This is a successful appeal (indeed fairly unusually it was an appeal that by the time the Court of Appeal came to look at it, all four parties were in agreement should be granted) about a decision in the High Court to make a finding of sexual abuse against a child, T, who had just turned 16 when the High Court considered the case. T had been the subject of a Care Order and Placement Order when she was six, then placed for adoption.
(Bit nervous about this one, as I know that 75% of the silks in the case read the blog… and I have a mental crush on all three of them. And because I also have a lot of respect for the High Court Judge who gets monstered in the appeal judgment)
The adoption got into difficulties, and T went into respite care for a short time in May 2014. She went back to her adopted family at the end of May and that carried on until the end of August 2014, at which point the adopters agreed a section 20 arrangement – the social work team wishing to remove T as a result of her allegation to a CAMHS worker. The allegation was that during that period from May 2014-August 2014 when she was with her adopted family, the adoptive father had sexually assaulted her, including one allegation of rape.
P (A Child), Re  EWCA Civ 720 (11 April 2018)
The section 20 arrangement continued. It was obvious to all that T would not be going back to the adopters. (Listen, I know that at this point, the adopters are legally her parents and I don’t seek to diminish that, but I think to understand the case it is easier to say adoptive parents and birth parents). The s20 continued until the Local Authority issued proceedings in April 2016. By that time, T had given an ABE interview, made further allegations and declined a second ABE interview and made partial retractions of the allegations. Her behaviour had deteriorated and by the time of the Court case, had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. (which is rare for a child)
The first question the case raises then, is why this child was under a section 20 arrangement for so long, rather than proceedings having been issued? I’ll preface this by saying that obviously a case involving an allegation of rape against a child – particularly rape where the alleged perpetrator is an adopter and someone still approved to adopt children, ought to have been placed before the Court. Very quickly after those allegations were made – perhaps allowing a short period of time for the investigation to take place.
(I can’t lay my hands on the authority at the moment, and Hershman McFarlane is being uncooperative, but I’m fairly sure that there is a mid 1990s authority that says where the LA believe the child has been the subject of serious sexual or physical abuse, they ought to place it before the Court by issuing proceedings… I wish I could find the authority. Perhaps one of my illustrious silk readers can illuminate us. The Act itself just says that the LA can’t issue proceedings unless they believe the threshold criteria to be met – so it says that there are situations where they shouldn’t, it is silent about the circumstances in which they should. The LA don’t have to issue proceedings on every child where the threshold is met. )
So what follows is not a justification or excuse for the delay, but an attempt to consider the context.
Here are some possible reasons why proceedings were not issued :-
- It just never got considered (prior to April 2016), and it wasn’t a conscious decision not to, so much as just nobody thinking about it.
- The adoptive parents were not asking for T back, T didn’t want to go back, T was in what was considered to be a safe place, and so there was a thought process that nothing was to be gained by going to Court. T wasn’t going to be adopted by anyone else and a Care Order would add nothing to the situation on the ground. Perhaps people even actively thought about the ‘no order principle’ and considered that it wasn’t possible to make out a case that the making of a Care Order (as needed by article 8) would be ‘proportionate and necessary’
- This was happening BEFORE the s20 drift was coming to judicial attention and prominence as an issue, and when those s20 cases did emerge, that’s when the LA did take action.
- Perhaps everyone was caught up in the day to day management of T and what she needed in terms of placement and stability, and overlooked the bigger picture.
- Let’s be quite honest – there’s the potential that the parents in this case were treated differently (because they were adopters) to the way they would have been treated as birth parents.
However, ALL of those issues are hard to excuse the fact that T’s sister, X, remained with the adoptive parents. So the LA had an allegation of rape by T, known about for over 18 months, and knowing that a younger sister was still living with the adopters.
