruction of experts, letter of instruction, litigation friend, official solicitor, practice direction. Bookmark the permalink.

White papering over the cracks?

Posted on October 4, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

A very brief look at the draft Care and Support Bill.

There’s a consultation going on (isn’t there always?) this time on Safeguarding for adults, and whether some new powers should be introduced.

Firstly, it recommends removing s47 of the 1948 National Assistance Act, which was the power to remove someone from their home. They say, and I tend to agree, that “Enacted in a very different era, its language and intentions are not compatible with our current approach to community-based support that promotes and protects people’s human rights “

I completely agree that it is a dangling remnant of a bygone era when doctors always knew best, and I’m not sure it is deeply compatible with Human Rights and probably should be scrubbed from the statute books.

Having said that, I’m not sure that s47 is an active problem – I can recall having only even looked at it as a possibility (and then discounting it) in one case. I’ve never heard of anyone ever applying for such an order. [It is interesting, for example, that on the bible on community care law – Luke Clements and Pauline Thompson’s “Community Care and the Law”, the section on s47 removal powers is just under a page long and cites no case law about it at all. ]

In case you want to know, here is verse, and also chapter

47 Removal to suitable premises of persons in need of care and attention. E+W

(1)The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of securing the necessary care and attention for persons who—

(a)are suffering from grave chronic disease or, being aged, infirm or physically incapacitated, are living in insanitary conditions, and

(b)are unable to devote to themselves, and are not receiving from other persons, proper care and attention.

(2)If the medical officer of health certifies in writing to the appropriate authority that he is satisfied after thorough inquiry and consideration that in the interests of any such person as aforesaid residing in the area of the authority, or for preventing injury to the health of, or serious nuisance to, other persons, it is necessary to remove any such person as aforesaid from the premises in which he is residing, the appropriate authority may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated for an order the next following subsection.

(3)On any such application the court may, if satisfied on oral evidence of the allegations in the certificate, and that it is expedient so to do, order the removal of the person to whom the application relates, by such officer of the appropriate authority as may be specified in the order, to a suitable hospital or other place in, or within convenient distance of, the area of the appropriate authority, and his detention 5and maintenance therein:

Provided that the court shall not order the removal of a person to any premises, unless either the person managing the premises has been heard in the proceedings or seven clear days’ notice has been given to him of the intended application and of the time and place at which it is proposed to be made.

(4)An order under the last foregoing subsection may be made so as to authorise a person’s detention for any period not exceeding three months, and the court may from time to time by order extend that period for such further period, not exceeding three months, as the court may determine.

So, I would agree that s47 be terminated with extreme prejudice, but it isn’t going to transform the world we live in.

The other big proposal is that there should be statutory principles about adult social care and safeguarding (along the lines of the principles enshrined in the Children Act) , and to put it right at the beginning – s1 the general duty of a local authority in exercising any powers under this Act with regard to an adult is to promote that adult’s well-being.

Again, I see no problem with that.

Then to give clear legal principles as to entitlement to support, including entitlement for carers and the right to insist on this being made by direct payments. I remain sceptical that direct payments, or personalisation, is quite the magic wand that the Government believe it to be. I can see the concept that an individual should have the resources given to them to decide how they want to spend it on meeting their needs rather than having a paternalistic state decide, but I think in practice, it massively overlooks that adult social care tends to be given to the very most vulnerable members of society who may not be in quite the same position as a Local Authority bulk purchaser of services to achieve such good value for money. Nonetheless, direct payments and personalisation are the miracle cure, and thus we’re going to have them enshrined in legislation until such time as Government decides that passing the buck to vulnerable people to meet their own needs with a small amount of cash doesn’t really work.

This is a particularly interesting bit – clauses 31-33 – a person receiving a package of support will be entitled to the same package of support if they move to another area [at least until fresh assessments are done]. That is good for the person, certainly.

Very bad for the receiving local authority if the first LA realise that the person is planning a move and decides to offer them a ‘moon on a stick’ package of support which is Rolls Royce, knowing that they will only have to provide it for a week before the new LA gets lumbered with it for much longer.

It may well be a chance for festering scores to be settled between LA’s – it’s practically a statutory “griefing” mechanism. [But maybe I am being too cynical, and neighbouring authorities will work together to achieve good outcomes for vulnerable adults moving between their authorities, just as they always endeavour to do now]

I do very much like the provision that where a person is placed in area B by Local Authority A, it will be Local Authority A who remain responsible for that person, and that will hopefully resolve a lot of inter-authority bickering.

There will be for the first time in statute, provisions about adult safeguarding, setting out the duty to carry out enquiries into suspected abuse, and there is discussion about whether the State should be able to apply for a warrant to gain access to a vulnerable person if it is believed they are being abused in order to investigate.

The consultation on that runs until 12^th October, so if you have firm views about whether or not the State should have the ability to seek a warrant to enter the home of someone believed to be a vulnerable adult being abused, and the circumstances that would trigger such a warrant being granted, speak up quickly.

There are also interesting ‘smoothing’ provisions aimed at meeting the gap where a young person receives support and assistance from the LA under Children Act legislation until they reach 18, then get nothing at all whilst they wait for a community care assessment of their adult needs. The new proposals will ensure that the package of support they are getting as a child continue up until the community care assessment is done and a fresh package of support put in place. I have to commend that, as being a gap that needed to be filled and a good proposal for filling it.

All in all, I think this is a decent piece of draft legislation, and doesn’t contain anything that I consider to be outrageous or ill-conceived (my personal anxieties about personalisation aside, that’s a direction we’ve been travelling in for a long while now)

Comments Off on White papering over the cracks?

Posted in adult social care, consultation and tagged adult social care, national assistance act, personalisation, protection of adults, safeguarding, vulnerable adults. Bookmark the permalink.

Passing the prior authority parcel

Posted on October 4, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

I’ve talked before about the new decision of the LSC to not grant prior authority for cases any more, and why that is actually worse that the already awful situation we had pre October (as they won’t now tell anyone what they consider to be a reasonable amount of hours for the assessment, and there’s no mechanism for finding that out before the costs are refused, we are all in the dark)

I’ve been sent this proposal via ALC – Association of Lawyers for Children (and will print it in full – I commend them for trying to tackle the problem, but there’s no way in hell anyone representing my Local Authority will be instructed to agree to an order in those terms. I don’t blame the ALC for advising their members that they can’t put themselves on the financial hook for the shortfall in fees, and I understand that they don’t want the proceedings delayed whilst we work out what the hell to do with the expert, but there’s no way that I am agreeing for my authority to be on that financial hook because the LSC have difficulties in arranging a beverage-consuming party in a beverage-manufacturing facility)

Anyway, without further ado – here’s the ALC’s letter and proposal. Perhaps the LA in your area are more flush, or kinder than I am. (The former certainly not, the latter, possibly)

As members will be aware from the LSC’s announcement on its website headed “Prior authorities for civil experts – revision to processing”, posted 30th August 2012, the LSC are no longer willing to concern themselves, in considering the grant of prior authority, with the number of hours work to be carried out by an expert, unless the number of hours requested is “unusually large”. Since the MoJ/LSC decline, pending completion of research they are presently engaged upon, to formulate what constitutes a usual number of hours, it is probable that, in practice, they will decline to deal with most, if not all requests regarding approval for number of hours. These will be at risk, in effect, and the standard letter clause approved by the ALC and other representative bodies indeed covers that.

