Author Archives: suesspiciousminds

An answer on relinquished babies and Re B-S

Posted on March 3, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

FINALLY! An answer to whether Re B-S and Re B apply to relinquished babies. Also an answer to mind-blowingly tricky stuff about whether a foreign parent who has a baby in England can relinquish without their home country being told, and how the heck to do a foreign placement with a relinquished baby. It is all here.

 

 

  • Where parents have relinquished their baby and expressed a wish that he or she be adopted outside the natural family, the degree of interference with family life rights is less than where the parent-child relationship is severed against the parents’ wishes. The fact that the parents have taken this decision is an important consideration when determining whether the interference is necessary and proportionate. It follows, therefore, that approval of adoption in such cases does not depend on the local authority or court reaching the conclusion that nothing else will do. Instead, they must approach the case by applying s.1 of the 2002 Act as set out above, making sure that they give paramount consideration to the child’s welfare throughout his or her life and allocating such weight as they consider appropriate to the comprehensive list of factors in s.1(4) In such cases, the local authority and the court must consider the parents’ wishes that their child be adopted in the context of all of those factors, including the child’s background, the likely effect on the child of having ceased to be a member of the original family and the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives to meet the child’s needs. As in the case of step-parent adoptions, the manner in which the statutory provisions are applied will depend upon the facts of each case and the assessment of proportionality.
  • It follows therefore that in all adoption cases – non-consensual and consensual – the local authority is under an obligation to carry out a thorough analysis of the realistic options for the child, as highlighted in Re B-S. Indeed, a thorough analysis of all the realistic options should surely be carried out in all cases where a local authority is making plans for a child’s future.

 

The analysis of the realistic options applies, but the test of “nothing else will do” does not. Just in case it wasn’t clear enough up there, the Judge says it again.

 

(2) The decision of the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 concerned non-consensual adoptions. Where parents have relinquished their baby and expressed a wish that he or she be adopted outside the natural family, the degree of interference with family life rights is less than where the parent-child relationship is severed against the parents’ wishes. The fact that the parents have taken this decision is an important consideration when determining whether the interference is necessary and proportionate. It follows, therefore, that approval of adoption in such cases does not depend on the local authority or court reaching the conclusion that nothing else will do. But the parents’ wishes, although important, are not decisive. They must be evaluated along with all the other factors in the welfare checklist in s.1(4) of the 2002 Act. In all adoption cases – non-consensual and consensual – the local authority is under an obligation to carry out a thorough analysis of the realistic options for the child, as highlighted in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

 

[Also, the Court ruled that with a child of foreign nationals who are relinquishing their baby for adoption, there is NO duty on the Local Authority – or the Court when later considering an adoption application to notify the foreign consulate in accordance with the Vienna Convention. ALTHOUGH, you now need to make sure that the Court doesn’t appoint a Guardian at the adoption hearing, or the Vienna Convention duties do arise. Damn.]

 

(3) Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 does not apply in cases where a child has been relinquished for adoption because the child in those circumstances is not being “detained”. Following the decisions in Re E [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam) and Re CB [2015] EWCA Civ 888, Article 37 of the Convention applies where a guardian is appointed in placement order or adoption proceedings.

 

 

Baker J in Re JL (2016)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/440.html

 

He goes on to outline the five options that a Local Authority has when parents relinquish their baby for adoption  (agree to have their baby adopted, in plain English)

 

 

  • Having carried out its assessment, the local authority will reach one of the following conclusions.

 

(1) It may conclude that adoption in this country is in the best interests of the child. In such circumstances, it can proceed formally to obtain the parents’ consent. If consent is given in the prescribed way, the local authority becomes “authorised” to place the child for adoption under s.19. As I read s. 22, if the local authority is authorised under s.19, it is not obliged under s.22(1) to apply for a placement order as the condition in s.22(1)(b) is not satisfied and, unless the child is subject to a care order or of ongoing care proceedings, it has no power to apply for an order under s.22(2) or (3). In such circumstances, therefore, it is neither necessary nor possible for the local authority to apply for a placement order.

(2) It may conclude that the child should be placed with family members or fostered in this country. In such circumstances, it may place the child under s.20 provided that the provisions of that section, and the other provisions of Part III of the Children Act 1989 and the associated regulations, are satisfied. In particular, under s.20(7) it may not arrange such accommodation if a parent with parental responsibility is able and willing to accommodate or arrange accommodation for the child themselves objects to the local authority’s proposal and in the absence of consent must apply for a care order. S. 20 has been considered in a number of cases, most recently by the Court of Appeal in Re N, supra, (see in particular the judgment of Sir James Munby P at paragraphs 157 to 171). Although both JL and AO are at present accommodated under s.20, that jurisprudence does not impinge on the issues in either of the cases before me and need not be considered further in this judgment.

(3) It may decide to place the child with family members in the country of origin. If the parents give their consent, it may proceed to arrange the placement without court approval. If the child is subject to a care order, however, it may only do so with the approval of the court: Children Act 1989, Schedule 2 para 19(1) and (2).

(4) It may decide that the child should be placed with prospective adopters that have been identified in the country of origin. In those circumstances, the procedure under s.84 may be available, and if so schedule 2 para 19 does not apply: schedule 2 para 19(9).

(5) It may decide to send the child to the foreign country so that the authorities there can arrange the adoption. This last course is the option which the local authority considers to be best in AO’s case. In those circumstances, s.85 will prevent the local authority sending the child to the foreign country unless the child is subject to a care order and the court makes an order under Schedule 2 para 19.

Number 3 is obviously the important one with relinquished babies.  In care proceedings, parents get to put forward family members who they wish to be assessed as potential parents. What happens with parents of a relinquished baby if the Local Authority WANT to assess family members, or need to rule them out, but the parents want privacy and don’t want them approached?

Well, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled  in Re C  v XYZ Local Authority 2007  http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1147  that :-

3. In my judgment, for the reasons given below, when a decision requires to be made about the long-term care of a child, whom a mother wishes to be adopted, there is no duty to make enquiries which it is not in the interests of the child to make, and enquiries are not in the interests of the child simply because they will provide more information about the child’s background: they must genuinely further the prospect of finding a long-term carer for the child without delay. This interpretation does not violate the right to family life. The objective of finding long-term care must be the focus of making any further enquiries and that means the court has to evaluate evidence about those prospects. That did not happen in this case. The judge consequently directed himself according to the wrong principle and his exercise of discretion must be set aside. This court must exercise the discretion afresh.

It has been a bit ambiguous as to whether this still stands, and it would not if the Court rule that relinquished adoptions are subject to the “nothing else will do” test of Re B. Baker J has cleared up that they aren’t, so Re C v XYZ 2007 remains the law for relinquished children and assessing wider family – only if the enquiries genuinely further the prospect of finding a long-term carer without delay.  The LA aren’t obliged to rule out individual members of the family, just to explore those who would satisfy that test.  Re C v XYZ seems to me to be completely compatible with Baker J’s strictures here that the LA must consider the ‘realistic options’ for the child, even where the parents have agreed or requested adoption.

 

9 Comments

Posted in adoption, case law and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

In the Court of Protection no-one can hear you scream (about the Case Management Pilot)

Posted on March 3, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

Those who are about to headdesk, salute you Caesar.

