Holman J has given judgment in an appeal, London Borough of Ealing v JM and Others 2014
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/1084.html
The appeal is not concluded (the Judge has asked for some more information about the placement proposals and family finding) and I hesitated a bit about writing at it whilst it is still ongoing, but the judgment was published, and it does raise one interesting aspect, which I don’t think we have seen the last of.
Now that the European jurisprudence about proportionality has been echoed by our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the underlying context to that is that when deciding whether adoption is proportionate one has to be looking to what would happen or be likely to happen to the children at home.
In this particular case, the mother tried unsuccessfully to run a “Kenneth Williams defence” (Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me)
- The sad and worrying part about this case is that, between her decision and judgment in mid July 2013 and the outcome hearing which began in late November 2013, the district judge had deliberately afforded a significant period of time within which there could, amongst other matters, be an assessment of the mother by an expert in order to try to find out why she had injured her two children in the ways described. Unfortunately, the mother did not cooperate with, or properly participate in, that assessment and therefore it is not possible to know whether she injured the children as a result of manageable stress or some other force of circumstances which could be recognised and managed in the future, or whether she did so out of, frankly, callousness or brutality. Unfortunately, the reaction of the mother to these proceedings and to the fact finding decision of the district judge in July has effectively been one of almost total denial. Instead of acknowledging and facing up to what she had done and seeking help about it, the mother adopted what the district judge was later to describe as a “conspiracy theory”. She has said and continued to say that the allegations had been fabricated; hospital documents, including photographs of the injuries, faked or forged; and she has said even that the examining doctor at the hospital is a non-existent person.
The part of the appeal that I am going to focus on relates to the findings of harm, and the case run by the parents that even if those findings were correct, this was not the sort of harm that justified adoption. (In effect that there are two separate thresholds – “significant harm” in the context of s31 of the Children Act, but then the sort of significant harm which would make adoption a proportionate response). Almost certainly what was in their mind was the finding of the original judge that the injuries to the children had been ‘relatively minor’
- As I understand it from the judgment of the 7th January 2014, these children were living together with both their parents who were, and still are, themselves living together. In October 2012 the daughter, then aged three-and-a-quarter, said certain things at the children’s nursery which led to the children being examined first at the nursery and later at a nearby hospital. The hospital observed and recorded a number of scratches and other minor injuries on them, and the daughter gave what was described as “a vivid account” of how they had happened and blamed her mother. In the upshot, after the five-day hearing during June and July 2013, the judge concluded that the perpetrator of all the injuries was the mother. She concluded that the daughter had sustained nine minor injuries to her body, and the son had sustained five minor injuries to his body, all of which were caused non-accidentally. In other words, no less than 14 minor injuries, essentially scratches, had been deliberately caused to these two children by their mother. Additionally, and seemingly of even greater concern, the mother had caused two non-accidental -that is, deliberate – boot mark injuries to the shoulders of her daughter.
- The district judge herself very clearly acknowledged and recognised, as had the children’s guardian, that the injuries themselves were not of a serious kind nor requiring any medical treatment. She said, at paragraph 122 of her outcome judgment of the 7th January 2014:
“The injuries … were not very serious. They were relatively minor.”
And this is how the parents developed that argument
As proposed ground 6 of the proposed appeal (namely at paragraph 41 of their skeleton argument for today) Mr and Mrs Haines have argued that:
“This placement order is made as a result of injuries to [the girl] which were very much on the lower end of the scale, to the extent that they did not even require any medical treatment, and it is submitted that a placement order is a disproportionate response to such injuries.”
That is a point which Mrs Julie Haines further developed and submitted this afternoon. It does not, in my view, afford the slightest ground of appeal. First, as I have observed, the district judge herself was well aware that the injuries in question were not very serious and were relatively minor. Second, it is not actually correct to limit the injuries only to those to the daughter, for, as I have said, it clearly emerges from paragraph 9(1) of the outcome judgment that there were also five minor injuries to the son. So the picture here is of deliberate infliction of injury, albeit minor, to both children. Third, although overall the injuries may be described as “minor” they do include non-accidental, that is, deliberate, boot mark injuries to a girl who was at the material time aged about three. All this is evidence of a deliberately abusive attitude by a mother to both her young and vulnerable children.