(So either they didn’t believe T’s allegations OR they thought for some reason that X was safe, but the point is they couldn’t know for sure either way)
Anyway, the Court of Appeal were critical of the delay
12.Unfortunately, and to my mind inexplicably, the state of affairs whereby T was accommodated under CA 1989, s.20 was maintained from August 2014 until the institution of care proceedings in April 2016, notwithstanding the clear and stark issue of fact created by T’s allegations and the father’s wholesale denial. Irrespective of the fact that T’s mental health and presenting behaviour may have rendered it impossible for her placement in the family home to be maintained, the need to protect and have regard to the welfare of the younger sibling, X, who remained in the family home, required this significant factual issue to be determined
The next issue in the case is that the adoptive parents agreed that the threshold was met for T, because she was beyond parental control. The LA, however, sought a finding about the sexual abuse allegations (five findings in all). That obviously makes sense given that X wasn’t beyond parental control, and there was a need to establish what happened to T, to decide if X was at risk of sexual harm. That makes sense to me. (I can’t, so far, make sense of why it appears that the proceedings were about T, and not T AND X – and the Court of Appeal say that
50.So far as X is concerned, although she has been the subject of arrangements made under the Pre-commencement Procedure operated within the Public Law Outline, no proceedings have ever been issued with respect to her since the making of the adoption order )
The High Court heard from 16 witnesses at the finding of fact hearing. Things went wrong when Parker J came into Court to deliver her judgment
17.The oral evidence had been concluded on 18 November 2016 and closing submissions were delivered on 18 and 25 November. The case was then adjourned to 8 December 2016 for the delivery of judgment. On that occasion, however, the Judge explained that she had been occupied with other cases and had been unable to prepare a written judgment. She had, however, reached “some conclusions” and, with the parties’ agreement, she stated what those were in the course of a short judgment which runs to some 6 pages in the agreed note that has been prepared by the parties. In short terms, the Judge rehearsed a number of the significant points in the case, for example, T’s mental health, the recording of her allegations and the ABE interview process, any evidence of inconsistency and T’s overall reliability, and an assessment of the father’s credibility before announcing her conclusion in the following terms:
“I have come to the conclusion therefore, and I am sorry to have to do so as I thought the mother and the father were the most likeable people, but during the course of 2014, there was an attempt at least, it may have been more, of sexual congress between the father and T.”
18.The case was then adjourned to 30 January 2017 for the delivery of a full judgment. A note of what had been said in court on 8 December was agreed between the parties and submitted to the Judge. On 30 January the Judge again indicated that, due to pressure on her time as a result of other cases, she had not been able to prepare a full judgment. Instead the Judge gave a lengthy oral judgment, seemingly based on prepared notes.
19.On 30 January, when the Judge had concluded her judgment, counsel for the father immediately identified a number of aspects in which, it was submitted, the judgment was deficient. The Judge directed that an agreed note of what she had said should be prepared and submitted to her within 7 days, together with requests from each party identifying any suggested corrections or requests for clarification.
20.The parties, in particular those acting for the parents, complied with the tight 7-day timetable. The Judge was provided with an agreed note of judgment which runs to some 115 paragraphs covering 42 pages. In addition, counsel submitted an annotated version of the note indicating possible corrections, together with a list of more substantial matters which, it was claimed, required clarification. In doing so those acting for each of the parties were complying precisely with the process originally described by this court in the case of English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd  EWCA Civ 605 and subsequently endorsed in the family law context by this court on many occasions.
All of this was compounded then, because despite knowing that the case was going to be appealed, following the judgment in January 2017, the transcript of the judgment wasn’t made available. The transcribers sent it to the Judge on 18th March 2017 – the Judge sent an approved copy back to them SIX MONTHS later, September 2017, but that approved copy never got sent to the parties or the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal (at the time of hearing the appeal) were therefore working from an agreed note of the judgment rather than the transcript
The Judge’s decision
26.Early in the judgment of 30 January the Judge records the decision that she had already announced at the December hearing in the following terms (paragraph 17):
“I have decided that she has been sexually interfered with by her father and that she has been caused significant emotional harm by reason of her mother’s disbelief in telling her so, although my criticism of the mother was highly muted in the circumstances for reasons I will come back to.”
27.After a summary of the evidence the Judge stated (paragraph 58):
“It is against that background that I need to assess the threshold.”
She then set out the content of the local authority fact-finding Schedule introducing it with the following words:
“I am asked to make findings in terms of:”
Unfortunately, the judgment does not record the Judge’s decision on any of the five specific findings of sexually abusive behaviour alleged in the local authority Schedule save that, at paragraph 71, the Judge stated “I also find that the description T gives of her father attempting to penetrate her is wholly believable”. Whether that statement amounts to a finding is, however, not entirely clear as it simply appears as a statement in the 8th paragraph of a 40 paragraph section in which the Judge reviews a wide range of evidence.