Almost all prior authority requests are accordingly only to be made now in respect of hourly rates (where necessary, having regard to relevant SI schedule and criteria).

Further discussions are being held between representative bodies and the LSC on 8th October 2012, in an attempt to speed up the process of obtaining clarity as to what are considered to be appropriate numbers of hours, and filling in the blanks as to hourly rates for various expertises. However, the MoJ has already indicated that it prefers to deal with amendments by way of statutory instrument, rather than guidance, and it may well be the spring of 2013 before we have any clearer picture.

We continue to hear of cases in which the LSC take an inordinate amount of time to process applications for prior authority for experts to be instructed at a rate higher than the standard rate, so that the prior authority is not available for a hearing at which it is intended to obtain authority to instruct, or decline altogether to grant such authority, despite solicitors having used the guidance and recited the terms set out by the President at paragraph 54 of his judgment in A Local Authority v DS,DI,DS, 31st May 2012, [2012]EWHC 1442 (Fam).

In such circumstances it is important for practitioners to bear in mind that their firms are at risk in respect of any excess fees.

It is clearly unsafe to agree to instruct, or be a party to instruction of an expert at an hourly rate which exceeds the standard rate for the expert, unless and until prior authority is in place for that hourly rate, and you have seen a copy. If you proceed nevertheless, you risk making your firm liable for the relevant proportion of the shortfall between the hourly rate you are agreeing to, and the standard rate, multiplied by the relevant proportion of the hours worked by the expert. This could be quite a lot of money – e.g. agreeing in advance to a half share of a psychological report involving 25 hours work and an excess fee of £33 per hour [150 instead of 117 e.g.] could cost your firm over £400.

It seems that at present we can expect little assistance from the judiciary in rectifying matters after the event. The standard position of any hard pressed local authority will be that they are unwilling to pick up the difference and will resist an order being made on the basis that “all this ought to have been sorted out before by the respondent’s solicitors”.

The only safe way, we think, for members to protect their firms is to decline to proceed with the instruction of an expert until prior authority has either been granted, or refused by the LSC.

Of course this means delay. It is almost certainly going to be inimical to the interests of the child and also of any parent/relative for whom we act.

However, we cannot help it if the government on the one hand wants everyone to cooperate in speeding up proceedings, but on the other will not permit the LSC to operate a system which assists in that process. Judges need to understand the problem, and to realise that, until the issue is sorted out by the MoJ/LSC, they really have no choice but to adjourn the issue of instruction of that expert until the prior authority is through. The case of A Local Authority v DS,DI,DS cannot be relied upon to protect the solicitors for publicly funded parties. Further, if prior authority is refused, courts will then have to deal with how the shortfall is to be met, provisionally at least. It will help if you draw to the court’s attention that the court’s own case management information system, in place now for some 6 months or so, known as CMS, specifically includes, as a reason which can be entered on the system to explain the need for an adjournment, “Prior authority from LSC not available” – this is in the section of the CMS record headed “Case Management”.

You may want to use/adapt the following template (drafted earlier this week) for cases where prior authority has been refused, but the instruction of the expert must, in the parties’ interest nevertheless go ahead if at all possible, and so must be underwritten by the local authority – it includes the possibility that, at the conclusion of the case, the LSC will in fact pay the fee either at the requested hourly rate or at an intermediate rate:

[by way of recital] “The court being advised that the Legal Services Commission has declined to give prior authority for the instruction of [] at the hourly rate referred to, and approved by the court in the order of [] dated [] at paragraph []

[by way of order] “In respect of the fees of [] for preparation of reports in these proceedings, attendance at any experts’ meeting and attendance at court to give oral evidence the local authority shall, in respect of the []shares directed to be paid by the Respondents under their public funding certificates, pay to each of the Respondent’s solicitors a sum equivalent to the number of hours work attributable to their []share multiplied by £[], [“the local authority’s excess contribution”]. These payments shall fall due upon delivery of the relevant fee notes, so as to enable the Respondents’ solicitors to make payments on account to the expert. In the event that the Legal Services Commission assesses the experts fees, following conclusion of the case, at the hourly rates approved by the court in its order of [], or at a rate higher than the hourly rates set out in the Community Legal Service (Funding)(Amendment No 2) Order 2011, then the Respondents’ solicitors shall forthwith repay to the local authority’s solicitors the local authority’s excess contribution or the appropriate rateable proportion.”

We consider the present position to be deeply unsatisfactory, but pending clarification through judicial review or otherwise, we need to draw members’ attention to the need to stand firm on this issue – most practitioners’ margins have been squeezed quite enough this year without the need to expose themselves to these risks.

Alan Bean and Martha Cover
Co-Chairs

Comments Off on Passing the prior authority parcel

Posted in costs, experts, Uncategorized and tagged costs, disbursements, experts, hourly rate, number of hours, prior authority. Bookmark the permalink.

and said ‘oh oh, smother me mother’

Posted on October 3, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

Tasteless title, for which I apologise, but it is a Smiths song. (the passing of time, and all of its sickening crimes, is making me sad again)

A consideration of AA (A Child) 2012 EWHC 2647 (Fam) – especially for John Bolch, as I am now taking requests (other than of the ‘why don’t you just eff off’ variety)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2012/2647.html

Firstly, either Justice Baker has had the most difficult caseload of all time, or (more likely) he’s had a pile of published judgments in his in-tray waiting to be signed off for a while and has done about six in a week, because this is him again.

Secondly, its another in the developing body of High Court caselaw where Judges who might have been accepting of medical evidence (particularly if it stood up to cross-examination) are now setting it in a broader judicial context of the totality of the evidence to be assessed, and recognition that today’s medical dogma might well be tomorrow’s “well, we USED to think” – I have been told today of a very interesting judgment forthcoming on this topic where the conclusion is that an earlier fact finding on very serious injuries resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

But anyway, onto RE AA.

Here is the opening background, and one can tell immediately that the mother is going to be under pressure in the finding of fact hearing

This is a tragic and extremely difficult case. On 6^th January 2011, a little boy, whom I shall refer to as J, died while in the sole care of his mother. Twelve weeks later, on 1^st April 2011, his older brother, whom I shall refer to as B, then aged four, was found in a state of acute collapse, also whilst in the sole care of his mother, and died three days later in hospital.

Police began an extensive investigation, which is still ongoing, into the causes of those deaths. The local authority started care proceedings in respect of the surviving younger sister of the boys, whom I shall refer to as A, now aged two. The local authority contends that the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act for the making of care orders is crossed in this case and seeks findings, first, that the mother neglected her children and, secondly and more seriously, that she was responsible for the deaths of the two boys by asphyxiation. The proceedings were transferred to the High Court and listed before me for a fact-finding hearing held in Portsmouth. This judgment is delivered at the conclusion of that hearing.

Regardless of how things play out, it is plain to see that professionals are going to have high levels of anxiety about this case. Particularly given the existence of a third child.