Yes, given their rip-roaring success in public law Children Act cases and their tour-de-force in private law Children Act cases  – where they managed to introduce at exactly the same time as all the lawyers were taken out of the system a process so complex and convoluted that it creates a key hearing with a name that literally cannot be pronounced…

The Court of Protection are proud to announce their very own labryinthine set of rules and processes.

You’re welcome.

 

Oh, and joyfully, they’ve called them Pathways. Because absolutely every single thing that has ever been labelled a Pathway has been an unqualified success and we absolutely want to build on THAT particular reputation.

 

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/court-of-protection-draft-case-management-pilot-published#.VtiU-ObzOud

 

Would you like a little taste?  Well, obviously, they start off using very simple ideas and philosophies and plain English, because they’re bearing in mind that the Court of Protection is used by lay people who are there concerned about members of their family but don’t get free legal representation.

 

Plain English like:-

2.1 Where this pilot applies —
(a) Parts 1 to 5 and 13, and rules 84, 85 and 86 in Part 12 (but not the practice directions supplementing them), are disapplied;
(b) Pilot Parts 1- 5 as set out in Annex A to this Practice Direction (which contains modified versions of those Parts in a new arrangement) will apply in
their place, together with the practice directions supplementing the disapplied rules (renumbered as appropriate to supplement Pilot Parts 1-5); and
(c) rule 72(5) and (7) will not apply where a case is allocated to a case management pathway.

 

And thank heavens that’s all cleared up.

I would have provided you all with a simple overview of the Pilot, but I realised at page seven that the thudding noise in my ears was my brain forcibly trying to get out of my head so that it could stop reading this stuff.

 

By way of simple flowchart

  1. Were you thinking of entering into Court of Protection Work?    (If No, then YAY!  If Yes, then Reconsider)
  2. Are you already doing Court of Protection Work?  (If No, then high-five dude, you’re scott-free.  If Yes, then make a new plan Stan)

3 Comments

Posted in court of protection. Bookmark the permalink.

And the office boy kicked the cat

Posted on March 3, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

You don’t often get law reports of Interim Care Order hearings, especially now that the senior Courts have finally stopped tinkering with the wording/putting a gloss on the statute / clarifying and refining the law. This one was a High Court decision, and the Judge (Keehan J) was investigating delay in issuing.

Big practice note for everyone – because this is High Court and we all need to follow it :-

 

The message must go out loud and clear that, save in the most exceptional and unusual of circumstances, local authorities must make applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably require the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most 5 days of the child’s birth.

 

[If I may suggest – draft the bloody statement before the birth, and add to it, rather than start writing it after the baby is born. I know nobody wants to do that, just in case they win the lottery and are able to quit their job and avoid writing the statement, but seriously – have it ready in draft in advance. Babies have a nasty habit of arriving at a time that is least convenient]

 

Nottingham City Council v LW and Others 2016

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/11.html

You can get the tone of how this case is going to go from this very early paragraph.

A birth plan was prepared. It is not, however, worth the paper it is written on because, as it now transpires, it was ignored by everyone connected with the local authority

 

The mother had had a previous child who had been the subject of care proceedings. In fact, it looks as though those proceedings might have been ongoing into at least the late stages of pregnancy, because those proceedings were issued in May 2015. The judgment doesn’t say that the proceedings had actually ended by the time that the new baby was born in January 2016.  (It ought to have ended, on the 26 week rule, but to quote Neil Gaiman “Intent and outcome are rarely coincident”

 

 

  • The hospital, where LW was born on 16 January, notified the social workers of her birth on Monday 18 January.
  • It then took the social workers until 21 January to place the papers before the local authority’s solicitors for consideration of the issue of care proceedings. It took a local authority solicitor until 28 January to issue care proceedings and to apply for an ‘urgent’ interim care order.
  • The local authority’s application, interim threshold criteria and social work statements in support were not served on the parents’ respective solicitors nor on the children’s guardian and her solicitor until about 12.30pm on 28 January. The case was called on before me at 3pm, there being no justices, district judge or circuit judge available to hear the matter at such short notice.

 

It is hard to see an excuse for a hearing taking place in a rush on 2 1/2 hours notice when the baby had actually been born 12 days earlier.

It is not therefore a shock that the Judge wanted to hear from the Director of Children’s Services and the Head of the Legal Department as to why this had happened.  [For my part, I can’t say I’m happy that the legal department tried to throw one of the secretaries under the bus. I would NEVER EVER do that to any of the hard working people in my office who do so much to make things run smoothly and well.]

 

 

The Director of Children’s Services said this:-

 

 

“….I would like to offer my sincere apologies to the court for the delay in issuing proceedings. I understand this caused a number of challenges for those responsible for allocating court time and to all the parties involved who represent the parents and others involved in this case.

In this particular case, I understand however that there had been ongoing communication with the parties legal representatives about the Local Authority’s intention to issue proceedings.

I believe all parties worked on the premise that issuing should take place once all the paperwork including statements from health colleagues had been submitted and the social worker statement had been amended to include the new information from the hospital in relation to father’s alleged overdose, the withdrawal symptoms of baby and the anonymous referral received following LW’s birth. This contributed to the delay in issuing.

I fully accept that the ideal course of action would have been to issue proceedings as soon as possible after the first working day following the birth, namely the 18th January and the Local Authority could have filed a statement making it explicit that further information had come to light which required immediate investigation and seek the court’s permission to submit an updated statement once these investigations had taken place. Again, the social worker statement could have included information reported by health colleagues, making it clear that health colleagues would be required to submit statements as soon as possible following the lodging of the care application.

Furthermore, the Local Authority will ensure that team secure emails are checked on a frequent basis by the team’s Business Support Officer or the team’s duty social worker so they can alert managers when important documents have been received. This will prevent documents “sitting in the inbox” when social workers/ case holders are absent from work due to sickness or annual leave.

Again, please accept my apologies for this delay. The staff involved in this matter take their roles very seriously and did work hard to produce all the materials required by the court, as expeditiously as possible. However, we have all learnt from this experience and will ensure that issuing is done in a timely manner. The staff involved also offer their sincere apologies for the delay and did not wish to cause the court and parties any offence. They were working hard to gather all the necessary evidence and ensure all parties had full and up to date records of recent events. Again the team recognises the need to issue proceedings as soon as possible following the birth of the baby and will ensure this message is shared across their team…..

….LW’s half-brother is currently subject to care proceedings on the basis of concerns arising from domestic violence. The pre-birth assessment of LW concluded that the risks remained as the mother had not changed or accepted the concerns, but instead minimised the domestic abuse and impact this would have on her as yet unborn child’s development and safety.

A Legal Planning meeting was held on the 16th December 2015 chaired by a Children’s Social care service Manager with legal advice and support from the Team leader of the Local Authority’s Children and Adults Legal Team. The decision to issue proceedings was then ratified by me as Head of Service for Children’s Social Care.

It would be usual practice to issue proceedings on the day of birth and I have investigated this matter to try and ascertain why in this case, proceedings were not issued until the 27th January, 8 working days following LW’s birth. I met with the Team Manager, SD, and her covering Service Manager on Friday 29th January and with the Children and Adults Legal Team Leader on Monday 1st February in order to review events and determine reasons for this delay. I set out below the key events as they unfolded and which contributed to the delay in issuing proceedings….”