And as you can see, Holman J, simply wasn’t convinced by that as a ground of appeal at all. IF Re B ever gets to the European Court of Human Rights, this issue might be revisited. For the time being, crossing the threshold is sufficient, without needing a two tier significant harm test (one for orders that involve the child not being permanently separated, and one for orders that do)
suesspiciousminds 
Giving you a heads up re b is in ECHR
Yes, am aware that was the intention – I don’t know when there might be a hearing.
I believe it can be sooner that anyone thinks
At least the children haven’t been split up, but I am struggling to understand why Julie would entertain any parent who does this to their child.
Maybe I’ll get round to talking to her about it when she’s not so busy
The next chapter of this sad story isn’t that long away
Ignorant folk often say to lawyers who defend paedophiles and serial killers “how could you defend such a horrible person?” .Everyone however is entitled to a defence ;as after all they might be innocent or subject to extreme extenuating circumstances.Julie is an honorable lady fulfilling a vital function for those who either distrust family lawyers or who cannot get legal aid and therefore cannot afford them.
In the case under discussion,Judge Holman should have given the mother another chance to show that the children could live with their parents without getting injured even in a minor way.
“One strike and you’re out” is totally wrong so the adoption is totally disproportionate
out of line with the dictum of Sir James Munby in B-S where he again emphasised that adoption must be a last resort where no other option was plausible.The children’s lives were clearly not at risk so a second chance should have been given by way of a supervision order.
It is very easy for all to say this should have happened that should have happened I know that in the Re B case well no harm ever come to the child nevertheless a placement order was still given a year after the supreme it just shows me that in the uk once they have your child / children nothing will change no matter what changes in law are made they are so head strong in destroying a child’s life that nothing anyone says or dos will make a blind bit of difference
I’m hardly ignorant, you and I have spoken for hours on the subject of forced adoption, without there being even a hint of my intelligence being questionable.
In this particular case, the mother does not and will not accept that leaving boot prints on a child’s back is wrong – she has gone to extreme lengths to even deny it’s happened at all. If she can’t admit there’s a problem, how is it ever going to be put right? What’s next for this child? A fatal kick in the head?
Where would we all be then? Screaming from the rooftops that social services did nothing to save the child that’s where!
Like I’ve already said, only Julie can tell me her reasoning behind this, you are right, she’s a dedicated and clever woman, I have a lot of time for her, for now we will have to wait and see what the final judgement says but she did well to avoid the separation of the siblings … For now, I’m sure the LA have other plans
“There but for the Grace of God go I”. How do we know who did what unless we look at it?
I do not believe any parent if they did anything would go there again. Scruitiny is the answer.
I can’t believe I’m appearing to side with the LA … God I hate them, however what would you do in this circumstance? Brush it to one side and hope there would be no repeat? isn’t that what happened to BabyP, Daniel Peltzer, Victoria Climbie?
As a colleague for Justice For Families I can state that after reading the bundle Mr and Mrs H have valid reasons in supporting this family. JFF are very particular in which cases they take on as they are inundated. When you experience ss wrongly accusing you of harming your children, as has happened to myself and Mr and Mrs H, where we have all been exonerated, the determination to assist those who may be innocent is even stronger. We never had any removed, however ss tried profusely creating a web of unfounded allegations and digging deeper each time they failed. Indeed, my case was withdrawn and I have been gagged so the la and the bias unprofessionals on my case can save face.
[Sorry Amber, as the surnames you have given would indirectly identify children as having been subject of proceedings, I am not going to publish them. If, however, there are published judgments in which the Court decided the names could be published, let me know and I will reconsider – Suesspicious Minds]
Your case is different Amber, you didn’t actually harm your child then deny any harm took place. I can see how they managed to build a case against you, but it as totally ridiculous, whether you’ve decided you hate me or not, that is my belief in your case, and Tim was very correct in his approach
Doh, I see now that Mr and Mrs Haines are named in the judgment, my apologies.
Not a problem, Sue.
Amber Hartman, Justice For Families and Parents Against INjustice.
I have no idea who you are,but i can only restate that every criminal has the right to be defended otherwise why bother with courts at all ??????????????