And here’s a warning that idle remarks, made without any malice, can take on horrible significance when looked at through the cold microscope of forensic analysis

On another occasion in November, the mother became drunk when caring for the children, who were taken round to DA’s house. There is evidence that on occasions the mother expressed frustration about the demands for caring for the children. She was a regular user of text-messaging and the internet MSN message service and, when chatting to friends by these means, she would on occasions grumble about the children. One example, on the evening prior to J’s death, contains the statement that she could have “fucking killed” B, because he had made J cry and been disobedient, and added an additional remark: “I wish I didn’t have fucking kids.”

The case sets out the detailed medical history, which I won’t go into – I couldn’t summarise it better than the Judge has already done, and if you want to read it, I would go to the source.

The Judge sets out the legal position on reliance on medical experts, with the Cannings case unsurprisingly looming large in that regard.

The approach to expert evidence

It is particularly important to bear in mind the point just made above where, as is invariably the case in cases of suspected physical abuse, the evidence adduced includes the opinion of the medical experts. As Ryder J observed in A County Council v A Mother and others [2005] EWHC Fam. 31,

“A factual decision must be based on all available materials, i.e. be judged in context and not just upon medical or scientific materials, no matter how cogent they may in isolation seem to be.”

Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of the medical experts, their opinions need to be considered in the context of all the circumstances. In A County Council v K D & L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam) at paragraphs 39 and 44, Charles J observed,

“It is important to remember (1) that the roles of the court and the expert are distinct and (2) it is the court that is in the position to weigh up the expert evidence against its findings on the other evidence. The judge must always remember that he or she is the person who makes the final decision.”

Later in the same judgment, Charles J added at paragraph 49,

“In a case where the medical evidence is to the effect that the likely cause is non-accidental and thus human agency, a court can reach a finding on the totality of the evidence either (a) that on the balance of probability an injury has a natural cause, or is not a non-accidental injury, or (b) that a local authority has not established the existence of the threshold to the civil standard of proof … The other side of the coin is that in a case where the medical evidence is that there is nothing diagnostic of a non-accidental injury or human agency and the clinical observations of the child, although consistent with non-accidental injury or human agency, are the type asserted is more usually associated with accidental injury or infection, a court can reach a finding on the totality of the evidence that, on the balance of probability there has been a non-accidental injury or human agency as asserted and the threshold is established.”

In assessing the expert evidence, I bear in mind that cases involving an allegation of smothering involve a multi-disciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise to bear on the problem. The court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers where appropriate to the expertise of others (see the observations of Mrs Justice Eleanor King in Re S [2009] EWHC 2115 (Fam).

On behalf of the mother, Miss Judd and Miss Pine-Coffin invite me to bear in mind the decision of the Court of Appeal in the criminal case of R v Cannings [2004] EWCA 1 Crim. In that case a mother had been convicted of the murder of her two children who had simply stopped breathing. The mother’s two other children had experienced apparent life-threatening events taking a similar form. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division quashed the convictions. There was no evidence other than repeated incidents of breathing having ceased. There was serious disagreement between experts as to the cause of death. There was fresh evidence as to hereditary factors pointing to a possible genetic cause. In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal held that it could not be said that a natural cause could be excluded as a reasonable possible explanation.

The impact of the Cannings decision on care proceedings was considered by the Court of Appeal in Re U, Re B, supra. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P identified the following considerations arising from the Cannings decision as being of direct application in care proceedings:

“(1) The cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal.

(2) Recurrence is not in itself prohibitive.

(3) Particular caution is necessary in any case where the medical experts disagree, one opinion declined to exclude a reasonable possibility of natural cause.

(4) The court must always be on the guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation is at stake or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.

(5) The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research would throw a light into corners that are at present dark.”

Usually, it is unnecessary for the Family Court to go further into the analysis by the Court of Appeal in Cannings, but in this case Miss Judd invites the court to have regard to the whole of that decision. I remind myself that it was a criminal case involving the deaths of infants under the age of six months, whereas these are family proceedings involving the deaths of two children aged two and four. Nevertheless, I find the analysis by the Court of Appeal of what Judge LJ, as he then was, described as two critical problems, as relevant to the current case.

First, I note the paragraphs specifically cited by Miss Judd, in particular paragraphs 10 to 13 of the judgment in Cannings, which amplify point 2 in Butler-Sloss P’s summary in Re U, Re B cited above.

“(10) It would probably be helpful at the outset to encapsulate different possible approaches to cases where three infant deaths have occurred in the same family, each apparently unexplained and for each of which there is no evidence extraneous to the expert evidence that harm was or must have been inflicted, for example, indications of or admissions of violence or a pattern of ill-treatment. Nowadays such events in the same family are rare, very rare. One approach is to examine each death to see whether it is possible to identify one or other of the known natural causes of infant death. If this cannot be done, the rarity of such incidents in the same family is thought to raise a very powerful inference that the deaths must have resulted from deliberate harm. The alternative approach is to start with the same fact, that three unexplained deaths in the same family are indeed rare, but thereafter to proceed on the basis that if there is nothing to explain them, in our current state of knowledge at any rate, they remain unexplained and still, despite the known fact that some parents do smother their infant children, possible natural deaths.

(11) It would immediately be apparent that much depends on the starting point which is adopted. The first approach is, putting it colloquially, that lightning does not strike three times in the same place. If so, the route to a finding of guilt is wide open. Almost any other piece of evidence can reasonably be interpreted to fit this conclusion. For example, if a mother who has lost three babies behaved or responded oddly or strangely or not in accordance with some theoretically “normal” way of behaving when faced with such a disaster, her behaviour might be thought to confirm the conclusion that lightning could not indeed have struck three times. If, however, the deaths were natural, virtually everything done by the mother on discovering such shattering and repeated disasters would be readily understandable as personal manifestations of profound natural shock and grief.”

Later at (13):

“Reverting to the two possible approaches to the problems posed in a case like this, in a criminal prosecution we have no doubt that what we have described as the second approach is correct. Whether there are one, two or even three deaths, the exclusion of currently known natural causes of infant death does not establish that the death or deaths resulted from the deliberate infliction of harm. That represents not only the legal principle, which must be applied in any event, but, in addition, as we shall see, at the very least, it appears to us to coincide with the views of a reputable body of expert medical opinion.”

Secondly, in considering the Cannings judgment, I note the observations of Judge LJ at paragraph 22, which amplifies point 5 in Butler-Sloss P’s summary in Re U, Re B cited above.

“We have read bundles of reports from numerous experts of great distinction in this field, together with transcripts of their evidence. If we have derived an overwhelming and abiding impression from studying this material, it is that a great deal about death in infancy, and its causes, remains as yet unknown and undiscovered. That impression is confirmed by counsel on both sides. Much work by dedicated men and women is devoted to this problem. No doubt one urgent objective is to reduce to an irreducible minimum the tragic waste of life and consequent life-scarring grief suffered by parents. In the process however much will also be learned about those deaths which are not natural, and are indeed the consequence of harmful parental activity. We cannot avoid the thought that some of the honest views expressed with reasonable confidence in the present case (on both sides of the argument) will have to be revised in years to come, when the fruits of continuing medical research, both here and internationally, become available. What may be unexplained today may be perfectly well understood tomorrow. Until then, any tendency to dogmatise should be met with an answering challenge.”