28.The basis of the appeal is that the Judge’s judgment fails sufficiently to identify what (the local authority would submit, if any) findings of fact the Judge made.
29.Before leaving the 30 January judgment, it is necessary to point to 2 or 3 other subsidiary matters that are relied upon by the appellants as indicating that the judgment, substantial though it may be in size, is inchoate:
- a) Prior to listing the witnesses who gave oral evidence the Judge states “I think I heard the following witnesses”. The list of 13 witnesses is said to omit 3 other individuals who also gave oral evidence.
- b) In the closing stages of the judgment the Judge makes one additional point which is introduced by the phrase “one thing I forgot to say” and a second which is introduced by “also one thing I have not so far mentioned, and I should have done”.
- c) At the very end of the judgment, and after the Judge has gone on to deal with procedural matters unrelated to the findings of fact there appears a four paragraph section dealing with case law related to the court’s approach to ABE interviews where it is asserted there has been a breach of the ABE guidelines. That section is preceded by the phrase “I completely forgot”.
There are of course, all sorts of different styles and approaches one can adopt to delivering a judgment and the Court of Appeal are not trying to be prescriptive or to fetter a Judge’s discretion of stylistic delivery. Having said all that, if the immediate comparator that comes to mind is Columbo talking to Roddy McDowell, that’s not a good thing.
The appeal itself
30.Two notices of appeal issued on behalf of the father and mother respectively were issued in August 2017. Although this was many months after the making of the care order and the delivery of the oral judgment in January 2017, I accept that the delay arose because the parties were waiting for the Judge to engage in the process of clarification that she had directed should take place and, thereafter, the production of a final version of the judgment. There were also considerable difficulties in securing legal aid, caused at least in part by the absence of a judgment. At various stages the Judge’s clerk had given the parties some hope that a final judgment might be produced. The notices of appeal were only issued once the parties were forced to conclude that a final version of the judgment was unlikely to be forthcoming. Following the failure of the efforts made by the Court of Appeal to obtain a judgment, I granted permission to appeal on 16 November 2017.
31.The grounds of appeal and skeleton arguments that argue the cases of the father and of the mother from their respective positions engage fully with the underlying facts in the case in addition to arguing that the process as a whole has been fatally compromised by the court’s inability to produce adequately precise findings and to do so in a judgment which sufficiently engages with the significant features of the evidence. As it is on this latter basis that the appeal has preceded by consent, my Lords and I have not engaged in the deeper level, granular analysis of the evidence that would otherwise be required.
32.In terms of the English v Emery Rheimbold process, those acting for each of the two parents submitted short (in the mother’s case 3 pages, in the father’s case 5 pages) requests for clarification on specific issues. Each of those requests is, on my reading of the papers, reasonable and, even if a specific request were unreasonable, it was open to the Judge to say so.
33.The resulting state of affairs where the only record of the Judge’s determination is imprecise as to its specific findings and silent upon the approach taken to significant elements of the evidence is as regrettable as it is untenable.
34.That the state of affairs that I have just described exists, is made plain by the stance of the local authority before this court. Rather than simply “not opposing” the appeal, the local authority skeleton argument, as I will demonstrate, specifically endorses the main thrust of the appellant’s case. Further, we were told by Miss Hannah Markham QC, leading counsel before this court, but who did not appear below, that the local authority’s position on the appeal has been approved at every layer of management within the authority’s children services department. For one organ of the state, the local authority, to conclude that the positive outcome (in terms of the findings that it sought) of a highly expensive, time and resource consuming, judicial process is insupportable is a clear indication that the judicial system has, regrettably, failed badly in the present case.
35.Against that background it is helpful to quote directly from the skeleton argument prepared by Miss Markham and Miss Grieve on behalf of the local authority:
“5 At the heart of the appeal are findings that (father) behaved in a sexually inappropriate way towards his daughter T. The findings are set out in this way, as it is accepted by the respondent local authority that the judgment given by Mrs Justice Parker does not particularise the findings made nor does it cross refer findings to the local authority Schedule of findings. As such the findings have not been accurately recorded or set out.
“14 The local authority does not oppose the appeal for reasons set out below.
15 However the local authority does not accept that all grounds as pleaded would be matters or arguments which the local authority would either not oppose or indeed agree, if taken in isolation. The focus in approaching this appeal has been to stand back and have regard to the fairness and integrity of the judgment and the process taken by the parties to try to clarify the judgment and in particular the findings made.