It isn’t great that the social work team took five days (less working days, obviously) to produce their statement, given that all concerned knew that the intention was to issue proceedings and that a baby would be born in January. Having said that though, having the statement ready on 21st January would still have allowed for a hearing on notice, and the delay of seven days to get the application issued once the statement was prepared is hard to understand.   [The longest and toughest part of issuing an application is of course the social worker writing the statement. The actual application is a horrible soul-crushing bout of tedium, but it really doesn’t take that long. In one dreadful day in December, I did three of these in a morning]

So what did the legal department have to say?  Well, as indicated earlier, they threw the lowest paid person in the room under the bus.

“On 19th January 2016, Legal Services were updated by the social worker following her hospital visit to see mother, father and the baby. The social worker advised there had also been an anonymous referral to the hospital made the previous evening stating that the mother had used opiates throughout her pregnancy. The hospital had also expressed concerns about the baby’s health and they would be undertaking a Rivers chart assessment as they were concerned the baby was experience withdrawal symptoms. I refer to the statement of TN for an explanation regarding what the Rivers Chart assessment is.

In light of the recent information, the social worker needed to update her statement and this was sent to Legal Services on 21st January 2016. By this point there were and had been some difficulties between the social worker and hospital in obtaining medical information regarding LW’s withdrawal and also the father’s overdose. Legal services confirmed that they would assist in seeking this information from the hospital.

On Friday 22 January the hospital emailed over a midwife’s report to the social worker’s team secure email. Unfortunately as the social worker was off sick on Monday 25th January, this statement was not picked up by the social worker until Tuesday 26th January, when it was forwarded on to Legal Services. Unfortunately the allocated solicitor was not in work on the 26th as she works part-time so the first that the solicitor saw of both the midwife’s report and the final paperwork from the Social Worker (the chronology) was on Wednesday 27th January, when the matter was issued. As the hospital was not pressing for discharge until the end of the week the Court were notified with the application that the matter could wait until Friday 29th January for listing if that would assist the Court…..

…the final updated social worker documents were received by Legal on 26th January and the case was issued with the court during the afternoon of 27th January and the court was advised that a hearing the following day was not necessarily needed and the matter could wait until the day afterwards, namely Friday 29 January if that would assist the Court. In the meantime the hospital emailed over further health evidence, a second midwife report and chronology, once again to the chronology, once again to the social worker until the morning of 28th January and then passed on to Legal Services.

The court duly issued the matter during the afternoon of 27th January and listed the case to be heard before a District Judge at 2pm on Thursday 28th January2016. The allocated solicitor left instructions with the team legal secretary to inform CAFCASS and also provide them with copies of the local authority application and also to counsel who would be representing the Local Authority on 28th January.

Unfortunately, the team secretary did not file and serve the Local Authority’s application on the Parent’s solicitors at the same time. I apologise on behalf of the Local Authority for their regrettable oversight. To give this error some context, due to an unexpected absence and vacancies within the secretarial team, the secretary was working on her own that day in a secretarial team which usually consists of four secretaries and was inundated with work. She is very sorry for the problems her oversight caused.

It is also further regrettable that it was not noted that the parents’ solicitors had not been served with the Local Authority’s application until late in the morning on 28th January. It was immediately rectified but unfortunately this was less than two hours before the hearing. Once again I apologise on behalf of the Local Authority for this delay. The Local Authority has been made fully aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr Justice Keehan who heard the matter on 28th January and has not taken this matter lightly. There has been a full review into the circumstances surrounding the issue of this matter both by legal Services and also Children’s Services.

It is accepted that there has been a delay in the issuing of this matter and no disrespect was intended to the court and parties. It is hoped by providing a chronology in respect of what has happened in the conduct of the matter since the birth of LW that Mr Justice Keehan and the court can be reassured that this matter was continually worked and as a result of the critical new information and concerns around events that took place around the birth of LW involving the father’s suspected overdose and also the anonymous referral that the mother possibly had been using opiates through pregnancy that such concerns had to be rigorously investigated and also further evidence adduced in order for the Local Authority to rely on this, particularly, as the Local Authority’s Care Plan was to seek an Interim Care Order with removal of LW from her parents’ care.

In addition, the Parties solicitors were updated as regards progress with the matter. Sadly for LW the hospital had concerns that she maybe experiencing withdrawal symptoms and the hospital were obviously keen to keep her in hospital for monitoring. LW also suffered a seizure on 25th January. Therefore, any delay in the matter being heard before the court had thankfully not caused any inconvenience to the hospital.

Nevertheless in reviewing this matter I accept that should this scenario happen again in the future the appropriate course of action would be for the matter to be issued at the earliest possible opportunity following the baby’s birth. There would then be liaison with the court around further evidence being sought by the Local Authority to assist the court as to how urgently the matter needed to be listed, particularly as in this scenario the Local Authority were seeking an interim Care Order and removal which was and is still to be contested by the parents. The Team Leader for the Children and Adults legal team will ensure that the team is fully aware of the need to take this approach in future cases….”

Hmmm. I’m struggling with the Judge’s opening summary, where he says that the social work documents were with legal by 21st January, because the legal chronology here says 26th January.

The Judge accepted the apologies, but still felt that there was some egregiously poor practice here – and indicated that as there were some failings here which were not unique to this authority but things that happened too often in cases, it was worth highlighting them. In particular, he was concerned at the practice of delaying issuing an Interim Care Order application because a hospital was willing to keep a child for a longer period than would usually take place.  (It is fairly usual to seek an ICO in 4 or 5 days after birth, to allow the notice period and the hospital be asked to keep mother and baby together in the hospital with mother’s agreement.  The Court can’t always accommodate that, and this is particularly an issue where those 4 or 5 days would encompass a weekend, or worst still a Bank Holiday weekend)

I also note that having accepted the Local Authority apologies, the Judge did still take them to task for being a serial offender in late applications, and also ordered them to pay the costs.

[I can’t help but note that Keehan J was a lot harder on this authority than he was on the one in last week’s case who sought an injunction effectively labelling a man as a sexual exploiter of children having got the wrong man…]

Local Authority – Failings and Poor Practice

 

  • In my experience the errors made in this case are not an isolated example nor is the factual matrix of this case either unique nor even exceptional: on the contrary this case is fairly typical of the type of case in which local authorities propose or plan to seek the removal of a baby at birth. Thus, what principally concerns me is that such fundamental and egregious errors should be made in, what may colloquially be termed, ‘a run of the mill case’. In paragraph33 below, I consider what steps should be taken by a local authority when it plans to seek the removal of an unborn child immediately or shortly after his/her birth.
  • Before I do so, I wish to make certain observations on the flawed approach apparently endorsed by both the senior children’s services manager and the local authority’s senior lawyer in this case. First, both made reference to the willingness of the hospital to keep the baby as an in patient pending the issue of care proceedings. Plainly the period of time for which a hospital is prepared to keep a new born baby as an in-patient, either on medical or welfare grounds, maybe a material consideration for a local authority on the timing of the making of an application for an interim care order, but must not place too great a reliance on these indications or assurances. The fact that a hospital is prepared to keep a baby as an in-patient is not a reason to delay making an application for an interim care order. The following should always be borne in mind:

 

a) a hospital may not detain a baby in hospital against the wishes of the mother or a father with parental responsibility;

b) the capability of a maternity unit or a hospital to accommodate a healthy new born child may change within hours, whatever the good intentions of the unit or hospital, depending upon the challenging demands it may be presented with;

c) the ability to invite the police to exercise a Police Protection Order, pursuant to s 48 of the 1989 Act or for a local authority to apply for an Emergency Protection Order, pursuant to s.36 of the 1989, are, of course, available as emergency remedies,

d) but such procedures do not afford the parents nor, most importantly, the child, with the degree of participation, representation and protection as an on notice interim care order application;

e) the indication of a maternity unit as to the date of discharge of a new born baby should never, save in the most extraordinary of circumstances, set or lead the time for an application for an interim care order in respect of a new born child.