With regard to this latter point, recent case law has emphasised the importance of taking into account, to the extent that it is appropriate in any case, the possibility of the unknown cause. The possibility was articulated by Moses LJ in R v Henderson-Butler and Oyediran [2010] EWCA Crim. 126 at paragraph 1:

“Where the prosecution is able, by advancing an array of experts, to identify a non-accidental injury and the defence can identify no alternative cause, it is tempting to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case. Such a temptation must be resisted. In this, as in so many fields of medicine, the evidence may be insufficient to exclude, beyond reasonable doubt, an unknown cause. As Cannings teaches, even where, on examination of all the evidence, every possible known cause has been excluded, the cause may still remain unknown.”

In Re R, Care Proceedings Causation [2011] EWHC 1715 (Fam), Hedley J, who had been part of the constitution of the Court of Appeal in the Henderson case, developed this point further. At paragraph 10, he observed,

“A temptation there described is ever present in Family proceedings too and, in my judgment, should be as firmly resisted there as the courts are required to resist it in criminal law. In other words, there has to be factored into every case which concerns a discrete aetiology giving rise to significant harm, a consideration as to whether the cause is unknown. That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden

of proof is established on the balance of probabilities.”

Later in the judgment, at paragraph 19, Hedley J added this observation:

“In my judgment a conclusion of unknown aetiology in respect of an infant represents neither professional nor forensic failure. It simply recognises that we still have much to learn and it also recognises that it is dangerous and wrong to infer non-accidental injury, merely from the absence of any other understood mechanism. Maybe it simply represents a general acknowledgment that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Long term readers of this blog will know that I am a huge admirer of Hedley J, and this observation is very well made. I think on shaking cases we are getting very close, judicially speaking, to a conclusion that we simply cannot be sure until all of the evidence is tested forensically whether a child is likely to have been shaken or not, and as a result, I suspect that we may relatively soon get an appeal on an interlocutory decision to place in foster care, a child suspected of having been shaken.

The Local Authority had run their threshold in parallel – on neglect, and on the far more serious allegations that the mother had smothered and killed two children. The Judge found that they had proved the neglect allegations.

The local authority alleges that the mother is culpable of serious and repeated acts of neglect of her children and has set out this allegation in the schedule of findings filed in these proceedings. In their response on behalf of their client, the mother’s representatives have very substantially accepted the allegations. Some issues, however, remained and they have formed part of the hearing before me.

Having considered the evidence, written and oral, I make the following findings on this aspect of the case:

(1) There is evidence that the mother struggled to cope with all of the children. In the early days after B was born, she was unable to cope with his care and often left him in the care of other people, including DA. On one occasion, feeling unable to manage, she left him at the social project where she was receiving support. Later she found it difficult to care for J and A together. As a result she did not always provide adequate attention, stimulation or boundaries for the children.

(2) The mother failed to prioritise her children’s physical and emotional needs, on occasions putting her own needs and interests first. She spent significant periods of time on the internet, including extensive periods communicating with friends via internet chat rooms. The children were expected to fit around the mother’s own wishes and needs. This was a particular concern for the experienced health visitor who gave evidence before me.

(3)On occasions the mother was emotionally neglectful towards the children. On one occasion she announced that she was placing the children in care and packed their bags before being talked out of this by support and social workers.

(4)The home conditions in which the children lived were frequently poor. The mother struggled to keep her home clean and tidy, despite repeated reminders from others, including DA. The home was often left cluttered with rubbish.

(5)On a number of occasions the mother failed to protect and supervise the children so that their safety was at risk. In September 2009, B covered himself in bleach. In October 2009, he was found sitting in bleach. In October 2009, J was taking to hospital having ingested Sudocrem. Stair-gates were fitted but on occasions left open. On other occasions dangerous items were left within the reach of the children, cans of spray, loose wall sockets, paracetamol, scissors, cleaning fluid and medication. On one occasion, J was observed by a health visitor to be in a position to turn a fire on and off. The mother failed on occasion to supervise the children in the street, on one occasion allowing J to walk so far ahead that he was able to cross a road by himself.

(6)The mother struggled to manage the care of the children so as to ensure that they were kept clean and had their nappies changed with sufficient regularity. J was noted on occasions to have a very dirty nappy and to be dressed in dirty, wet and sometimes inadequate clothing. As a result on occasions J and A had very sore bottoms and nappy rashes.

(7)The mother struggled to provide the children with appropriate food. She delayed starting B on solid food. She would give the children inappropriate food on occasions and rely excessively on junk food. J would be fed chocolate biscuits for breakfast. The mother struggled to manage A’s feeding regime as a baby and did not always follow advice on this topic. She told the health visitor that she could on occasions put J straight to bed without giving him any meal if they were late arriving home.

(8)The mother found it difficult to manage the children’s behaviour. She resorted on occasions to harsh chastisement of the children that was both inappropriate for their age and generally excessive. She would smack the children, perceiving their behaviour as “naughty,” not realising that it was often simple normal conduct to be expected of a lively, inquisitive toddler. She would shout at B when he was a baby in a vain effort to keep him quiet. She would resort to corporal punishment to an inappropriate and excessive extent. In October 2010 she was observed to slap B on the legs. She would threaten to smack the children by raising her hand. On occasions she put J in his room for excessive periods and sent him to bed at inappropriate times. On one occasion, as I find, she slapped B on the back of the head after he had run off.

(9)In November 2010 the mother was found drunk in charge of J and A. There is no evidence that this was anything other than an isolated incident; nonetheless it is a matter for considerable concern and jeopardised the safety of the children.

(10)The mother was provided with considerable support throughout the intervention of Social Services. Whilst there is some reason to question the level of support provided, the mother was not always as cooperative with the support workers who asked to assist her. The health visitor felt that her failure to take her advice was wilful. I bear in mind, however, that this mother suffers from a learning disability and I am unsure about the extent to which this was taken into account by the professionals who were trying to help her.

There is a further allegation which concerns the father of the two younger children, GM. The mother reported that she had seen him poke J’s genitals with his finger. Despite her concern about this alleged behaviour, the mother continued to allow GM contact with the children. She states that she found it difficult to say no to him and still had feelings for him. The father has played no part in these proceedings. There has been no oral evidence about this matter and I am not in a position to make a finding about whether he did behave in a sexually inappropriate way towards J. I find however that the mother, knowing of the allegation that the father had behaved in that way, failed to protect J from further contact with him.

Taken together, these findings about the mother’s treatment amount to serious and chronic neglect at a time when she was receiving considerable support through Social Services, as well as from her own mother, DA, and from friends and neighbours. Miss Davis and Miss Dewhurst, on behalf of the local authority, have rightly taken the view that it would be disproportionate to conduct an enquiry into each and every allegation about which there is documentary evidence that the mother was unable to cope, but I have heard enough to reach a clear conclusion. I conclude that this mother was simply unable to cope with the demands for caring for her children.

But on the major allegations, that the two children had been smothered (even in the context of those findings that the mother was unable to cope), the Judge did not agree that this was proven.

There were several clinical features which the experts explored . This is the passage of the judgment specifically on the expert evidence as to whether there was evidence of smothering (as opposed to any other possible cause of death)

Evidence of smothering

So far as B is concerned, Dr Cartlidge found no evidence of any general health problems, nor any developmental problems. B was a previously healthy child who died suddenly and unexpectedly at the age of four and a half. Dr Cartlidge described this as “very unusual.” J died suddenly and unexpectedly, aged 28 months. Dr Cartlidge described this also as “very unusual.”