16 It is submitted that it must be right and fair that a party against whom findings are made should know the actual findings made and the reasons for them. It is submitted that reasons on reasons are not necessary, but clarity as to findings and a clear basis for them is a primary requirement of a Judge.
17 It is significant that the learned Judge has resisted requests of her to clarify her judgment and that in particular she has not taken opportunities to set out the findings she has in fact made.
18 Dovetailing into that error is the argument that flows from that omission; absent clear findings it is impossible to see, understand and argue that the Judge formulated her findings on clear, understandable and right reasoning.
21 In this instant case it is submitted on behalf of the parents that the judge did not even set out the findings, not least allow them to see whether she fairly and with significant detail set out her reasoning for coming to the findings she then made. Further requests of the Judge were properly made and the learned Judge has neither responded to them nor clarified why she is not engaging in the requests of her
23 (Having listed the short specific findings made by the Judge) It is acknowledged that these matters are the most detail (the Judge) gives to her findings. Whilst it is asserted by the local authority that the learned Judge was able, within the ambit of her wide discretion to make findings, it was incumbent upon her to set out with clarity what those findings were and how she came to make them.
24 It will be apparent from the matters set out above that she failed in this task and that she failed to cross refer back to paragraph 59 (where the Judge listed the content of the local authority Schedule of findings) and set out what she had or had not found proved.”
36.The local authority identified two specific grounds relied upon on behalf of the father, one asserting that the Judge rejected the father’s case on the deficits on the ABE interview, against, it is said, the weight of the evidence, but provides no analysis for coming to that conclusion. Secondly the local authority accepts that there were many examples of inconsistency within the accounts that T had given. In both respects the local authority expressly acknowledged that the Judge failed to engage with these two important aspects of the case and failed to set out her findings in respect of each.
37.The local authority, rightly, argue that a Judge has a wide discretion to accept or reject evidence in a case such as this and that the Judge does not have to refer expressly to each and every detail of the evidence in the course of their judgment. The local authority’s skeleton argument, however, accepts “that a fair and balanced assessment of the cases advanced and evidence for and against said cases is necessary, proportionate and fair and has not occurred sufficiently in this complex case.”
38.Miss Kate Branigan QC, leading Miss Lianne Murphy, both of whom appeared below for T, acting on the instructions of the children’s guardian adopt a similar stance to that taken by the local authority. In their skeleton argument (paragraph 10) they state:
“Albeit T maintains that the allegations made against her father are true, the children’s guardian has had to conclude that the judgment as given by the court on 30 January 2017 is not sustainable on appeal and that inevitably the appeals on behalf of both appellants must succeed.”
Later (paragraph 14) it is said:
“Regrettably we accept that it is not possible from the judgment to identify what findings the court has made. At paragraph 59 of the judgment note, the court sets out the detail of the findings it is invited to make, but at no stage thereafter does the learned Judge indicate which of the findings she has found established to the requisite standard nor does she attempt to link what she is saying about the evidence to the specific findings sought….On this basis alone the judgment is arguably fatally flawed.”
And at paragraph 15:
“We further recognise in certain key respects the court has failed to engage with the totality of the evidence to the extent that any findings the court has purported to make are unsustainable in any event. In particular, we accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant father… that the court failed to undertake a sufficiently detailed analysis of the context in which T’s allegations came to be made, failed to engage with the professional evidence which called into question the reliability of those allegations and did not weigh appropriately in the balance the inconsistencies which were clearly laid out on the evidence in relation to T’s accounts.”
39.In the light of the parties’ positions, the oral hearing for this appeal was short. All were agreed that the appeal must be allowed with the result that, at the end of a process which started with allegations made in August 2014, and in included a substantial trial before a High Court Judge, any findings of fact made by the Judge and recorded in her oral determinations made in December 2016 and on 30 January 2017 must be set aside and must be disregarded in any future dealings with this family.
40.For our part, my Lords and I, rather than simply endorsing the agreed position of the parties, had, reluctantly but very clearly formed the same view having read the note of the 30 January judgment and having regard to the subsequent failure by the court to engage with the legitimate process of clarification that the Judge had, herself, set in train
41.Before turning to the question of what lessons might be learned for the future and offering some guidance in that regard, a formal apology is owed to all those who have been adversely affected by the failure of the Family Justice system to produce an adequate and supportable determination of the important factual allegations in this case. In particular, such an apology is owed to T, her father and her mother and her younger sister X, whose own everyday life has been adversely affected as a result of professionals justifiably putting in place an intrusive regime to protect her from her father as a result of the statement of the Judge’s conclusions 16 months ago.