 

  • Second, where the pre birth plan provides for an application to be made for the removal of a child at or shortly after birth, it is neither “usual” nor “ideal” practice for an application for an interim care order to be made on the day of the child’s birth, rather it is essential and best practice for this to occur.
  • Third, once it is determined by a local authority that sufficient evidence is available to make an application for an interim care order, on the basis of the removal of a new born child, the availability of additional evidence from the maternity unit or elsewhere, must not then cause a delay in the issue of care proceedings; the provision of additional evidence may be envisaged in the application and/or provided subsequently.
  • The local authority should have adopted good practice and the following basic, but fundamental, steps should have been taken:

 

a) The birth plan should have been rigorously adhered to by all social work practitioners and managers and by the local authority’s legal department;

b) A risk assessment of the mother and the father should have been commenced immediately upon the social workers being made aware of the mother’s pregnancy. The assessment should have been completed at least 4 weeks before the mother’s expected date for delivery. The assessment should then have been updated to take account of relevant events immediately pre and post delivery which could potentially affect the initial conclusions on risk and care planning for the unborn child;

c) The assessment should have been disclosed, forthwith upon initial completion, to the parents and, if instructed, to their solicitors to give them an opportunity, if necessary, to challenge the assessment of risk and the proposed care plan;

d) The social work team should have provided all relevant documentation, necessary for the legal department to issue care proceedings and the application for an interim care order, no less than 7 days before the expected date of delivery. The legal department must issue the application on the day of birth and, in any event, no later than 24 hours after birth (or as the case may be, the date on which the local authority is notified of the birth);

e) Immediately upon issue, if not before, the local authority’s solicitors should have served the applications and supporting documents on the parents and, if instructed, upon their respective solicitors.

f) Immediately upon issue, the local authority should have sought from the court an initial hearing date, on the best time estimate that its solicitors could have provided.

 

  • If these steps had been followed in this case, unnecessary delay and procedural unfairness would have been avoided.

 

Conclusions

 

  • The local authority was inexcusably late in making an application for an interim care order. The consequences of this contumelious failure were that:

 

i) The parents’ legal representatives were served with the application and supporting, albeit deficient, documentation only some 2-3 hours before the hearing;

ii) The court was unable to accommodate a 1 day contested hearing for an interim care order before a circuit judge, a recorder or a district judge until some days hence;

iii) The parents legitimately wished to have a fully contested interim hearing with the benefit of oral evidence to cross examine the social worker and the guardian and to enable the parents to give oral evidence;

iv) The hospital was ready to discharge the child and, for wholly understandable reasons was unwilling and unable to care for the baby for a further prolonged period;

v) The stance of the hospital and the principal, but unchallenged, evidence of the local authority was that the baby would be at risk of suffering significant harm if she were discharged into the care of either the mother and/or the father;

vi) Accordingly and acting in the best welfare interests of the baby, as advised by the children’s guardian, the court had no choice but to make an interim care order in favour of the local authority on the basis of a plan to place the baby with foster carers; but

vii) On the basis that the local authority, at whatever cost and inconvenience to itself, would arrange contact to take place five times per week between the child and her parents.

 

  • I am in no doubt that the parents in this case have been done a great dis-service by this local authority. It may well be that the outcome would have been the same whatever the length of notice that they and their respective legal advisors had had of this application; that is not the point. It is all a question of perceived and procedural fairness.
  • The actions of this local authority, in issuing an application for an interim care order so late in the day, have resulted in an initial hearing before the court which, I very much regret, is procedurally unfair to the parents. Of equal importance, it is unfair to the children’s guardian who was only appointed on the morning of the issue of this application. The fault for this unfairness lies squarely at the door of this local authority.
  • I am in no doubt that if this application for an interim care order had been issued timeously by the local authority then the hearing before me on 28 January 2016 could have been an effective contested hearing.
  • In the premises I have no hesitation in concluding that the costs of this abortive hearing should be borne by the local authority. Accordingly I shall order the local authority to pay the costs of all of the respondents to be assessed if not agreed.
  • This local authority is, I am told and accept, a ‘serial offender’ in issuing late and ‘urgent’ applications for care proceedings and/or interim care orders in respect of new born babies. Save in respect of clandestine pregnancies and/or births, I simply do not understand why this local authority issues proceedings so late and so urgently. In this case it was a most spectacular and contumelious failure.
  • The message must go out loud and clear that, save in the most exceptional and unusual of circumstances, local authorities must make applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably require the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most 5 days of the child’s birth.
  • Given that in the vast majority of cases a local authority will be actively involved with the family and/or aware of the pregnancy and the estimated date of delivery, I cannot conceive how such a requirement places an unreasonable and/or disproportionate duty upon a local authority. Further it is likely that a local authority’s failure to act fairly and/or timeously will be condemned in an order for costs.
  • In this case the local authority wholly and unreasonably failed the child, her parents and the children’s guardian.

 

 

12 Comments

Posted in case law, judicial spanking, social work, timescales and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

In the soup

Posted on March 2, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This is a set of care proceedings dealt with by His Honour Judge Wood in Newcastle – so not binding or exciting case law, but sad and interesting and with some unusual quirks.  So far as I am aware, it is the first set of care proceedings in which a tin of tomato soup plays a key role.

 

[The very unfortunately named Lancashire County Council v A (Burned Child) 2015 mentions soup tangentially, but it does not specify tomato…   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/1156.html

 

Oh, and of course the Hampstead Hoax case Re P and Q 2015 involves a finding that the mother and her partner made Hemp Soup and fed it to the children       http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html   

 

Turns out soup crops up more than you’d think. Spaghetti hoops, however, have never turned up in a published family judgment on bailii, just in one horrendously complex case about tanks used to store polymers – a case apparently worth £40 million…

Baked beans feature in no published  family law judgments at all.  Lots of other weird stuff, including the wonderfully named

Baron Uno Carl Samuel Akerhielm and another v Rolf De Mare and others (Eastern Africa) [1959] UKPC 11 

Quite hard to imagine the Baron, or Rolf De Mare eating baked beans 

My dear old friend Shepherd’s Pie just comes up in a criminal case, where the plan was to add death’s head mushrooms to the Shepherd’s Pie to poison someone.     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/13.html

I have digressed into foodstuffs versus the law. Sorry! ]

 

 

 

Re S 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B7.html

The case involved two very ill children, and parents who were from India, and who in the midst of care proceedings went back to India and who were saying that they would only return to collect the children and take them to India. Thus not participating any further in the care proceedings. That is a shame, because certainly from the judgment it seems that mother was potentially a perfectly suitable carer for the children and the issues were really around father. Additionally that father’s issues were potentially of a mental health nature and thus potentially treatable.  If the parents had engaged with the process, the outcome could easily have been very different.

