A sad case, where parents found themselves in care proceedings and if they had worked with professionals or taken the advice their lawyers would have given them, they probably would have overcome the problems and left the proceedings with the child, or at least with the child placed with grandparents.
Re A Child 2016
However, they instead took the route that shouting during the hearings that the Court had no power or authority over them was going to be the best approach. That and getting heavily involved with the Freedom of the Land movement, and thinking that their magic words and spells could save the day. They can’t. They never do.
This is all just Woo – pseudo-science dressed up as something real, selling an idea or a substance that’s too good to be true. [What, I just walk into Court and call myself “He who is Named David of the Family Hasslehoff” and the Court has no power over me at all? Awesome! Not true. Woo.]
Instead of taking up the free legal advice from people who know how to conduct care proceedings, know how best to get your child back and understand English law, they instead took advice from self-styled Federal Judge David Wynn-Miller.
If the fact that David Wynn-Miller is NOT a Federal Judge, but instead an American welder doesn’t raise some alarm bells about his suitability, just look at how many people who followed his suggestions ended up in prison. I counted eleven. Of twelve.
If even that doesn’t worry you, how about this, from his own words Miller remarked that the genesis of Truth-language was when he “turned Hawaii into a verb”
I know that there are good and bad lawyers, and some people have had awful experiences with lawyers that they had no confidence in or felt were lazy. That does happen. You can sack them and get a better one. But there really are not any lawyers who claim to have ever turned Hawaii into a verb.
Woo. Woo. Woo.
The parents in this case followed this lead. With the usual results. (On the plus side for them,they didn’t get sent to prison, so that counts as a major plus by Wynn-Miller’s usual track record)
- The application was listed for hearing before myself on the 14th March 2016. On that occasion the parents represented themselves having dispensed with the services of their legal representation. Sadly on that occasion neither parent would respect the authority of the Court. The Father shouted at myself and was ejected from the Court. The parents were removed from the Court on 2 occasions. After the first occasion they were informed that they could re-enter the Court provided they respected Court procedures but sadly despite assurances that they would, they did not do so and they were ejected again from the Court. It was quite frankly impossible to hold any form of a hearing with them being present as they refused to respect the authority of the Court or the Court’s procedures. I asked the Mother at one point whether they were going to register the birth of their child (those assurances having been given to the Court on the 19th February 2016 that they would do so without delay) but at that point the Mother commenced reading a prepared script when she questioned the authority of the Court. As a consequence of that she was removed from the Courtroom as she refused to stop reading her script, and clearly had no intention of answering my questions or respecting the courts authority.
- At that hearing the Court was very concerned about the evidence produced by the Local Authority, documented in the Social Worker’s statement of the 7th March 2016. The parents had entered into a Contract of Expectations on the 11th February 2016 which set out the expectations of the parents during contact sessions and the role of the contact practitioners to ensure that contact ran smoothly and was a positive experience of the child. However the social workers statement documented that the parents had failed to comply with that contract in that in almost every contact session that had taken place there was a refusal by the parents to accept or act on advice, they were being disrespectful to the contact supervisors and there was an increasing concern about the Mother’s presentation during contact sessions and the impact that this was having on the quality of contact. The Local Authority were also concerned about the behaviour displayed by both of the parents which was becoming increasingly threatening and disruptive to the contact which, in turn, impacted on the quality of the contact and the emotional experience for their baby.
- The Court was clearly concerned given the age of this baby that the parents should be given an opportunity to reflect on the position in the hope that further contact between themselves and their baby could take place. The order therefore of the 14th March records the Local Authority agreement to arrange contact between the baby and the parents twice a week provided the parents attend a meeting with the Local Authority to discuss the management and arrangements for the contact and that they sign a Contract of Expectations. It was on that basis, the Court taking that agreement into account, made the order under Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 which was of course a permissive order only, permitting, if appropriate, the Local Authority to refuse contact. The anticipation of the Court and the expectation of both the Guardian and the Local Authority was that following that hearing the parents would meet with the Social Worker, sign a free contract of expectations and that then further contact would take place.