The Court of Appeal were asked to give some clarifying guidance in relation to the issue of what happens where the parties ask (as they must) for the Judge to clarify flaws in the judgment and after a period of time the Judge has not done so. For a start, when does the clock for the appeal start to tick? After judgment, or after the request for clarification, or after receipt of such clarification?
42.Whilst it is, fortunately, rare for parties to encounter a situation such as that which has arisen in the present case, such circumstances do, however, occur and we have been invited to offer some limited advice or guidance.
43.The window in which a notice of appeal may be issued under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 52.12(2) is tight and is, in ordinary circumstances, limited to 21 days. It is often impossible to obtain a transcript of a judgment that has been delivered orally within the 21 day period. Unfortunately, it is also the experience of this court that not infrequently problems occur in the five or six stages in the administrative chain through which a request for transcripts must proceed and it may often be months before an approved transcript is provided. Whilst it is plainly more satisfactory for the judges of this court to work on an approved transcript, and that will normally be a pre-requisite for any full appeal hearing, the Lord or Lady Justices of Appeal undertaking evaluation of permissions to appeal in family cases are now more willing to accept a note of judgment (if possible agreed) taken by a lawyer or lawyers present in court in order to determine an application for permission to appeal rather than await delivery of an approved transcript of the judgment. It is therefore important for advocates attending court on an occasion when judgment is given to do their best to make a full note of the judgment so that, if it is needed, that note can be provided promptly to the Court of Appeal when a notice of appeal is filed.
44.The observation set out above requires adaptation when a party seeks clarification of the Judge’s judgment. In such a case, it must be reasonable for the party to await the conclusion of the process of clarification before being obliged to issue a notice of appeal, unless the clarification that is sought is limited to marginal issues which stand separately to the substantive grounds of appeal that may be relied upon.
45.Where, as here, the process of clarification fails to achieve finality within a reasonable time, it is not in the interests of justice, let alone those of the respective parties, for time to run on without a notice of appeal being issued. What is a reasonable time for the process of post judgement clarification? The answer to that question may vary from case to case, but, for my part, I find it hard to contemplate a case where a period of more than 4 weeks from the delivery of the request for clarification could be justified. After that time, the notice of appeal, if an appeal is to be pursued, should be issued. The issue of a notice of appeal does not, of itself, prevent the process of clarification continuing if it has not otherwise been completed. Indeed, in some case the Court of Appeal at the final appeal hearing may itself send the case back to the Judge for clarification. The benefit of issuing a notice of appeal, apart from the obvious avoidance of further delay, is that the Court of Appeal may itself directly engage with the Judge in the hope of finalising any further outstanding matters.
Whilst the Court of Appeal say that because of the administrative nightmare that is obtaining an approved transcript, they will accept an agreed note from the lawyers I wonder how on earth that is going to work with cases involving only litigants in person (eg about 90% of private law proceedings)
And the moral of this long convoluted story is “If a child in care or adopted child makes allegations of sex abuse against a fosterer or adoptive parent declare her to be mentally disturbed and keep her out of court “otherwise fostering and adoption might get a bad name and that would never do ……………!
This case from 2000 contains a warning against drift, but I agree that there is an earlier one that is more specific to NAI/sexual abuse:
In Re E (Care Proceedings: Social Work Practice)  2 FLR 254, FD, Bracewell J
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Surely ‘fairness’ requires that the birth parents should have been notified and joined as parties as this disastrous scenario unfolded – especially if they were only ruled out on a borderline pretext eg, potential emotional harm?
Yes but the birth parents probably loved their daughter and love is a dirty word in the family courts because they cannot supply it or understand it.Top priority is generally to keep birth parents at bay and well out of the picture no matter what happens !After all they might have got their daughter safely back with them if they were made parties and that would never do !!
What is crystal clear is that English and Welsh public family law has deliberately been drafted to promote the commodotisation of children for corporate profit. Over-zealous social workers at the coal face are just one aspect who play their part in harvesting the hapless infants – the hidden cost of social engineering is too high to society. In this era of swingeing cuts and austerity its time for root and branch reform – high time!