Indeed they do, and this should have gone to criminal court, it is a criminal act to boot a child in the back, a long standing debate we all seem to keep having
Although criminal court would not have aided this mother at all, she’d be in prison
And now “ashamed to be british” you are acting as judge and jury in a hypothetical criminal case that has never been heard, and which demands standards of proof beyond doubt based on live evidence ,not hearsay,and with the right to call witnesses in defence !
From what I know personally in this case, there is no chance whatever of a criminal conviction hence the police never charged her !
I give up, you have totally missed my point
There is a difference between the forensic test for child removal and the test social workers use to decide whether compulsory intervention within the family setting is possible.
I agree that ‘significant harm’ is the test at which compulsory measures are justified. However, for social workers there is a further decision to be made – based on an assessment of whether it is possible to work collaboratively with the parents, or not. In this case the mother denied the abuse. The conventional view is that there must be parental acceptance of responsibility for causing harm to the child if the child is to stay in the family. However, there is an alternative view which suggests that in some cases social workers can work with denied abuse – although this would obviously require highly skilled practitioners. This approach is described in ‘Working with Denied Child Abuse: The Resolutions Approach’ by Andrew Turnell and Suzanne Essex.
Does it ever occur to social workers and judges that parents who deny child abuse may be doing so because it either never happened or they were not responsible?Judges pompously talk of parents refusing to accept the verdicts of the court forgetting that those decisions were made ONLY on a basis of 51%+ basis of probability leaving the strong possibility that those parents were innocent .In Stalin’s Russia dire consequences were threatened to anyone accused (whether innocent or not)who did not” confess” ;What a horrible model for our family courts to follow§
Pingback: Proportionality and harm | Children In Law | S...
Ashamed to be British should feel even more ashamed for believing with certainty that this mother bruised her children and not the fosterers with no evidence except her own malice !
I hold no malice towards this mother at all, why would I? You are reading into my comments very wrongly and coming up with your own opinion/perception of them, Ian, you know full well this is something a social worker would do.
I merely pointed out that in this case I can sort of see where the LA are coming from, the child has been kicked and they cannot afford to leave her there for it to possibly happen again, the next one might be fatal, do you want that to happen?? Are you not for the child?
I personally (as has Toni aka as stella, it is an unspken agreement) have refused to help a handful of parents who have harmed their children and think it’s okay to do this, or deny it, why would anyone help them get their children home to use as human punchbags, seriously!!
Believe me the question I raised is on more lips than you’d ever know, I just have the bollox to air them.
I will ask you again what makes you so certain that it was the mother who injured this child and not the fosterers or social workers? Why are you so desperately anxious to blame her and noone else? ARE YOU A SOCAL WORKER,?
I’m not certain, I haven’t even said it was her, what I did say is she is denying it has happened, no matter who did it, which is a concern in itself.
Am I a social worker? Meh … I think not, I’d rather die of a thousand cuts than be branded that
THEN DO NOT SLAG OFF JULIE FOR DEFENDING HER! Unlike baby p and daniel pelka there is absolutely no previous record of any injuries and even in this case no serious injuries and no proof she ever did anything !
You are both wrong. It says quite clearly “THE MOTHER was not present and was not represented.”
Ian, (per paragraph 5 of the judgment) the children were living at home at the time of the daughter’s allegations and subsequent medical examination. The suggestion that one of the people who would subsequently become foster carers and social workers, having not been involved with the children at all prior to those events, caused the injuries to precipitate proceedings is utterly daft.
No Jim the kids were first examined at the nursery and then the hospital as you can see from the judgement.The mother’s allegation of skullduggery outside of her home may seem far-fetched but not impossible ! Cover ups abound in this wicked world we live in !
Please point out where I have slagged Julie off. I know her well enough to speak directly to her if I have anything to say and she knows me well enough to know I haven’t got a nasty bone in my body
Ian, the comment Rules are at the top of the page.
I let you express your views here, even when I don’t agree with them. If other commentators disagree with you, personal attacks aren’t on. Agree to disagree on this one, and elaborate your disagreement without personal attacks (and I could live without the excessive capitalisation too)
When people/ organisations such as Mr Josephs, Mr Hemming, Mr Booker, JFF, PAIN are involved in cases and know more than has been said on the Judgement- it is their decent humanity which causes them to defend. Please forgive us all if any passion for Justice is misinterpreted as being aggressive- that I assure you is not our intention.
