Most of the case of Birmingham City Council v LC 2016 is fact specific, but there are two matters of broader interest
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1278.html
The first is that the mother in the case had made threats to kill the social worker and was in fact arrested for doing so.
- The matter was listed for final hearing before a District Judge sitting in Birmingham on 13 January 2016. Shortly prior thereto the mother was arrested for threatening to kill the current social worker. Ultimately the police did not proceed to charge her with any offence. At the hearing on 13 January the mother was extremely volatile and making threats of harm to the extent that the social workers and the advocates felt very vulnerable. The District Judge made contact with me and she allocated the case to me.
- On 19 January 2016 I gave the mother due warning that her conduct would not be tolerated. I made injunctive orders against her and warned her of the consequences if she were found to have breached the same.
- During the initial final hearing of this matter before me in February 2016 the mother made no threats to anyone but she was clearly agitated. On occasions she could not control her emotions, despite the best endeavours of her brother, G, who had moved to sit next to her in court. She left court in temper on a number of occasions.
- Without my permission, the mother chose not to attend any of the three days of this hearing. I am satisfied that she did so because she would not have been able to contain her anger or her emotions or would have been likely to threaten people involved in this hearing.
- I note when Mr Eyles visited the mother and X on 24 February 2016 the mother accepted she had threatened to kill the social worker but claimed she had not meant it. In the same conversation the mother said about the current social worker ‘I am going to get her’.
The second was that the Local Authority involved had conducted an assessment of family members, the child’s uncle and aunt. The Judge criticised that assessment and directed a fresh one
- At the hearing before me on 4 February 2016 I heard evidence from the social worker, Claire Ashby and from a social worker who had undertaken an assessment of G and K. It quickly became apparent in the course of the evidence of the latter that that assessment was seriously and fundamentally flawed. It could not support the exclusion of G and K as potential carers for the children and most especially when the local authority’s plan was to place the children for adoption.
- One of the most glaring omissions was that none of the identified criticisms, which led to a negative assessment, had been discussed with G and K. It followed that their responses or accounts in answer to the same were neither recorded nor taken into account when coming to a conclusion on the merits of their request to be considered as carers.
- In light of the foregoing the parties agreed, and I approved, the instruction of Mr Gary Eyles to undertake an independent social work assessment of G and K. Mr Eyles is an immensely experienced and well qualified former social worker and children’s guardian. His report, dated 21 March 2016, is a thorough and comprehensive assessment.
As it turned out, the independent assessment reached the same conclusion, but had been done in a way that allowed the uncle and aunt to respond to the criticisms about them before reaching a conclusion. This may be a useful authority in other cases for that principle, which is simple fairness. Of course, from time to time, the time-constraints put upon the filing of an assessment might not allow this step to happen – in those case, this authority may also be useful for Local Authorities to explain why there are solid article 6 reasons for the report to be filed late, rather than filing it on time but without the potential carers having the chance to respond to any worries, criticisms or fears about them as carers. The same also applies to viability assessments.
suesspiciousminds 
The children Act 1989 makes it clear that children who cannot live with parents MUST be placed with relatives or close friends of parents. Apart from the fact that a certain Mr Eyles is “vastly experienced” no evidence was presented to finally disqualify the aunt and uncle as carers.
Adoption at all costs seems to be the conclusion in this sad case.Why the surprise and implied disdain for a mother who loses control and makes threats when her children are legally stolen?
If she eventually committs suicide when her children are forcibly adopted (as happens to similar mothers from time to time) no doubt the authorities will point to her inherent instability. and blame that rather than their own cruelty……….
Well said hardly surprising mum made ‘threats to kill’ hard to keep your cool when your kids are being stolen parents are hard wired to protect their children at all costs its a primal thing I challenge any judge to keep a cool head if it was their children where is there ‘compassion’ oh I forget social workers and judges don’t do emotions how dare we mums be human!
What interests me is how ‘a social worker who had undertaken an assessment of G and K’ was enabled to present such a flawed report in the first place?
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
You refer to the uncle’s partner as the children’s aunt. However, she is not married to the uncle and this fact would probably have had an influence on the social work assessment. This may seem a relatively unimportant detail but I am sure that potential adopters who are not married would be faced with similar concerns about the legal situation.
Pingback: Flawed assessment of family members | Children ...
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“Forced Adoption | May 29, 2016 at 3:53 pm
The children Act 1989 makes it clear that children who cannot live with parents MUST be placed with relatives or close friends of parents. Apart from the fact that a certain Mr Eyles is “vastly experienced” no evidence was presented to finally disqualify the aunt and uncle as carers.
Adoption at all costs seems to be the conclusion in this sad case.Why the surprise and implied disdain for a mother who loses control and makes threats when her children are legally stolen?
If she eventually committs suicide when her children are forcibly adopted (as happens to similar mothers from time to time) no doubt the authorities will point to her inherent instability. and blame that rather than their own cruelty……….”
Other than the Cleveland Child false sexual allegations against parents, I have not yet read a case in which a child care case has been judged to be totally without merit,,parents found innocent and allowed to get on with their family life and bring up their family, let alone allowed to sue the local authority for the damage caused, the 100% case win tells its own story, the LA are always right
There will never be a fair assessment when adoption is the aim.