It does always seem like an unfair part of adoption that when it goes wrong the birth parents don’t even have a right to be told. I would like to see that changed. On the current law this isn’t legally wrong ( but I’d agree with you that it is not morally right)
Severing birth ties to this extent is reprehensible hence bad law which needs repealing/reforming and replacing with something more proportionate. Were a poll taken, I’d wager hands down that the public would overwhelmingly favour the birth parents over the adoptive ones. No evidence, no proof, not even learning the lessons of history just touting the same old canard ‘highly likely’ as though its set in stone would perish in the face of public opinion and public scrutiny.
Everyone..have a read of all these links
.. mainly in Guardian Newspaper over last few months.
The charity Family Rights Group are also following this issue along with Kinship Care Alliance as it doesnt just affect Birth Parents, it affects Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Siblings…:-( There have also been many articles on Womens Hour BBC Radio 4
In fact pretty sure when adoption breaks down they must inform the (birth) God I hate that term) parents have to be informed to return to court for contact & given an opportunity for residence as legal status is changed when adoption breaks down for any reason.. Seems to be to put the child in a mental home is a cover up to silence/discredit the child least LA expose that most children benefit more from being kept in their real families and why no police investigation ITS THE LAW!
Allow counsel to record judgment. At least an accurate note could then be available for any appeal.
Given that almost all counsel have laptops/iPads/smartphones that is the best solution. Though courts only accepted the existence of emails about three years ago, so it may be a few decades
Court of Protection: I have just spent seven months getting a judgment made on 8 August 2017 in Cardiff COP authorised, published and on Bailii. This was entirely du to my personal efforts as MB’s mother. No lawyer was involved or interested. MB now has the right to appeal this judgment. In the meantime his social worker has informed him that she no longer works for him. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
The so called “Court of Protection” is simply a vehicle set up to rob the elderly of their savings and their houses by declaring them to lack capacity in order to liquidate and sell their assets.
The proceeds are then split between lawyers and expensive private care homes !!
And Ian, what has this case got to do with the Court of Protection? Or did you just press the wrong macro?
Oh, I see, you were responding to a comment, apologies
Apology accepted ! (it feels great to say that !)
That made me grin. I love you, Ian
Have we reached event horizon with Judgments, I feel it would be more beneficial if at the point of judgment represented parties are able to make their own digital recordings of judgment.
That recording could then be transcribed in house then passed onto the parties and judge for approvement thus saving time and resources having to go down the route of applying for transcript, I’m sure the transcribing companies may not be entertaining for this kind of solution but access to justice should not be delayed.
McFarlane LJ is all too aware how waiting for judgments can have a devestating effect on the future of Children/Families, even when some points of judgment maybe moot for legals it may not be for parents, Contact being an issue I often encounter, Judge decides “X” contact should take place but with nothing supporting that like Judgments its very hard to hold LA’s to that point.
My local Courts used to allow that, but then the practice was banned. I’d like to return to it
Two different reactions ……………
1:An anonymous phone call accuses birth parents of shouting and screaming at each other and at their child causing emotional abuse so the child goes for adoption.
2:- The child accuses the adoptive father (or fosterer) of sexual abuse and the child is declared to be a “fruitcake” sorry to be” mentally challenged ” and is rushed away to be shut up in isolation to stop her saying anything else that might damage the fine reputations of the adopters and the social workers who put her there…………..
I take your point, about different standards, though your first example would not satisfy threshold.
I think that is what actually happened in the case under discussion but stand to be corrected if I am wrong (having heard only one side of the story).
Makes my blood boil..maybe those at the very top can shed some light on this bizarre lack of comprehension. Sexual abuse causes PTSD and far exceeds any emotional abuse caused by shouting and arguing a family can do. I have heard a case similar to this before and she was shut up in a mental hospital too and that was from sexual abuse from adoptive father too. Her brother remained with adopters. Why arent Social services continually involved with family? Foster carers have continued involvement and training and meetings…so adoptive parents should too as they are strangers to this child and they may find they cannot cope…. where are the rights of the child in all of this…they have a right to feel loved and safe and secure….they were placed in an unsafe environment…why have the sw who assessed not come under scrutiny???? Bad for business huh?