Please reconsider Pennylilac’s words,
‘How do we know who did what unless we look at it?’
and pray this family are reconciled.
I do feel we all should await what happens next in this case , I do feel that not all the information has not come out due to it not being out forward at appeal hence why the judge adjourned the case , clearly though we know that the child sustained injuries while in the care of the parents and we also know that the grandmother already had this plan to appeal at the final hearing
Maybe just maybe there is a lot more to this story but right now my heart goes to the child who seems to have suffered by a parent
Now we know and maybe we can predict what the judge will have in front of him next from the la and guardian I am just a little confused as to why the judge did not have all the information
And from what I can read I may be wrong it seems that mrs h states she has not seen certain info prior
Ummm lost if that us the case as sad to say once again mrs he has gone to court not seeing as she says all information Very weird if you ask me
Absolutely agree. I’m not sure anyone could win an appeal without seeing any form of evidence, what would the argument be?
Exactly I feel if we all did this we are guaranteed to get an adjournment as all this has really done is built hope and my heart goes to the child
Because adoptive parents had not been found does not take away the circumstances as to why the child was removed in the first place
Again I agree, but at least it prevented sibling separation, which can only be a good thing
Yes I do have to agree on this that is a good thing
The bit of the appeal that is still to be dealt with relates to the type of placement outside of the family (adoption v long-term fostering) and whether the siblings are to be together, and possibly contact, not the issue of the findings against the parents or the decision that the children can’t be placed within the birth family. That doesn’t preclude an appeal of the appeal, but it seems unlikely.
The mother actually claimed that there were no injuries in her care and that any that did occur happened either at the nursery or in the hospital. She also claims that the headless photos produced to the court had bodies unlike her children and were mistaken identity or fabrication, but that the court refused to verify them by comparison with the actual children.I have no way of knowing if she was speaking the truth but after what we have read of Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville her claims are not so far fetched as they may at first sound.For her to refuse to confess is surely at least an indication of doubts since she was more or less assured that if she accepted the court’s decision the result would have been less severe, but how can any parents “accept” judges’ rulings that they injured their children if they did not in fact do anything at all? That is what this mother claims and nobody can be categorically sure that she is not telling the truth. Innocent until proved guilty?? Sorry I forgot; this was a family court !
Here jim is para 5 :-!
5:-As I understand it from the judgment of the 7th January 2014, these children were living together with both their parents who were, and still are, themselves living together. In October 2012 the daughter, then aged three-and-a-quarter, said certain things at the children’s nursery which led to the children being examined first at the nursery and later at a nearby hospital.
Mother says if injuries occured (and she has never seen any) they happened at nursery or hospital or not at all as the doctor who was said to have examined the children could not be found to testify in court………………..The mother’s claims are unlikely but quite possible.
I attended the hearing and have been lightly involved with this case since last November and attended the Appeal hearing. I can assure you all that JFF would never step in unless we had reason to believe something may be amiss and the children have lost an opportunity in being with parents or extended family.
I would like to invite Sue Reid to speak, in person, to Julie and Tim Haines, my seniors at JFF for any questions Sue and her readers may have about the organisation in order to iron out any misunderstandings that people may have.
Is there any need for Tim or Julie to justify their actions if they feel they are doing the right thing?
As far as I can tell, Julie had not seen the bundle herself, so quite how this case went ahead and how you were privvy to it all is simply mindblowing
david gale asked me if anyone can explain this conundrum ! Maybe a fellow contributor??
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/news/11149781.C_section_baby_adopted_says_judge/
versus
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539601/UK-courts-not-decide-fate-foreign-children-says-judge.html
The Daily Mail report of Re E is scandalously inaccurate and wrong. What Re E says is that it is right where the parent is an EU national to notify the consulate, and if there is an application to have the proceedings transferred to the other country to hear that application entirely on its merits. There was, as the President says here, no application by the mother to transfer the case to Italy, or Italy to have the case transferred to Italy. No applications made.
It’s not very tricky, if you read the cases themselves.
I’ve got a feeling there’s more to it than that, her rep would surely have put in an application on her behalf as standard. I don’t think the poor woman knew what was going on and was badly let down by the ppl who were supposed to be defending/helping her
If you read back, I simply stated any questions about JFF may be asked as Tim and Julie Haines are possibly the leading lay advocates in England.