 

This being an international case, efforts were made to contact the Indian authorities. With the exception of what used to be called the Slavic countries, this response is pretty typical of what we tend to get when contacting foreign authorities.

I should mention at the outset that as these children are Indian nationals it is only right and proper that the Indian authorities should have been notified of this action being taken by the local authority in respect of Indian subjects. They were duly notified via their Embassy in November 2015 with full details as to the nature of the action being taken, as well as the contact details of all relevant family members, receipt of which was apparently acknowledged, with an indication that the Embassy would contact F, but nothing has been heard since.

 

The two children were, as I have said, very unwell.

 

  1. The background is significant. Each of these children suffers from profound disability and severe cognitive impairment. In B’s case, her current diagnosis is epilepsy, encephalopathy, global developmental delay, microcephaly, cortical visual impairment. She is fed by gastrostomy. She suffers from prolonged seizures as well as sound sensitivity. She has scoliosis of her spine and subluxation of her hip. By reason of her disability she receives extensive support from a community paediatrician, a consultant paediatric neurologist, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, an epilepsy nurse, dietician, speech and language therapist, occupational therapist and physiotherapist and sensory support team with regard to her health, mobility and postural needs.
  2. So far as C is concerned, his current diagnosis is dystonia, perinatal hypoxic lactatemia, encephalopathy, epilepsy and global developmental delay. He had previously had a nasogastric tube to aid feeding until May 2014 when it was replaced by a gastrostomy. He is currently in receipt of support from the community paediatrician, orthopaedic surgeon, epilepsy nurse, dietician, speech and language therapist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist and sensory support team.
  3. It goes without saying that each of these children is totally dependent on carers to meet all of their holistic needs, to ensure that they receive the medication and the delivery of their health plans as well as being closely monitored to ensure that their health and presentation, safety and wellbeing is at all times met. Neither has any verbal communication. B will apparently cry with distress, but it is said to be hard to find the cause at any time other than by elimination. C responds to sounds and sensory stimulation only.
  4. The local authority says that F in particular does not recognise the needs of his children and their increase. He has, from time to time, as part of a pattern, accused health and educational staff of harming both of the children, as well as ignoring advice from a range of professionals.
  5. There is, as I say, a significant history, but the onset of the precipitating event, if I can put it that way, was that on 13th March 2015, C was admitted to the University Hospital of North Durham with life threatening dystonia, that is to say a movement disorder that causes muscle spasms and contractions. This particular episode required a high level of nursing on admission and frequent monitoring, as persistent back arching had put him at risk of airways compression. This was described by medical staff as a serious life threatening medical condition, resulting from a gradual increase in muscle tone and, on admission, his father reported that he could no longer manage this at home, the spasms having become more frequent.
  6. The medical records record, and one of the treating paediatrician’s comments based on that record, that such severe dystonia would have developed over time and suggest that health support should have been sought at an earlier date to prevent this life threatening episode.
  7. B was admitted to the same hospital on 19th May 2015 due to increased seizures and she required monitoring and medication review and due to her complex needs and swallowing difficulties she has been fed by a gastrostomy which enables her to receive liquid feeds throughout the day in accordance with a dietician devised regime.

 

Given B’s difficulties with feeding and seizures, it was of vital importance that any medical advice regarding feeding be followed. There was an incident where it appeared not to have been, and the investigation as to the cause cannot have been too onerous or complex.

 

The local authority say this has been extensively discussed with B’s father and, on 9th June last year, whilst she remained an in-patient and F had been alone with her in her room, carers arrived to find B vomiting over her clothes and bedding, a liquid that was orange in colour and smelt of tomato soup. A tin of tomato soup was noticed in the waste bin in the room. F, who had briefly left the room, returned and was asked if he had fed B foods either orally or via the gastrostomy site and he denied it, but it is said that later in the evening he admitted that he had given B tomato soup with mashed potato. Medical advice suggested that this placed her at significant risk of aspiration and choking and could have been a life threatening situation for her. It constituted, in any event, having ignored the dietary advice, giving oral feeds that had not been agreed by medical staff, and thereby placed her at risk of significant harm. F at different times, it is said, has disagreed with the feeding and medication regime for the children and has indicated in terms that he would not follow such a regime once the children returned to his care.

 

The father’s behaviour become more challenging and peculiar after this. He started to assert that the medication given to the children was making them ill, that hospital staff had inserted electronic chips into their heads, that there was silver metal being placed in their brains and that the hospital were using the children as human guinea pigs to test the effects of bacteria upon them.  It was this behaviour, in combination with the fact that the children had very significant health needs which would have to be met, on discharge by their parents, that led to the degree of concerns that the Local Authority held.

 

  1. In addition to the evidence of the then social worker, Claire Brown, the local authority relied on the reports of two paediatricians who have cared for the children in Durham, Dr Haves and Dr Balu. These are frank and, in the case of Dr Haves in particular, really quite hard hitting reports, in which neither pull their punches. Dr Haves expressed belief that both of these children would suffer significant harm if they were returned to the care of their parents they being in hospital continuously from the time of their admission up until November, as I will come to. She was very concerned at what to her was M’s extended and unexplained absence. She considered F to have a significant undiagnosed mental health disorder, which was deteriorating and impacting on his ability to work with professionals, he declining to undergo mental health assessment. Dr Haves considered his belief about the causation of the children’s disability, which is thought, from a medical point of view, to be genetic in origin, to be paranoid or delusional in nature, but more worryingly, that belief acted as a barrier to the administration of proper care and she gave a long list of examples of that, some of which I have already touched upon.
  2. She felt his allegations against medical professionals were incompatible with any evidence, or indeed reasonable expectation. Nor, in her experience, could his views be explained by a cultural variant, or an adjustment reaction to the children’s disability, she having had some significant experience of working in communities where many people from the Indian sub-continent live. She gave examples of F’s paranoid beliefs that extended to his emails being hacked, his receiving telephone guidance from professionals in London and neighbours reporting on him, and she said it was impossible to engage with him in a rational way, which in turn made the provision of medical care in the community almost impossible.
  3. There were other specific concerns. First, his inability or unwillingness to recognise and manage seizures of which there was a long history. This had profound implications for ensuring the correct medication. His inability or unwillingness to comply with medical advice, withdrawing, reducing or increasing doses of medication, particularly anti-convulsants, such that, at times, the children were inadequately protected, or so dosed up that they presented as sedated. F also made claims of medical expertise, repeated, I see, in his closing submissions. His claims of academic qualifications include biology, microbiology, immunology, pharmacology, none of which were ever substantiated, but used by him to engage with professionals in what they considered an inappropriate way. He had acquired medical equipment with no qualifications to use it, such as a blood pressure machine, as well as taking steps such as dressing in an NHS uniform or a white coat, thereby implying that he had qualifications that he did not have. He had, on occasion, administered high flow oxygen to B, without any medical intervention or advice. He fed her orally, as I have mentioned, and administered a privately acquired nebuliser. Dr Haves also had worries about his emotional attachment and basic care, noting on occasion a lack of reaction to distress, a lack of stimulation, at one point offering to donate the children to medical science if a genetic condition was ever established, as well as leaving the children unaccompanied for significant periods. Finally, was her concern about his reluctance to accept support. She concluded her report by saying this: “B and C have profound and complex neuro disability. They are highly dependent on others for all aspects of their care and remain highly vulnerable to complications. As such, the level of parenting capacity required to meet their needs is extremely high and it is expected that any parent in that situation would require the help and support of a wide range of professionals, to give expert advice and opinion. Professionals working with families caring for such disabled children are generally highly skilled and experienced at working with families with a variety of different beliefs and levels of understanding and work hard to develop positive relationships with the families, regardless of any differences in opinion. However, in order to work in an effective way with families, professionals need to be able to expect a level of honesty and openness and to be satisfied that parents and carers have a reasonable understanding of key health issues. Where parental understanding or belief systems appear to be acting as a barrier to providing adequate care to highly vulnerable children, professionals must raise their concerns. Professionals working with F have had long standing concerns about his mental health and well being and how his strongly held beliefs are impacting on the care of his children and his ability to work with professionals. There has been real professional anxiety about the possibility of actual harm occurring, as a result of his beliefs and behaviour and about the potential future risk to the children, owing to any possible undiagnosed, untreated and unmonitored mental health condition. There is now additional witness evidence of incidents of a very serious nature, in which the children have been placed at high risk due to F’s behaviour. I strongly recommend that he should not be allowed any further unsupervised access to his children and that he undergoes an expert psychiatric assessment.”