No further finding of fact hearing and no proceedings or protective measures for the younger sister X who remains in the (adoptive) family home. This is chilling. And on the Birth parents’ right to know point, remember the case of the baby murdered by an adoptive parent within weeks of adoption and the birth parents were still not told until the Judge in the Murder Trial asked whether they knew – there is an interesting potential Art. 8 point on the fact that Birth Parents can lose all rights after an Adoption Order is made, whatever happens later.
No longer potential, because the High Court have explicitly ruled in the Kirsty Seddon case (she is named, so I’m not breaching the order) that a parents article 8 rights end on making of the adoption order. I disagree with that decision, but it is the law unless someone gets a similar decision and appeals it successfully
That is a sick law and desp needs changing
Well naturally when a child is murdered by adoptive parents the birth parents are rarely told as they might (God forbid) make a fuss and that would never do…………….
They absolutely should be told, I think it is shocking to do anything other than tell them. Sadly it happens.
The huge delay in transcripts is an issue. I waited from November 2016 and have been emailed it, albeit illegible as in a different format. I still dont understand or know why my Grandson was put up for adoption, when he could have lived here with me, his Nanny, who has SGO for his sister (different LA) they said I was loving caring nurturing can see to his basic, physical and emotional needs but my Granddaughter was on occasion minutes late for school. Where was the risk of significant harm??? Im still upset and dumbfounded by this. The threshold criteria CANNOT have been met. No Kinship care assessment took place, CAFCASS never met with myself or my Granddaughter during entire proceedings and got rather irked when I mentioned the fact, so had a quick 10 mins during final hearing but only asked Gd if she liked school and what her fave subjects were. Nothing about living with me?? Gd didnt get her views heard about her brother, and we were both having regular contact before November 2016. No adoption hearing has taken place yet either and barrister said that they like to delay things before an adoption hearing so that they can say hes been with them for a period of time and cant disrupt him now, which is why they have stalled contact too. Judge in lower court said direct open contact for his benefit and that of his sister and due to existing relationships already formed (He used to see me and call me NanNan) but no contact been sorted out by Adopt Thames Valley STILL. Re the timekeeping issue: FACT – she is on SEN register and has Dyslexia and organisational issues, as well as short term memory loss issues, assessments refer, but local LA will not fund a formal diagnosis. Another FACT – private landlord sold the house so we went to local housing to secure long term secure housing and we were put into temporary accomodation 30 miles from her school and relied on taxi and M4 traffic! Another FACT it was not attendance issue, it was an occasional timekeeping issue which she improved on with support (as agreed by McFarlane) none of my other points, and there were lots, were put into the skeletal argument put forward for appeal only the attendance issue. It was almost 90%. Then SS went on about my age (Im 51), my weight (I am a little overweight), and my status, as I am a single parent. I split from my long term partner in 2005/6 amicably. I noticed huge inconsistencies in reports, bare faced lies in assessments that I could prove, my LA were not allowed to come to court, my witnesses that heard this other LA admit to lying were not allowed to come to court, apparently as it is a family court and they are not party tp proceedings, then I was not allowed to talk, my report was cut from 50+ pages to half of that, but LA where my daughter lives was allowed to write many reports doubling that size. CAFCASS submitted their report without even meeting us but it was exactly same as SS which baffled me, Judge never read all the reports or evidence or gave me a proper fair hearing as it was evident it had been decided on before we all went into court and her job was just to rubber stamp what LA requested. Judge should have spent more time on it as she would then question the LA herself. No where did it mention SGO or Kinship, just adoption all the way through. In fact no support plan was in there paperwork. No one read my Gd educational assessments, and she is otherwise a very bright child. Apparently as a single parent on benefits (but I wasnt allowed to work if I had him??) I could not afford him and they do not want single parents, they said a child must have 2 parents, one at home to care for him and one out working for financial security. Maybe in an ideal world. I felt totally discriminated against as a single parent/grandparent. Legal aid stopped and started frequently and I found myself having to represent myself in one hearing, and when I asked for an ISW it got refused from the LA (this is not my LA btw). There were 2 instances when the LA in question did not inform my solicitor of court hearings so no one attended. They said my LA were not needed so Judge seemed to just go along with anything they said. I was told court time was at a premium and we would not get another hearing for a long time, so it could not be postponed. There was apparently a lack of Judges and too much workload so they dont have time to read 50+ page reports, which was why mine was cut…and when I responded with my report (cut down version) the LA produced another 3 reports. No one wanted my