I knew the outline of the case months before it came- and I became part of- Justice For Families. It happened to be a coincidence.
You knew the outline of the case but neither the Judge nor Julie had not seen any documents on the day of court? If you are working for JFF under the Haines’, surely you had a duty to tell them what you knew before they attended court unarmed, they did after all only present a skeleton argument on the day?
I am totally confused by what you are claiming
I attended to listen to the hearing as a learning exercise and it was not until during the hearing that I realised this was a case I had asked to assist months before (but could not at that time).
@ ashamed don’t be confused but the pieces together and all is revealed u see the appeal was started in November even sooner by this new person who had certain information oh and then court day comes oh this is how we will run it the grandmother and father out in appeal application and them we state we had just been asked to help the day before so on the day in appeal we hand skeleton argument … Low and behold judge has nothing in front of him and neither the Haines oh well says judge j need more information and so so the newly people brought into the case … Get the idea and just how the this case was adjourned
I was given a basic outline when I was asked months ago (Oct) to help. I did not assist in any way then as I was not in a position to.
That would mean the Haines’ lied to the court about their knowledge, I don’t see them doing that
Okay explain then how they are supposedly taking on a case and getting no documents and I do feel amber may just have dropped them in it on this one as she said she was contacted months down the line but did not take the case .
I can’t explain it, I guess the H’s will have to have this one out with Amber, she dropped the A bomb on them
I guess so but hey you think anything will happen ummm nope just have to wait and see what is coming up and going to be stated next
I was asked in Oct to assist- by a third party. I was given an outline of the case and said I was not in a position to due to my own personal circumstances. I was not with JFF until after.
I turned up to court to listen to the Appeal- as anyone could have done- and as the case was being heard, I realised this was the same case. Nothing had been discussed previously.
My attendance at court was to listen and learn which cannot be be done from a textbook.
Well what bothers me then
Is that you are saying that this appellants contacted several people before hand and for which would mean that JFF was the only ones who took them on without seeing paper work ???
Sadly there are children’s lives mixed up in this. Tragic
I totally agree hence why a prior comment of mine I stated my hearts go to the children .. I feel it’s unfair to play such unacceptable games when it concerns the emotional turmoil of a child
dropped an A bomb lmfao ! sounds like she just screwed the mams whole appellants adjournment argument up in fairness n publicly humiliated and alienated the Haine’s for openly deceiving a court by having prior knowledge and implying they didn’t if her word is to be taken as truthful
bahahahaha loose lips my friend loose lips sink ships !
eeeeeee i may have to get me girdle out soon to stop me sides from splitting know it all knows f**k all or she would have known to keep her mouth SHUT !
and on a public LA legal forum of all places to do it AP honesty you need to get some rolling head emotions on here times like this i seriously do need me icons ha ha
Stella xx
Please enough of the sucking up to Julie and Tim they are not most properly best lay advocates in England I know for a fact that Julie has done the same thing in another case and this one involved a dad who had raped a stepdaughter so please enough soon though in this case I just mentioned all will be revealed and for which certain questions will need to be answers by JFF …
AMEN to that MM!!
read the full thread through and all in all not a piece of it has to do with the actual legal technicalities of the case all i can see ……..and of course being the risk of what i may say IL SAY IT !
is this ……
far to much brown nosing from fools who don’t know their ass from their elbow
Ian of course i normally do respect ya comments but to jump on our resident granny for being open eyed enough to see clearly that ss did actually for once in their lives actually bothering finding a case that wasnt just solely future risk of emotional harm and that there were actual justified causes for concern is plainly wrong
what seems to be missing from all of the above is that the case shouldnt be about the who did what angle it should be in essence or Re B and that a full proper risk assessment should be undertaken to find an alternative route to safeguard the children either with the mother or with contact remaining in place so that ECHR 8 is still being honored that a full residential assessment or stringent monitoring policies could be implemented etc etc whether the mam did or did not do it it irrelevant as we all know the actual facts mean bugger all in courts but fair play to ss for actually doing summit other than a bloody emotional harm case for once !
Stella xx
Resident granny … you know no boundaries :p
hey suck it up buttercup ya a granny through n through :p
n oi i know boundaries there those things i skip and dance around to avoid on a daily basis to get my own way 😉
Stella xx
Who is a granny ??? Me nah don’t think so
Stella was talking about me, ignore her, she’s a cheeky little madam!