Dr. Cartlidge considered that the evidence of a possible intentional airway obstruction in B’s case included: the fact that B was a healthy child; the fact that he had been well no more than half an hour before his collapse; the fact that he had collapsed suddenly without explanation; and the fact that his brother, J, had also collapsed and died suddenly without explanation. On the basis (which I have rejected above), that the petechiae were present on B on arrival at hospital, Dr Cartlidge concluded that they were consistent with, rather than diagnostic of asphyxiation, but stressed that his conclusion did not turn on the presence of the petechiae. Dr Cartlidge concluded that it is most likely that B died unnaturally and “smothering is probable.” He added, however, that “the medical evidence for smothering is not specific and relies quite heavily on the exclusion of other causes and an assessment of the case as a whole.”

So far as J is concerned, again Dr Cartlidge found no evidence of any general health problems, nor any developmental problems. Like his brother, J was a previously healthy child who died suddenly and unexpectedly, in his case at the age of 28 months. Once again Dr Cartlidge described this as “very unusual.”

Dr Cartlidge considered J’s earlier hospital admissions on two occasions to be significant. On 1^st January, J had been well when he went to bed, but two hours later found unresponsive and jerky, with blue hands, feet and face. On admission to hospital some 50 minutes later, he was fully conscious and afebrile, but with petechiae over his chest and upper neck. In Dr Cartlidge’s opinion, this episode considered in isolation would support a diagnosis of a fit, although he noted that the evidence of a fever was weak and the temperature taken in hospital over 37.9 degrees Celsius was not usually sufficient to trigger a febrile fit. So far as J’s second admission to hospital was concerned on 3^rd January, Dr Cartlidge noted that once again J had been well or reasonably well at the time he went to bed. Several hours later, he was found pale with staring eyes and possibly twitching of his hands. On admission to hospital, J was found to be suffering from chicken pox, but was very energetic and afebrile. In those circumstances, Dr Cartlidge ruled out the possibility that he had suffered from chicken pox encephalitis on this occasion. Once again Dr Cartlidge considered that this episode, taken in isolation, would not be of significance. However, when considered in the light of the later events, he considers that the admissions to hospital on 1^st and 3^rd January were concerning. The events that are said to have taken place on those occasions were similar to later events in J’s and B’s lives that resulted in their deaths. However, J’s clinical features on both 1^st and 3^rd January were not typical of a cardiac arrhythmia. Dr Cartlidge thought that smothering could have caused the clinical features in J on both 1^st and 3^rd January, as well as those described in both children immediately prior to their deaths. He therefore concluded that smothering was a plausible explanation for J’s death, but added again that medical evidence of smothering “is not specific and relies quite heavily on the exclusion of other causes and the assessment of the case as a whole.”

In his oral evidence, Dr Cartlidge said that in his clinical practice he had only come across two cases of children of this age dying without any known cause. He had no experience of two children from the same family dying in such circumstances and he was unaware of any epidemiological study of childhood deaths involving this age group. He was asked to consider a paper produced by counsel for the mother entitled, “Smothering children older than one year of age, diagnostic significance of morphological findings,” by Banaschak and Others (2003) published by Forensic Science International. This paper led Dr Cartlidge to reflect on how B, at the age of four and a half, would have been expected to struggle quite vigorously if an attempt was made to smother him. Cross-examined by Miss Judd, he acknowledged that it was more surprising that there were no marks on the four-year-old child.

In his oral evidence, Dr White said that the presence of physical signs of smothering would depend on the size and strength of the victim, the size and strength of the assailant and the method by which smothering was inflicted. In the case of child victims, the older the child, the more likely he or she was to struggle and the greater the likelihood of physical signs. Dr White considered that it was possible that B would have scratched himself in an attempt to prevent suffocation, but the fact that there were no scratch marks observed on B did not rule out suffocation as an explanation.

In passing, I remind myself that Dr White noted two small marks, bruises, on the top of B’s head during his post-mortem examination. He did not, however, suggest that they were indicative of a physical assault. The local authority did not ask the mother about these bruises, nor did they feature at all in the local authority’s case.

The striking picture provided by the consultant in emergency care, Dr Beardsall, was that B looked like he was sleeping, rather than suffering a life-threatening event.

Having found, as explained above, that the petechiae on B’s face were not present when he was admitted to hospital, I conclude that there is no clinical evidence of asphyxiation other than the fact that two children died suddenly with cardiac failure, for which no cause had been identified.

So, the Judge concluded that although the deaths had unusual features, there was not clinical evidence to show that they had been asphyxiated, other than that the deaths had no identified cause. He reminded himself of the other evidence, the number of genetic factors that were particular to this family and the mother’s evidence (particularly that her emphatic denials were convincing) and that whilst he had found her culpable of neglect such that the threshold was made out, there was still a marked difference between that neglect and deliberate murder of two children.

Miss Judd rightly points out that, whilst the various experts have pointed to the lack of evidence of any disease or condition that could have caused the death of either J or B, there is equally no evidence of smothering. She submits that it is no more likely that this mother smothered each child without leaving any signs, than that the child died of an unknown, probably as yet unrecognised, cardiac cause.

This mother has a variety of conditions which are likely to be genetic in origin. Dr Newbury-Ecob accepted that the new variant found in the KCNH2 gene, whilst not a cause of LQTS, might lead to a susceptibility or risk of arrhythmia in the presence of other factors, either genetic or environmental and might be associated with his death in some unknown way. Dr Martin noted that “there are quite possibly a whole host of genetic conditions we know nothing about.” The clear impression from his evidence is that the genetic understanding of cardiac disorders is still evolving.

I recall again the observations of Judge LJ in Canningsquoted above, in particular that “where there are one, two or even three deaths, the exclusion of currently known natural causes of infant death does not establish that the death or deaths resulted from the deliberate infliction of harm” and that “a great deal about death in infancy and its causes remain as yet unknown and undiscovered.” I also have in mind the observation of Butler-Sloss P in Re U, Re B cited above: “The cause of an injury or episode that cannot be scientifically explained remains equivocal. Recurrence in itself is not prohibitive. The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research would throw light into corners that are at present dark.” Finally, I remember the wise words of Hedley J in Re R, also quoted above: “there has to be factored into every case which concerns a discrete aetiology giving rise to significant harm, a consideration as to whether the cause is unknown …. a conclusion of unknown aetiology in respect of an infant represents neither professional nor forensic failure. It simply recognises that we still have much to learn and it also recognises that it is dangerous and wrong to infer non-accidental injury, merely from the absence of any other understood mechanism.”

I have given extremely careful attention to the opinions of all the experts and Dr Cartlidge in particular. I acknowledge that there is a significant possibility that this mother was responsible for the deaths of the boys and my mind has fluctuated during the course of this hearing and in my subsequent deliberations. There may be in due course other evidence that bears upon this issue. Having considered all the evidence put before me, however, I find that the local authority has not proved on a balance of probabilities that this mother smothered either J or B.