- Sadly that has not been the case and these parents have not attended the Social Services offices nor have they made any attempt to re-instate contact and therefore they have not seen their baby since the 4th March 2016. Some four and a half months ago.
- On the same day the Local Authority made application to Mr Justice Baker under the Inherent Jurisdiction for orders as the parents were publishing information on Facebook and other social media outlets concerning these Court proceedings.
- From documents that the Court considered on that occasion it was apparent that the parents had dispensed with legal representation in this country and had consulted with a self-styled Chief Federal Judge, David-Wynn Miller.
- Various documents have been served on parties and the Court and on that occasion the court considered a document headed “Educational – Correspondence – Claim. It is a bizarre document which makes quite frankly not a word of sense but is a clear claim by them that the Local Authority have kidnapped their child. This has been a theme which has run through the documentation which has been on Facebook and on YouTube and has persisted throughout despite the injunctions which were made by Mr Justice Baker on the 14th March 2016.
A hint as to why the parents might have fallen for this Woo can be found in the concerns about them
Given the father’s medical beliefs, there are concerns that the child may have been treated indirectly with harmful alternative medication through the mother’s breast milk or may be treated with harmful medication in future:
3.1 . An investigative journalism piece in 2015 discovered that the father was selling Master Mineral Solution (MMS) as a treatment for cancer and autism. MMS is a sodium chlorite solution equivalent to industrial-strength bleach; the Food Standards Agency has warned it should not be consumed as to do so as directed could cause severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, potentially leading to dehydration and reduced blood pressure;
3.2. The father advocates the use of MMS and his personal website includes paraphernalia for the administration of such products to babies.
Yes, let’s treat cancer and autism with industrial-strength bleach. And let’s give this to babies.
This website debunking MMS explains the science very clearly and carefully – note particularly ‘one hundred thousand times the amount for safe drinking water’ calculations.
This is nasty, nasty stuff, preying on people who are sick and desperate. It is super nasty when it is pushed as a cure for children.
(some of my sympathy for these parents has evaporated. I remain very sorry for them, but not anywhere near as sorry as I do for anyone who purchased some of this cancer treatment. By the way, it remains a criminal offence under the Cancer Act 1939 to advertise for sale a substance or treatment that purports to cure cancer. If you are thinking of posting a comment about how it is just Big Pharma that has supressed MMS as a cure for cancer because they know it works and they want to keep it off the market, don’t bother. )
The Judge set out that the concerns about the parents were quite capable of being resolved, if they had engaged with assessments, but their bizarre behaviour meant that there was no alternative save for adoption in the case.
- This is an extraordinary case where there could well have been an alternative option or outcome for this child. Whilst the circumstances which resulted in the care proceedings being instituted by the Local Authority were concerning there was certainly a real prospect that the concerns of the Local Authority could have been allayed during the course of the assessments which were to be undertaken by them of the parents and grandparents.
- In addition to the health concerns and the parents’ conduct towards those in those early days of the baby’s life there were of course the other particularly worrying concerns in relation to the Father’s beliefs and in relation to the administering of Master Mineral Solution (MMS). Those concerns again could have been allayed by the Local Authority and Court being satisfied that despite his beliefs such a solution would not be provided to the baby and/or that the Mother would be a sufficient protective factor to ensure that nothing untoward was ever administered to the baby. Also as a backstop position if the Court were not sufficiently satisfied in relation to the Father it may well be given the Mother’s position at the commencement of proceedings that she, herself, could have cared for the baby on her own. All of these seemed very realistic options available to the Court at the commencement of these care proceedings.
- Sadly in this case however as can be seen from the chronology which has been detailed in this judgment the parents and the parents’ family have left this Court with no other realistic options other than the one proposed by the Local Authority.