Although, I am a nana to 4 beauts
*BEEN asked to assist
Why??????
folks wonder why I do not go public with the cases I deal with, oh my days, got lost in translation I though I was on that bookface thing again, my bad, I do know that reading the COA judgment the case is not over, I do know that the Judge had no paperwork, that is somewhat of a surprise given the new procedures in the COA whereby when an appellants notice is filed the Civil Appeals Office issue a standardised letter requesting further information, either from the Appellant or from the first respondents, either party are invited to provide the documents.
The letter produced by Civil Appeals is thus:-
The Office is now in receipt of all core documents required for this application for permission to appeal to be listed for oral hearing. This hearing will not be on notice to the Respondents unless the Court directs otherwise.
If any of the documents below exist and were produced within the lower court proceedings, please could the Applicant or the Local Authority provide copies to the Office for the assistance of the Court and for inclusion in the bundle before the Court.
If any such documents are provided, please ensure a copy is served on the other side. Please note that the Office is currently proceeding to list this application upon the basis of the core documents and the non receipt of these additional documents will not affect the hearing date, which will remain fixed.
(i) threshold documents
(ii) any previous judgments that are noted in the judgment under appeal
(iii) Guardian/Cafcass reports
(iv) Expert reports or assessments
We would be grateful if any such documents could be provided within 7 days.
These letters have been issued since October last year so it is quite a surprise that the Judge hearing the appeal had none of the above.
Indeed … curioser and curioser
think ya self privileged if you got a letter i clearly do too many appeals and aint worthy of that much paper lmfao as i just get it through emails 🙂 xx
The mother came first to me for help, and I KNOW THE WHOLE STORY from both sides (court papers ).How dare the judge refuse the grandmother simply because she loves her daughter. How dare he separate mother and children on the strength of bruises that were probably made at the nursery if they existed at all !
The mother actually claimed that there were no injuries in her care and that any that did occur happened either at the nursery or in the hospital. She also claims that the headless photos produced to the court had bodies unlike her children and were mistaken identity or fabrication, but that the court refused to verify them by comparison with the actual children.I have no way of knowing if she was speaking the truth but after what we have read of Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville her claims are not so far fetched as they may at first sound.For her to refuse to confess is surely at least an indication of doubts since she was more or less assured that if she accepted the court’s decision the result would have been less severe, but how can any parents “accept” judges’ rulings that they injured their children if they did not in fact do anything at all? That is what this mother claims and nobody can be categorically sure that she is not telling the truth. Innocent until proved guilty?? Sorry I forgot; this was a family court !
Thank you Ian for stating the mother came to you first. If I am correct, she found your details herself.
I hope all is well with you and your own family.
Warmest Regards,
Amber
Purely out of interest, Ian, have you ever served on a jury?
NO ! It would have been interesting………..
I must stress once more that NOBODY who came to court swore on oath that they had seen any bruises or phantom bootmarks on these children !!
It is probably a shgame that we only have the appeal judgment, and not the judgment from the finding of fact hearing. All we really know about that was that it lasted five days and the findings were made.
If the chain of custody of the photographs was questioned, one would expect at some point questions would have been put to the medics and nursery staff about what they saw, but it is possible that Ian is correct, since we don’t have the transcript of the fact finding hearing to look at.
Surely they will have to be published at some point?
I am aware that Ian is in Monocco, I would ask if he was at the hearing, if not, how would he know it is a fact that nobody swore on oath that they’d seen the photographs? I’d suspect they would be part of physical evidence rather than an oral submission/admission of their existence?
This case is really bizarre, no paperwork or photos seen by anyone, Amber admitting she was lightly involved with the case in Oct/Nov time yet no-one seems to know anything about any of it on court day. It just doesn’t add up.
The mother approached me originally,and I kept in constant contact with her until she left UK;(but I reecommended julie to her to help in court)
I got court papers as and when she got them, and her unvarying defence was that there were never any bruises that she or anyone else saw who was willing to come forward to say so.Naturally she queried the examining doctor’s very existence when he never turned up in court and the hospital denied he worked there when she phoned !The court refused to compare the headless photos of bruised bodies with those of her children which she said were different in both shape and form ! It was all hearsay,hearsay,hearsay ……!