The consequence of my finding is that, for the purposes of these proceedings, the court and the parties will proceed on the basis that the mother did not smother the boys. For the reasons explained above, however, I have found that the mother was responsible for significant acts of neglect of all the children and on that basis the threshold conditions under Section 31 of the Children Act are satisfied.

This body of caselaw may very well be a watershed moment in care proceedings, where the Courts began taking a stance that the presentation of the parents in evidence can be as pivotal as the seemingly damning medical evidence laid against them, and that mere lack of an alternative plausible explanation than non-accidental injury does not necessarily equate to NAI. It is liable to lead to the job of Local Authorities in such complex medical cases to be more akin to marshalling and testing the evidence rather than the quasi-prosecutor role that traditionally accompanies trying to prove threshold at a finding of fact hearing. It is also liable to make senior figures in Local Authorities very nervous about fact finding hearings where the outcomes are now so hard to predict, and the costs so vast.

3 Comments

Posted in case law, experts, fact finding, Uncategorized and tagged asphyxiation, cannings, finding of fact, medical evidence, neglect, smothering. Bookmark the permalink.

Be my, be my baby

Posted on October 1, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

A discussion of the law on surrogacy, and the case of D and L (Surrogacy) 2012 EWHC 2631 Fam

A lot of new caselaw this week, and this one is a little off the beaten track. It involves the issue of surrogacy, which is something at the moment I’m interested in, as there’s a pending case of public interest (reporting restrictions, upcoming criminal trial, can’t say anything more, sorry)

The case can be found here:-

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed101209

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward – a couple decided that they wanted to have a child and being a same-sex couple the traditional route wasn’t open to them. They entered into dialogue with an agency the Kiran clinic from Hydrabad, who found them a woman who was prepared to become a surrogate. That woman was from India. A contract was signed. Twin babies were born and the couple were provided with those babies and returned to the UK with them.

In order to then obtain parental orders in the UK, they sought the mother’s consent to the making of such orders.

Because the UK provisions are that a consent given less than six weeks after the child is born is not valid (in order to give a mother who has hormonal feelings of bonding and attachment or hormonal surges post-birth generally time to settle on her true feelings), the contract was not sufficient to demonstrate the mother’s consent.

The couple asked the agency to assist with this, and found them to be somewhat lacking in their willingness to assist.

11. At that stage, they had still to receive any signed consent from the surrogate mother. They made further requests to the director of the clinic, to no avail. On 13 September, the first Applicant emailed a long letter to the director, setting a deadline for the production of the signed consent, and warning that if the documents were not supplied, they would make formal complaints to the authorities in India and the British High Commission. On 16th September, the Applicants received a DHL package, purportedly from the director of the clinic, containing a single sheet of paper on which was printed an obscene gesture.

Yes, you did read that correctly. I really hope that the single sheet of paper found its way into the court bundle. (And I can’t help speculating what it was – my gut feeling is a v-sign, or the bird , but was it a sketch or a photograph?)

The couple had not wanted to contact the birth mother directly, wanting to respect her privacy, but had to instruct an enquiry agent, whose search was fruitless.

“I am sorry to inform you that I could not locate Miss B. The address provided by the clinic where Miss B should be residing…is not the place where she lives. Property is currently empty but is former residence of [the caretaker/arranger]. His old clinic is on ground floor. Nobody there had any knowledge of Miss B or where she is living now. I have shown neighbours [identity] card of Miss B and they did not recognise her. I could not find out where she lives now and so could not get her to sign the forms.”

It seemed very likely that the address that the couple had been provided with by the agency was not accurate (although one has no way of knowing whether this was of the agency’s making, or whether they themselves had been misinformed)

[By the way, ‘misinformed’ takes me on a tangent to one of my favourite exchanges in cinema, from Casablanca.

Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.

Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.

Rick: I was misinformed ]

As is often the way in the High Court, you get a nice pithy summary of the law, which is always a great starting point if you need to research the issue.

17. Before turning to the detailed provisions of section 54 of the 2008 Act, I remind myself of the important change to the law affected by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010. Regulation 2 provides:

“The provisions of the 2002 Act [that is to say, the Adoption and Children Act 2002] set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 have effect in relation to parental orders made in England and Wales and applications for such orders as they have effect in relation to adoption orders and applications for such orders, subject to the modifications set out in column 2 of that Schedule.”

The effect of this provision is, inter alia, that section 1 of the 2002 Act applies to the making of parental orders in the following terms:

“(1) This section applies whenever a court is coming to a decision relating to the making of a parental order in relation to a child.
(2) The paramount consideration of the court must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life.
(3) The court must at all times bear in mind that, in general, any delay in coming to the decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare.

(6) The Court must always consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 as applied by regulation 2 of and Schedule 1.2 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010 or the Children Act 1989) and the Court must not make an order under that section or under the 2002 Act so applied unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

(7) In this section, ‘coming to a decision relating to the making of a parental order in relation to a child’ the relation to a court includes

a) coming to a decision in any proceedings where the orders that might be made by the court include a parental order (or the revocation of such an order) and

b) coming to a decision about granting leave in respect of any action (other than the initiation of proceedings in any court) which may be taken by an individual under this Act but does not include coming to a decision about granting leaving in any other circumstances.

(8) For the purposes of this section,

a) references to relationships are not confined to legal relationships,
b) references to a relative, in relation to a child, include the child’s mother and father.”

19. Those principles, in particular the paramountcy principle set out in subsection (2) and the checklist set out in subsection (4,) guide the court in exercising its powers to make parental orders under section 54 of the 2008 Act, which reads as follows:

“(1) On an application made by two people (‘the Applicants’) the court may make an order providing for a child to be treated in law as the child of the Applicants if

a) the child has been carried by a woman who is not one of the Applicants, as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination,

b) the gametes of at least one of the Applicants were used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

c) the conditions in subsection (2) (8) are satisfied.

(2) The Applicants must be

a) husband and wife,
b) civil partners of each other, or
c) two persons who are living as partners in an enduring family relationship and are not within prohibited degrees of relationship in relation to each other.

(3) Except in a case falling within subsection (11), the Applicants must apply for the order during the period of six months beginning with the day in which the child is born.

(4) At the time of the application and the making of the order

a) the child’s home must be with the Applicants and
b) either or both of the Applicants must be domiciled in the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or in the Isle of Man.

(5) At the time of the making of the order both the Applicants must have attained the age of 18.

(6) The court must be satisfied that both

a) the woman who carried the child and
b) any other person who is a parent of the child but is not one of the Applicants (including any man who is the father by virtue of section 35 or 36 or any woman who is a parent by virtue of section 42 or 43)

have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order.

(7) Subsection (6) does not require the agreement of a person who cannot be found or who is incapable of giving agreement; and the agreement of the woman who carried the child is ineffective for the purpose of that subsection if given by her less than six weeks after the child’s birth.

(8) The court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit (other than for the expenses reasonably incurred) have been given or received by either of the Applicants for or in consideration of

a) the making of the order,
b) any agreement required by subsection (6)
c) the handing over of the child to the Applicants or
d) the making of arrangements for the view to the making of the order unless authorised by the court.