Not even if the parents offer a million names, none of them will pass assessment
Very true, within my Grandsons case (before adoption) his great aunt & uncle, married catholic couple, that had been carers for my grandson put their name forward as adopters to my grandsons solicitor and guardian ad litem, not a chance, their names were never put forward to a court, not a solicitor would help or even touch the case, stating we had nothing to do with this mess, how any legal representative perpetrating to act in the best interests of a child could refer to a child case as ‘A mess’ to me is an admission to the guilt of all of these so called legal representatives knowing of the illegalities that are perpetrated within these courts, under the cover of secrecy, hence secret courts, admit to false charges or you will not get your baby back, double jeopardy, guilty of knowingly lying on oath lose, lose situation all in the best interests of the child
As a grandmother I have full QC Focke file on full case, also hospital information, child clinic head measurement graph all proving medical negligence at birth of my grandson, if as I can see from my grandsons FB he does not seem to have been affected as badly as all involved expected, he is now approaching 20yrs old, what do I say to him about why was he adopted?,
The truth, always.
His life has been a lie so far, he deserves to know you were all fighting for him, he’s old enough to sue the LA himself
How independent, was the independent assessor, and why ?
How was he paid ?
If, all assessment, is effectively owned by state then is this fair ?
If, we, had this in criminal prosecutions, there would be an outcry of the lack of fairness.justice.
IE if we had state assessors, deciding without proving facts, that a particular family member was a criminal, as we do for not fit to care for a child.
We, also have, the huge elephant in the room, of the child protection industry, soon all to be privatised, connections, to the exposed multimillion pound, often now venture capital backed adoption, and fostering industry,
With yearly increasing lump sum fees, per adoption, now at £30,000 per child, and on average 900 per week paid to adoption agencies.
No independence allowed, no conflict, all involved 20yrs ago greeted each other as old friends, QC Focke and QC Sally Cahill (acting for RCLA) had worked together on numerous of Family Court Cases in Leeds Court, neither would accept changing the case name of my grandchild to a childs name that had never existed (court orders in this false name could not be implemented, allowed South Cleveland Hospital now James Cook UH to cover-up the truth, that he had been taken to the hospital on family doctors orders to investigate his many development problems, all recorded since his Breach, cord restricting, birth at their hospital had caused him brain damage)
Maybe a prick of conscience caused QC Focke to give me his full file, and a promisary he would do the birth neglect case against South Cleveland hospital, not that we ever heard from him again after the case, and the Guardian Alexandra Scoffin running around a table to let me know she had, had nothing to do with my Grandsons illegal adoption case,
The case was recently heard in OPEN court Middlesbrough, nothing has changed Judge Gillian Matthews relies on I had nothing to do with this case, rather than justice that a childs birth certified name, is impossible to be changed for illegal purpose by Social Service workers or their legal representatives, to implement a case of false injuries against parents and Grandparents, let alone the right of a child to be informed his adoption was illegal, any problems he has had in life were problems from birth, and allow the child to make choices, rather than his birth family having to prove our innocence, and let him know how much we adored him, tried to protect him from the day we met, and still wondering the best approach to the whole mess
In criminal proceedings, any experts are also paid for by the State. It is slightly different in that the defence can instruct an expert and then not reveal the report if they don’t like what it says, whereas in family law the drive is towards having an expert agreed by all of the parties and the report has to be disclosed even if people don’t like it. The remedy, as always, if you don’t like the conclusions of an expert report is to demonstrate through cross-examination why it is flawed or not to be relied upon.
According to my Grandsons case within the court of appeal there is in existence an 8 man signed doctors agreed report (bearing in mind this case is in the name of a child different to my Grandchilds birth certified name, a name that has never existed within the SCH now JCUH hospital files and no mix-up with his name occurred( according to written confirmation from JCUH Trust
On the other hand I do have a copy of this same 8 mans agreed doctors report sent by Sally Cahill to QC Fockes hotel by Fax this copy is in childs birth certified name but omitting his second Christian name, the report is signed by two doctors a Dr Kling Chong Great Ormond Street that was paid as independent, also a Dr San Lazaro also independent Newcastle, (a since disqualified within court procedings different case)paid witness, no signatures of any SCHT now JCUHT doctors involved in original admittance of my grandson
Surely to be in agreement with a report a doctor or expert should at least signature the report under their typed name on the report, not as signified by in my grandsons case only by, the outside 2 paid for experts who had no access to any of the hospitals medical file, due to the hospital trust not being party to the case, where were these 2 experts getting their evidence from, how can their involvement be accepted in a court of justice, if the hospital medical records dispute every false allegation made in reports they made. why were they discussing a child falling to the floor, from his mothers arms, nothing to do with the report of why my grandson was sent to the hospital by his family doctor or reported on his admittance report by his mother?
The crucial distinction is, that in the care courts, an expert, unlike in criminal proceedings, is remitted, and chosen, not by the parent, unlike a defendant, and, is also, likely to be giving his expert evidence in other hearings for the local authority.
As for the remedy being cross- examination of the expert, often, due to very limited legal aid, being now available, parents represent themselves, and do not know how to x exam
And, even if they are legally represented, there will be 2 lawyers against 1 x examining,
And, more crucially, a judge will rarely, if ever, dismiss expert evidence, where no contradictory expert evidence has been adduced. .
The parents lawyers do of course have a say in the choice of an expert (and following the recent decision confirming that Starr v National Coal Board has broader authority than just the limited field of that case, there’s a damn good argument for going with expert of parents choice if they have the right experience and expertise). Of course, parents themselves don’t know which expert is good or bad and have to rely on their lawyer’s advice, but that’s exactly the same as with defendants in criminal proceedings.