 

The Judge made the following findings in relation to father

“iv) F holds strong and dogmatic views on the treatment of his children. Some of these views are paranoid and delusional. His insistence on the validity of these views impinges on the ability of the treating team to treat the children effectively. F is unable to exercise consistently rational judgments in relation to what care and treatments are in the children’s best interests, thus placing them at the risk of significant harm. The following are examples.

(i). C had a microchip deliberately implanted in his head, which is the cause of his fits.

(ii). B has been deliberately inoculated with harmful substances.

(iii). B’s fits at school are caused by allergens and bacteria.

(iv). The dose of Keppra may be poisoning B.

(v). An obsessive belief that Lamotrigine is the cause of B’s fits.

(vi). Both children have been implanted with bacterial pathogens and silver fragments in their brain.

(vii). A refusal to submit to psychiatric assessment by professionals from the National Health Service who were ‘the opponent’ and were ‘a criminal organisation’, who fabricate information.

(viii). M has gone to India to have children since it is safer. The NHS have made the children how they are.

(ix). The other paranoid beliefs, some of which I have mentioned, including the view that his emails are being hacked.”

The father claimed, though was not able to evidence this claim, that he had a Masters degree in Zoology.

However, given one of the later findings made was :-

“viii) F made unsubstantiated claims of expertise in science, microbiology, biology, immunology and pharmacology. He seeks to take on a medical role in relation to the children, over and above that which it is reasonable for a parent to claim in such circumstances. The following are specific examples:

(i). F required various medical equipment – a blood monitoring machine – which he had no expertise to utilise.

(ii). F dresses in a white coat and has been seen examining the children with a stethoscope in hospital.

(iii). F brought intravenous bags to administer fluids without seeking advice.

(iv). The use of an Abigail pump incompatible with the current feeding regime.

(v). Administering high flow oxygen without medical advice.

(vi). Administering privately acquired nebuliser.

(vii). Administering a significant quantity of potato and tomato soup, either orally, or via a nasogastric tube, without seeking prior advice.

(viii). F’s expressed intention to return to a natural feeding regime, should the children return to his care, which is contrary to professional advice, which will place the children at risk of harm.”

 

One can see why hospital staff were concerned. An unsubstantiated Masters in Zoology doesn’t really equip one to be walking round in a white coat in a hospital wearing a stethascope and examining children. I’d be pretty concerned if he’d been walking round a petting zoo examining rabbits.

Given that the parents had withdrawn from the process by going back to India (it seemed very likely that this had been because mother was pregnant and wanted to have the baby overseas and not return to the UK) the Judge had very little choice but to make the Care Orders sought.

 

  1. The court has therefore been presented with two options: a return to the parents or other family in India, or the making of a care order with a plan of long term foster care. The return to India was far from fanciful as an outcome. It is perfectly possible that, despite the findings the court has now made, that these children could go to India, could there receive suitable care and be cared for either by extended family or some institution, nevertheless maintaining the link with the birth family. The local authority says that the findings in fact do not permit a return to the parents and unless and until there is acceptance of those findings and an understanding as to how they can work with professionals in the future, that is simply not a possible outcome. Although the parents say they can access a lot of support, both from family and from professionals, there is no indication that they do not seek to care for the children themselves. Indeed, they seem to be saying that they intend to care for them. Whatever it is, in any event, it is all wholly unassessed and that is not because the local authority has not tried to assess it, but because of the parents’ conduct throughout this litigation.
  2. The local authority is supported by the guardian in its entirety over the inability of a plan to place the children with the parents. Counsel for the parents frankly accept that they cannot presently advance the parents as carers, given their responses to the litigation.
  3. The only other contention is long term foster care. There is, literally, no other alternative. The local authority has identified a permanent foster parent who, with the support of 24 hour professional care, can care for the children at their present home, which was for a time at any rate the home of the family, and which is adapted and fully equipped to meet the children’s needs. Their needs will be met in accordance with the care plan, if approved, that is to say medical needs, a multi-agency care team, schooling, personal education plan, as well as universal services.
  4. The children’s guardian raised an issue as to whether Children and Families Across Borders should nevertheless embark upon assessment in India, as the present social worker appeared to be suggesting in her final statement, but withdrew after the discussion we had about it. Because, unless and until there is a plan, or at least a proposal of a plan, that could meet the children’s needs, it would, I am satisfied, be an academic exercise, despite, as I say the suggestion that it should be proceeded upon, in any event.
  5. From the court’s point of view, nothing would give greater pleasure than to be able to reunite this family, scattered across two continents. However, the findings that the court has made, are serious and, absent them being addressed by the parents, or them preparing a care regime where safety would be ensured by others who have made themselves available and been assessed, it seems to the court that it would be completely unrealistic and disproportionate to embark upon an assessment in what would be a vacuum. If the parents seek to oppose the order actively, they can of course apply to discharge any care order made, explain their responses to the findings and offer properly supported proposals, which are capable of investigation and assessment. It seems to the court that, at the present time, they are in denial and they have not, despite on the face of it putting forward long lists of names, advanced proposals which are capable of being exposed to such a process.
  6. By reference to the welfare checklist, the wishes and feelings of these children would be very difficult to ascertain. I accept they have a relationship with their father, in particular, which is of value to them. Set against that, they are well and building good relationships and thriving within their limitations. Their needs and characteristics are central to this case: they are complete, profound and life long, as well as life limiting. Any change in circumstances for them would be very hard to manage but, if all other factors were in place, no doubt could be managed. The risk of harm is, in the court’s judgment, profound. The findings go directly to the welfare question and there is simply no understanding as to why F, in particular, but M to an extent, have behaved as they have. It turns directly on their capability, which is impossible to assess, because neither has engaged meaningfully in the final analysis, so it is really very difficult to measure.
  7. Looking at the range of powers available to the court, they are in truth extremely limited.
  8. This is a desperately sad case, where, whatever their motives, the two children with whom I am concerned, have been effectively abandoned. I am satisfied that on an application of the welfare checklist and by reference to the Article 8 rights of parents and children, the only order that presently meets their needs, is a care order. So I approve the care plan for long term foster care. I note that the local authority will seek to facilitate regular contact, should the parents come. Should they choose not to, they will endeavour to facilitate Skype contact. Whilst it is of course for the local authority to promote contact for children who are in their care, it is also incumbent upon the parents to make themselves available and demonstrate a commitment so that any contact that takes place can be meaningful.
  9. I wish both children and their carers well. I very much hope that the parents, faced with the enormity of what they have done, can and will reflect and, in time, at any rate, engage in a way that might yet give these children a chance of life within their family.