…
(10) Subsection (1) (a) applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination.
…”

So, very broadly, before making the parental order, the Court must be satisfied that the child was the subject of a surrogacy arrangement and be the product of a use of gametes from one of the applicants, and that the other party consented (in a meaningful and informed way) to the pregnancy and to the making of a parental order; although s19(7) gives a way out where the mother cannot be found, or would be incapable of giving agreement.

[That feels a bit weird to me, since it suggests that the whole s19(6) issue of the mother having to have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order could be sidestepped by finding a surrogate who doesn’t really have capacity to agree it, but I’m sure that must be covered elsewhere and prohibited. Okay, relatively sure. Okay, dimly hopeful]

In considering whether the mother’s consent could be dispensed with because she could not be found, the Court made this determination

28. First, when it is said that the woman who gave birth to the child cannot be found, the court must carefully scrutinise the evidence as to the efforts which have been taken to find her. It is only when all reasonable steps have been taken to locate her without success that a court is likely to dispense with the need for valid consent. Half-hearted or token attempts to find the surrogate will not be enough. Furthermore, it will normally be prudent for the Applicants to lay the ground for satisfying these requirements at an early stage. Even where, as in this case, the Applicants do not meet the surrogate, they should establish clear lines of communication with her, preferably not simply through one person or agency, and should ensure that the surrogate is made aware during the pregnancy that she will be required to give consent six weeks after the birth.29. Secondly, although a consent given before the expiry of six weeks after birth is not valid for the purposes of section 54, the court is entitled to take into account evidence that the woman did give consent at earlier times to giving up the baby. The weight attached to such earlier consent is, however, likely to be limited. The courts must be careful not to use such evidence to undermine the legal requirement that a consent is only valid if given after six weeks.30. Thirdly, in the light of the changes affected by the 2010 regulations, the child’s welfare is now the paramount consideration when the court is ‘coming to a decision’ in relation to the making of a parental order. Mr Ford submits, and I accept, that this includes decisions about whether to make an order without the consent of the woman who gave birth in circumstances in which she cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent. It would, however, be wrong to utilise this provision as a means of avoiding the need to take all reasonable steps to attain the woman’s consent.31. Applying these principles to this case, I accept that these Applicants have taken all reasonable steps to obtain the woman’s consent.
32. Through no fault of their own, they have been given a false address. If it is correct that she is living in the state of Andhra Pradesh, then she is one of many millions of women living in that state and there is in my judgment no realistic hope of finding her. I accept that it is not the Applicants’ fault that they found themselves in this position. I am satisfied that they reasonable believed that the clinic and its staff would behave responsibly. It seems that they and the twins have been badly let down.

33. I note that Miss B appears to have given her consent to the making of the parental orders at an earlier stage, although in the circumstances I treat all documents and information provided by the clinic with caution. The fact that Miss B appears to have given informal consent earlier is a factor to be taken into account but for the reasons set out above, it carries little weight in my decision. I do, however, take into account the fact that as a matter of law the children’s welfare is my paramount consideration, and I further take into account that any further delay in reaching a decision is likely to be prejudicial to their welfare. I also take into account as required by the welfare checklist to be applied by virtue of the 2010 regulations, that there is realistically no likelihood that the twins would have any relationship with the surrogate, gestational mother, or any member of her family.

34. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I conclude that the agreement of the surrogate mother Miss B is not required on the grounds that she cannot be found.

The payments made were also retrospectively approved – the payments amounted to £17,000.

36. As set out above, section 54 (8) provides a condition of making a parental order that no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonable incurred) has been given or received by either of the applicant for or in consideration of the making of the order, any agreement required by the Act, the handing over of the child to the Applicants or the making of arrangements with the view to the making of the order, unless authorised by the court. The Applicants accept they have paid twenty seven thousand US dollars (which is approximately seventeen thousand pounds at current exchange rates) to the clinic for the surrogacy programme, on the basis that the clinic would then pay ‘reasonable expenses’ to Miss B in the sum of three hundred and fifty thousand rupees, approximately four thousand pounds at current exchange rates. The Applicants accept that the sums paid exceed a level that could be described as ‘reasonable expenses’. They therefore invite the court to give retrospective authorisation for the payments made.

37. Unlike the question of consent, the issue of payments for surrogacy, and the basis upon which retrospective authorisation may be given, has been considered by the courts at first instance on several occasions in recent years, notably by Hedley J, who has played a lead role in the development of the law surrounding surrogacy, in four cases- Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam), Re S (Parental Order) [2009] EWHC 2977 (Fam), Re L (Commercial Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam) and Re IJ (Foreign Surrogacy Agreement Parental Order) [2011] EWHC 921 (Fam) – and, the most recently, the President Sir Nicholas Wall inRe X and Y (Parental Order: Retrospective Authorisation of Payments) [2011] EWHC 3147 (Fam). From these authorities the following principles emerge.

(1) The question whether a payment exceeds the level of ‘reasonable expenses’ is a matter of fact in each case. There is no conventionally- recognised quantum of expenses or capital sum: Re L, supra.

(2) The principles underpinning section 54 (8), which must be respected by the court, is that it is contrary to public policy to sanction excessive payments that effectively amount to buying children from overseas: Re S, supra.

(3) On the other hand, as a result of the changes brought about by the 2010 Regulations, the decision whether to authorise payments retrospectively is a decision relating to a parental order and in making that decision, the court must regard the children’s welfare as the paramount consideration: Re L, supra, and Re X and Y (2011), supra, per the President.

(4) It is almost impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which, by the time an application for a parental order comes to court, the welfare of any child, particularly a foreign child, would not be gravely compromised by a refusal to make the order: per Hedley J in Re X and Y (2008), approved by the President in Re X and Y (2011) at paragraph 40. It follows that : ‘it will only be in the clearest case of the abuse of public policy that the court will be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations support its making’, per Hedley J in Re L at paragraph 10.

(5) Where the Applicants for a parental order are acting in good faith, with no attempt to defraud the authorities, and the payments are not so disproportionate that the granting of parental orders would be an affront to public policy, it will ordinarily be appropriate to give retrospective authorisation, having regard to the paramountcy of the children’s welfare.

38. In this case, the twin’s welfare unquestionably will be enhanced by the making of parental orders. I am satisfied that these Applicants acted in good faith and have been entirely candid in all of their dealings with the Court and the other authorities. As I have set out above, the total sum paid equivalent to about £17,000. Although I remind myself that each case should be scrutinised on its own facts, I note that the total paid was somewhat less than that paid by the Applicants in the President’s case Re X and Y (2011), which also involved a surrogacy arranged by an Indian clinic. In that case the President ruled that the sum paid was not so disproportionate that the granting of a parental order would be an affront to public policy.

39. I am therefore prepared to give retrospective authorisation for the payments made by the Applicants in respect of the surrogacy arranged in this case.

The Court suggested that it would essential in future cases to ensure that where a surrogacy arrangement was entered into that the applicants ensured that they had opened a line of communication with the birth mother so that her written consent could be obtained six weeks or later after the birth.

Comments Off on Be my, be my baby

Posted in case law and tagged consent for parental order, human fertilisation and embryology act, parental order, surrogacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Designation’s what you need (or how to duck your responsibilities)

Posted on October 1, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

A discussion of Derbyshire County Council v HM 2011, and why it is important for Local Authority lawyers.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed101199

It is a sad case – a mother of two children went into a coma. Southwark, who were the responsible authority at the time, tried to find family members to look after the children. They were looking at some relatives in America, but as a holding position, the children went to stay with a great-aunt Ms A in Derbyshire.