report or my daughters on hospital records stating baby was fit and healthy, as they said I wouldnt manage a teenager and toddler together and that the age gap between children of 10 years was an issue too (but many people have 2nd relationships and further children??) I actually found the age gap to be much better and easier. All the health conditions the LA said he ‘supposed’ to have were non-issues…if they had brought the doctors to court they would have known that, their reports were not there, also the contact notes for our contact with grandson and all my witness statements were not in the court bundles. Even contact workers in the contact centre kept saying they didnt understand the decision making. They too were well aware that the SW in question were aggressive and power hungry as I had witnessed the SW behaviour towards some of them. The social worker said to me that Grandparents have no rights and laughed at me. In court she smirked, squinted her eyes and then laughed as Judge rubber stamped the placement order. I want to pursue this. My complaint of 2 SW in there was not followed through as the said sw i was told had left and move to other LA. So no justice, no appeal allowed (as the lower Judge can only make a judgement on information and facts she has in front of her, and if facts are not there then the error is not her error??? Then I was told I cannot introduce new evidence??..but its not new!!! its witheld) I thought our great country prides itself of justice and law but it seems there is none, its a corporate adoption business. who’s making money from adoption companies profits? why do LA get 27k per child from central government for achieving adoption and placement performance targets; which initially were set up by Blair to help place the hard to pace older children, then Cameron pumped more and more money and focus into adoption (as Osbourne was adopted and he did well for himself)… but has now become more like snatching babies at birth to fulfil adopter demands for newborns. Who is this about? the child or the adopter? Money over love?
Btw, my Grandson was snatched at birth by SS. The birth mother (my daughter had previously been in a relationship where she had 3 years into it suffered domestic abuse whilst in early pregnancy) she attended domestic violence courses and got out the relationship in early/mid pregnancy and never contacted him since but pressed charges. My Grandson was still taken by SS when he was born..why?…just in case she ever went out with a similar person in future. She was devastated and broken at the loss of her son, so was I, my 1st Grandson, I was thrilled and we went and bought him lots of items. But alas, he never came home to either my daughter or myself and his sister. His Mum, my daughter met someone else briefly and although was not interested in a long term relationship nonetheless she discovered she was pregnant so she split up from him in order to keep her baby. She did. He came straight home to her and she has no SS involvement. New SWs amitted it should never have happened like it did before, that it was not them but their predecessors..but we still dont have him back. My daughter has remained single ever since too scared to go out or live with anyone.
So I’m good enough a parent for his older sister, and his Mum is good enough a parent for his younger brother, …so whats wrong with him….why him? It makes me sick. We want him back
😦 You must have a good idea what I think of the poor hurried decision making nowadays. My Grandfather was a Judge, he taught us right from wrong, and I’m ashamed of our Justice system now.
Open Family Courts for Public scrutiny. Media should be allowed to report anonymised just as they do in criminal court. If there were any risk of significant harm it should all he held in a criminal court anyway. Another thing for the Government to apologise for in years to come, snatching babies at birth ……oh…sounds familiar..ring any bells?…isnt what they used to do in 1950s-1970s.
So abolish social workers and leave child cruelty to the police .Bring back free speech by banning gagging orders(excepting those involving national security) and restrictions on speech with kids in care during contact.
Totally agree with what you have said. This is our social services and law system nowadays. #fakejustice not fake news.
How can we all make a change to the law?? Chain ourselves to the railings like the suffragettes ? All sensible ideas welcome
Can you report the judge for judicial bias? It has to be done within 3 months though. https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/ I can’t see how leave to appeal could not be granted. If there is no way through this, go to the media if you are not gagged, they can’t get away with this, it’s disgusting and shows that what so many parents are reporting is true. Your comment is very powerful and it has to be possible to prove what you report has happened. You can file a police complaint for perjury where they have lied, it’s a criminal offence. Also report breaches of Data Protection law for lies as the law requires records are accurate. You can write correcting all the errors and request they reply confirming this has been done, if they don’t, report them to the Information Commissioners Office. The whole system is corrupt.
Don’t suppose you found that authority about issuing when LA believe the child has been the subject of serious sexual or physical abuse?
Child Protection Team Leader
Bristol City Council
Telephone: 0117 922 4442
Mobile: 07722 160 484
I didn’t. Have looked very hard but can’t find it. My recollection is of a memory of it being referenced in Hershmans rather than reading the case and I can’t track it down