 

 

 

 

[Later edit – very sad postscript is that the health of one of the children deteriorated still further and the Hospital sought a declaration from the High Court that treatment cease   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/535.html    The parents represented themselves in those proceedings, and stood by their views that the children had been made unwell by the hospital and that they should be sent to India forthwith]

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Girl I wanna make you SWET, SWET till you can’t SWET no more

Posted on February 26, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

Seriously? Seriously?

The Social Work Evidence Template gets amended, in a press release on a Friday, and tells practitioners that it is to be used from Monday. Yes, this coming Monday.

The new templates should be used in new cases from Monday, 29 February onwards.

 

Good luck with that.  Haven’t even had time to read it yet to see what I like or don’t like about it.

Again, the press release claims that the President has endorsed it  (Frankly, I like to see the President himself saying that, because I find it rather tricky to imagine that he ever read a statement in the SWET format and said “Hey, this is great!”   – in my mental picture here, he uses the same voice as Casey Kasem from America’s Top Twenty / Shaggy from Scooby Doo)

 

[And also there is some form for claiming that the President has endorsed some guidance, only later to watch aghast as he distances himself from it in a judgment]

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/updated-template-to-help-social-workers-prepare-for-court-launched

 

 

 

14 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Co-operation, camels and housing

Posted on February 25, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

The Argentinian author Borges once observed that there is not a single mention of a camel in the Koran – they were simply so common-place and unremarkable in the time and place that the Koran had been written and later circulated that there was no need to actually ever mention them.

A long while ago, I became curious about just how often the word “co-operation” came up in child protection law  – “The mother is co-operating, so there’s no need to make an interim order, stick with an agreement”,  “The father didn’t co-operate with the assessment”,  “I don’t feel that the parents can co-operate with professionals”  and so I undertook an exercise. I went through the entire Children Act 1989 looking for the word “co-operation”

It appears just the once. And it isn’t about parents co-operating with professionals at all – it is about professional agencies co-operating with one another.

Section 27  Co-operation between authorities

 

“(1) Where it appears to a local authority that any authority mentioned in subsection (3) could, by taking any specified action, help in the exercise of any of their functions under this Part, they may request the help of that other authority specifying the action in question.

(2) An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.

 

 

(3) The authorities are—

(a) any local authority;

(c) any local housing authority;…

Section 27 doesn’t get out much. It has all sorts of potential, but it is a wallflower compared to the gregarious and vivacious section 31, 20 and even 17, which find themselves before the bright lights in London all the time, being pored over and scrutinised and having reams of purple prose written in their honour.

So it pleased me to see a case where section 27 was the mainspring of the argument. It relates to a case where housing would not house a family in a ground floor property and where social workers had observed that the children were drawn to windows and balconies and would try to jump out.   The last case with those features did not end at all well  – in fact it was deeply tragic :-

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/12/01/serious-case-review-can-a-failure-to-call-one-be-judicially-reviewed/

The mother attempted to judicially review the Local Authority social work department’s failure to ask the Housing authority to assist in their section 17 duty of meeting the children’s needs and keep them safe by providing housing, using the lever of section 27.  It’s a clever argument.

M and A v London Borough of Islington 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/332.html

  • The two claimants are children who are severely autistic. They live with their respective mothers in flats owned by the defendant. M has a younger brother, S, who is also severely autistic. Otherwise they are not connected, but their claims have been joined because on behalf of each it is said that the failure of the defendant to afford them a transfer to other accommodation is unlawful since where they at present live is unsafe for them in particular because all three children are drawn to windows and balconies and will try to jump out. The danger of this is all too obvious when they are at a level above the ground floor.
  • The claims were lodged in July 2014. Following refusal on the papers, permission was granted at an oral renewal hearing on 18 September 2014. Expedition was required and a hearing was to take place on 26 November 2014. As will become apparent, the main ground relied on on behalf of the claimant was that Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 applied so that the defendant was obliged to take action which it had not taken to re-house the claimants. In R(C) v. Hackney London Borough Council [2015] PTSR 1011 on November 7 2014 Turner J decided, having heard argument from Mr Wise, that s.27 did not apply. This claim was accordingly stayed pending a decision of the Court of Appeal on the claimants’ application for leave to appeal. Following refusal of leave to appeal by McCombe, LJ on 15 May 2015 the stay was lifted. Mr Wise has maintained the argument that s.27 does apply and that Turner J was wrong and has submitted that I should decline to follow his decision.

The arguments about why section 27 was held not to apply are tricky, but I’ll try to condense them

The defendant is a unitary authority. All functions which a local authority can exercise are exercisable by it. But it has within it separate compartments so that various different functions will be carried out by different persons. The two compartments material for the purposes of this case are social services and housing.

[So for this case the Housing Department and Social services department were essentially the same corporate body, just different parts of it. Let’s say right hand and left hand. Now, one might well argue that the right hand doesn’t always know what the left hand is doing, but they are still attached to the same body. ]

In some areas of the country, different authorities deal with social services and with housing. Thus s.27 of the 1989 Act fulfils an obvious need if a service which the particular authority concerned with social services cannot provide but which can be provided by a different authority is required. Mr Wise submits that it can also apply to different departments within a unitary authority. Having regard to the purpose of s.27 which is to assist in safeguarding and protecting the welfare of children in need, it is, he submits, necessary to construe s.27 to give effect to that purpose. It is only if the reference in s.27(1) to ‘that other authority’ includes a separate department within a unitary authority that that purpose, he submits, can be achieved. Turner J decided that that would be to subject s.27 to a strained and wholly artificial interpretation

The argument being that whilst s27 allows say Islington’s right hand to ask Hackney’s left hand to do something, and allows Hackney’s left hand to ask Islington’s left hand to do something, it doesn’t allow Islington’s left hand to ask Islington’s right hand to do something.  Or rather, one can ask, but you’re not asking under section 27. And the duty to co-operate doesn’t arise.  In plain English, if Islington’s housing and social services were just all the London Borough of Islington, it can’t co-operate with itself.  A single entity can’t co-operate with itself, it needs someone else to co-operate with.