Sorry, my mistake, I should have said that no-one swore on oath they had seen the marks
Wouldn’t it have been easier for you to email Julie the court papers then? She would have had something to work on that way. It seems pretty clear there was knowledge of this case back in Oct last year.
This mum has left the UK, not attended court to fight for her babies, questions why the doctor didn’t attend court, no one has any prior knowledge except you & Amber, although you’d put her onto Julie to deal with it
What a mess
I don’t believe a word of what has been claimed regarding the lack of knowledge, unfortunately for Julie, Amber has shot her clean in the foot publicly! I was subtly trying to tell her to shut it, but amongst all the attacks arguments and the feeding of egos, my message was lost, poor Julie, poor family, poor kids
With respect … You are repeating what is being fed to you, via what has been fed to your source via the mother, that sir, is hearsay
Just read this extract from the judgement reprinted above :-
“Unfortunately, the reaction of the mother to these proceedings and to the fact finding decision of the district judge in July has effectively been one of almost total denial. Instead of acknowledging and facing up to what she had done and seeking help about it, the mother adopted what the district judge was later to describe as a “conspiracy theory”. She has said and continued to say that the allegations had been fabricated; hospital documents, including photographs of the injuries, faked or forged; and she has said even that the examining doctor at the hospital is a non-existent person.”
This reflects the mother’s consistent position throughout.The judge does NOT say that the headless photographs with bruises were compared with the bodies of the children ,because they were not ! He did NOT prove the existence of the phantom doctor by forcing him to come to court ;or by naming him enabling him to be verified (or not !) as a member of the hospital staff ,He did NOT call anyone to court to testify as to the bruises;He did not mention any evidence whatever that the bruises (if there were any ) did not occur at the nursery who could just as easily have reported them as being caused by the mother to escape liability themselves.All the judge could do was to ridicule the mother as a conspiracy theorist when in fact it was probably a classic cover up of mistakes with the local authority determined to save face and win its case no matter what means were needed to do so.
Lastly the mother did not attend the last court because her pregnancy began to show so she escaped back to her own country to save her unborn child fron the rapacious uk social services!The grandmother was refused custody of the children purely because she had such excellent relations with her daughter ! An exception definitely NOT mentioned in the children act 1989 ordering that children who could not live with parents should go to relatives !
Hmm, it is a worry, you may have guessed by now that I am hearing this sort of thing go on all the time and the mother could well be innocent of any wrong doing.
I think it’s fair to say, that the Judge has adjourned until he has the paperwork to hand, maybe this is exactly what he is waiting on?
Many mothers of victims of ss fail their assessments because the LA feel the mother will be bullied by their daughter into doing as she wants, in this case that can’t be possible if mother is to stay in a different country, I feel the rights of the father have yet again been discarded *sigh*
The main worry here is that the younger two are adoptable and I see them as a ‘target’ whereas the oldest child is not, what will become of her? Languishing in the care system will do her no favours whatsoever (take it from someone who has been there) – therefore there must ideally be a reassessment for both grandmother and father regarding her. Maybe the revised PLO will see to that, who knows …
I have to say though, the major concern is, how will the representation now pan out? The judge surely now cannot allow the representation to continue as it stands, now that it has been publicly discussed that there may have been a perjury committed on the day regarding knowledge of the case, this is unfortunately the product of certain members of the public who simply lack the knowledge in how to deal with the legal system, very dangerous indeed.
It’ll be interesting to see how much damage she has done and what the outcome will be once the Judge has laid eyes on some paperwork
To clarify, I was contacted Oct/ Nov on a Saturday night by someone asking if I would assist with a case which was to be heard two days later on the Monday morning. I declined as I knew this case would be beyond my knowledge but I recommended a solicitor as the family were eligible for legal aid. As soon as the legal aid solicitor confirmed on the Monday that they would take the case on, I had no further dealings . At no time did I see any paperwork or speak to the family directly. It was only during the appeal hearing (which any member of public could have attended) , that it struck me that this must have been the same case. Indeed up to reading this thread I never even knew Mr Josephs had any dealings with the family.
It is a small world.
Innocent unless proved guilty ? Sorry I forgot it was a family court………………..
Indeed Ian, some are too quick to jump down our throats! Hope all is well and look forward to hearing you at the conference.