For one reason or another, the placement in America didn’t pan out, and Ms A kept the children, and subsequently sought a residence order. The mother, by this stage, had sadly passed on.

A section 37 report was directed, and then Southwark and Derbyshire had the time-honoured and traditional bust up about who was responsible.

21. There is no dispute as to the law which I must apply. Pursuant to section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989, a care order (or an interim care order) must be made in favour of a “designated local authority”. Section 31(8) deals with the principles to be applied. The designated authority must be (a) the authority within whose area the child is ordinarily resident; or (b) where the child does not reside in the area of a local authority, the authority within whose area any circumstances arose in consequence of which the order is being made.

22. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northamptonshire CC v Islington LBC [1999] 3 FCR 385, the test under s31(8) is a two stage test. I must first seek to identify if the children are ordinarily resident in any local authority area and, if so, designate that authority. If, and only if, I am satisfied that the children are not resident in any local authority area, I must then consider the s31(8)(b) test.

On that basis, the children hadn’t lived in Southwark for two years, and had lived in Derbyshire for that time. They had ordinary residence in Derbyshire.

But then, the ‘stop the clock provisions’ come into play. If the ordinary residence in Derbyshire came about because Southwark were looking after the children and placed them in Derbyshire, then Southwark would retain responsibility, even though the children were physically in Derbyshire.

And if you’re scratching your head and saying “eh?” that may explain why there’s so much law on this issue. There are two methods by which the placement with Ms A could have come about. (a) Southwark were looking after the children under 23 (2) and placed with Ms A, who would be a foster carer (note, Southwark don’t have to mean to do this, it can come about by them inadvertently doing it) or (b) Southwark used their duties and powers under s23(6) to find family members who could care for the children and thus avoid them being looked after.

25. The local authority had to discharge its duties in accordance with section 23. At the time, there were two sections that were relevant. Section 23(2) provided that “a local authority shall provide accommodation and maintenance for any child they are looking after by (a) placing him…with (i) a family; (ii) a relative of his; or (iii) any suitable person, on such terms as to payment and otherwise as the authority may determine…(f) making such other arrangements as (i) seem appropriate to them; and (ii) comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State.” Section 23(6), however, provided that “Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with – …. (b) a relative, friend or other person connected with him, unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare.”

26. It is accepted that the court is bound by a line of authorities culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in R (SA; a child by SH as litigation friend) v Kent County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1303; The Times 6th November 2011. Section 23(2) and section 23(6) are two distinct routes by which the local authority can discharge its duties under section 20(1). The court must determine whether the local authority was exercising its statutory powers under s23(2) or facilitating the making of private arrangements under s23(6). If Southwark was acting pursuant to s23(6), the children ceased to be looked after children and s105(6) ceased to apply. If, however, the placement was under s23(2), the children remained looked after by Southwark.

27. The decision is a factual question on the basis of the evidence before the court. Smith LJ did, however, say in D v LB of Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 182 at Paragraph 52 that, where a local authority seeks to divest itself of its obligation and requires someone else to do so (by placement under s23(6) rather than under s23(2)), it would need to be very clear that this was its intention

Or in short, the Court looks at whether something that might be a s23(2) or s23(6) placement to see if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (a s23(2) foster placement), and if they are not to conclude that it is a duck, there must be reasons why not and the LA must be really clear and upfront with everyone involed that this WAS NOT A DUCK.

In this case, the Court concluded that Southwark had done enough to show that it had placed under s23(6) and was thus not responsible for the children; even though a lot of the evidence was self-serving (i.e that it was Southwark saying loudly and often “This isn’t a duck, this isn’t a duck”) and this is why the case is important – it shows a route map to protect yourself in a Southwark situation

28. Having considered the evidence in this case carefully, I am quite satisfied that Southwark was indeed facilitating the making of private arrangements under s23(6) rather than looking after the children pursuant to s23(2). I have come to this conclusion for numerous reasons but it is clear to me that any reasonable bystander would undoubtedly have concluded that Southwark was shedding its legal responsibility (Paragraph 59 of D v Southwark). Other than the original agreement, there is no respect in which it could be said that these were looked after children. In particular:-

(a) After the placement with the As, Southwark played no role whatsoever in supervising the As or “looking after” the children;

(b) In a handwritten letter, the father authorised Mr and Mrs A to “take decisions relating to (the children’s) urgent medical and health needs and give consent to medical procedures…”;

(c) Southwark paid absolutely nothing to Mr and Mrs A (not even a “kinship allowance”);

(d) When the father approached Southwark on 1st March 2010 and 4th June 2010, Southwark said the children were not an open case;

(e) Southwark’s letter to the father’s solicitor on 31st March 2010, stated that this was a private family arrangement and Southwark had not been providing on-going services/intervention to the family;

(f) On 26th August 2010, Southwark wrote to Derbyshire legal services stating that “this was a family placement between the respective maternal and paternal families”; although Southwark agreed to undertake an assessment of the father because he was living in its area, the letter is clear that as the children were in Derbyshire’s area, Derbyshire had a duty towards them as children in need;

(g) In Southwark’s letter to the As dated 25th October 2010, Southwark repeats that this was a family arrangement and a private family matter.

29. I accept that the original agreement dated 28th August 2009 imposed obligations on the As but I consider that the factors that I outline in Paragraph 28 above make clear the real nature of the arrangement. The terms of the agreement reached constituted the arrangements to enable the children to be cared for by the As pursuant to s23(6) rather than for the children to be placed by the Local Authority in accordance with s23(2).

30. I recognise entirely that some of the evidence relied on by Southwark in support of this conclusion is self-serving. It could be said that it is not particularly attractive for Southwark to rely on matters such as its own failure to pay allowances. Nevertheless, this is the factual background and I find it impossible to say that s105(6) is engaged.

So, if you’re in a Southwark situation, you need to shout from the rooftops that this is a s23(6) placement and not a looked after child. Say it loud, say it proud.

If you’re in a Derbyshire position, you’d better shout just as loud that this is a looked after child, so that there’s something to weigh on the other side, and explore with the family exactly what they were told at the time.

Comments Off on Designation’s what you need (or how to duck your responsibilities)

Posted in case law, Uncategorized and tagged derbyshire county council v hm, designated authority, looked after child, ordinary residence, private family arrangement, s105 children act, s23(2) children act, section 23(6) children act, viaduct, why a duck?. Bookmark the permalink.

suesspiciousminds

Monthly Archives: October 2012

“So he was all, like, Pride, and I was all, like – nuh-uh, Prejudice?

Can a person choose whether to be represented by the Official Solicitor?

Ultra Orthodox or Orthodox – which is best? Only one way to find out…

The Great Starvation Experiment

Practice directions make perfect?

Passing the prior authority parcel

and said ‘oh oh, smother me mother’

Designation’s what you need (or how to duck your responsibilities)

Follow Blog via Email

Nonsense, family law, sarcasm. Not always in equal proportions

Recent Posts

Follow me on Twitter

Archives

Top Posts & Pages

Categories

Blogroll