This is the Byas point “You cannot ask yourself for help” R v. Tower Hamlets LBC ex p Byas (1992) 25 HLR 105

[I’m not sure that I really go for this argument – having worked in many Local Authorities, the different departments may as well be different planets. One could easily spend as much time arguing between different departments as any fight you could pick outside. It’s a bit like saying that the Treasury and Department of Health are the same thing. Notionally yes, they are all just the British Government, but they have completely different staff, budgets, aims and managers. ]

  • Mr Wise has raised the same arguments which were rejected by Turner J and has relied on the same authorities. But he has submitted that there has been a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, Nzolameso v. Westminster City Council [2015] PTSR 549 which assists his argument. He also relies on guidance from the Secretary of State which appears to indicate that s.27 does apply within unitary authorities. The natural meaning of the words in s.27 indicates that it is aimed at co-operation between different authorities when the authority which deals with social services and so the welfare of children in one does not have responsibility for dealing with other matters, in particular no doubt housing. It may be assumed that Parliament considered that unitary authorities would ensure that there was the necessary co-operation between the various departments so that there would be no need for a statutory requirement to achieve it. Thus in R v. Tower Hamlets LBC ex p Byas (1992) 25 HLR 105 which concerned an application to require the Council’s social services department to make a s.27 request to its housing department, Hoffman LJ observed at p.107:-

“In my judgment, this application is perfectly hopeless. Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 enables a local authority to ask for the help of one of the other authorities mentioned in s.27(3). It seems to me quite unarguable that the requesting authority can itself be the authority to which the request is addressed. You cannot ask yourself for help.”

Byas was a refusal by the Court of leave and so is not a binding authority. But, as Turner J observed, it is due considerable respect.

  • Mr Wise has relied on in particular observations of Lord Nicholls in R(G) v. Barnet LBC [2004] 2 AC 208. The construction of s.27 was not argued in that case and Lord Nicholls’ observations about it were entirely obiter. He does indicate in paragraph 62, applying s.27, that a unitary authority’s social services department can request help from its housing department ‘as the local housing authority’ and the housing department must comply unless it would unduly prejudice the discharge of any of its functions. Byas was not cited. Lord Steyn was in general agreement with Lord Nicholls. Mr Wise submits that Lord Hope’s observations in paragraph 71 assist his argument. Lord Hope was simply making the point that in unitary authorities the statutory duties in relation to child care are separated from those relating to housing.
  • R(G) v. Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299 concerned the councils’ obligation to provide accommodation for a child. Lady Hale gave the only reasoned opinion. At paragraph 33 she referred to s.27 of the 1989 Act and the guidance issued by the Secretary of State in May 2008 on the issue of co-operation between authorities. She stated:-

“Section 27 of the 1989 Act empowers a children’s authority to ask other authorities, including any local housing authority, for ‘help in the exercise of any of their functions’.”

Since Southwark is a unitary authority, her observations do seem to assume that s.27 can apply to such an authority. But Byas was not cited and it is not clear the extent to which (if at all) s.27 was raised in argument.

[For me, I think Lady Hale dealing expressly with s27 beats Hoffman LJ on an authority which is not binding]

But anyway, we move on to the Government’s guidance published in March 2015 telling Local Authorities that “where requested by a local authority children’s social care department, professionals from other parties of the local authority such as housing have a duty to co-operate under section 27”

That couldn’t be clearer that the guidance believes that s27 applies equally to unitary authorities as it does to any other arrangement.

  • Nzolameso (supra) concerned the lawfulness of Westminster’s decision to house a single parent who was suffering from ill health and was homeless in Milton Keynes. An issue dealt with by the Supreme Court was the application of s.11 of the 2004 Children Act. It did not require that a child’s welfare should be the paramount or even a primary consideration, but it had to be properly taken into account (paragraph 22). But s.27 was not considered at all and I find nothing in the case which supports Mr Wise’s construction of s.27.
  • In March 2015 the Secretary of State issued updated guidance entitled ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. It was issued under a number of statutory provisions including s.7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and s.11(4) of the Children Act 2004. It will be recalled that s.7 of the 1970 Act requires that the authority must act under such guidance and that s.11(4) imposes the lesser obligation to have regard to such guidance. In paragraph 68 of the guidance, it is said:-

“Where requested to do so by local authority children’s social care, professionals from other parts of the local authority such as housing and those in health organisations have a duty to co-operate under Section 27 of the Children Act 1989 by assisting the local authority in carrying out its children’s functions.”

There is a similar paragraph in guidance issued under the Children Act 1989 which in paragraph 428 states:-

“Health authorities, local authorities, local housing authorities and other social services departments have a duty to comply with a request from a children’s services department for help in the exercise of their functions [section 27]”

  • Mr Wise points out that where an Act requires that persons act on guidance, there must be very good reason not to follow it. But the guidance must comply with the law. Following Turner J’s decision, the law is that s.27 does not apply to unitary authorities. It follows that the indication that it does in the guidance is not in accordance with the law and it cannot be used as a ground for submitting that Turner J’s decision, now upheld by McCombe LJ, was wrong.
  • As I pointed out in argument, it seems to me that the attempt to overturn Turner J’s decision was entirely unnecessary. It is apparent that Parliament required by s.27 the degree of co-operation between authorities set out in it. While the guidance is poorly drafted, it can and should be read to require that the same degree of co-operation between departments in a unitary authority is given as would be required by s.27 between different authorities. Lord Nicholl’s observations in R(G) v. Barnet LBC (supra) went too far and unnecessarily applied s.27 in terms and, Lady Hale in R(G) v. Southwark LBC was, I fear, guilty of loose reasoning, but the effect of her observations is to make clear that within a unitary authority different departments must act in the same way as would be required if s.27 did apply.
  • I note that in R(C) v. Hackney LBC it was agreed between the parties that if s.27 did not apply the claim had to be dismissed. That was, I think, an unfortunate approach since s.27 was not needed to achieve the required result. As I have said, I am satisfied that the argument that s.27 must apply directly is a barren argument since in a unitary authority it follows Parliament’s will, the Secretary of State’s guidance and observations of Lord Nicholls and Lady Hale that the same approach as required by s.27 is applied. Mr Baker did not seek to argue that my approach was incorrect, his case being that the defendant’s system in operation as applied in the cases of each of the claimants did meet the s.27 test. Mr Wise did in the end recognise that my conclusion provided the claimants with all that they could have had if s.27 directly applied. I should of course add that I am entirely satisfied that Turner J’s construction of s.27 was correct. It follows that I do not need to deal with Mr Wise’s arguments based on human rights and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which he deployed to support his contention that s.27 applied. They are all unnecessary since I have decided that its requirements are to be applied indirectly.

 

I’m afraid that Collins J has made my head hurt here. Basically he is saying that s27 does not apply to unitary authorities and that Turner J was right to say that, but the effect of the guidance and the case law is that within a unitary authority different departments must act in the same way as would be required if s27 did apply.  [Which is a very long route to a net effect of s27 applies]

 

In any event, Collins J then went on to dismiss the claim on the facts. That the social care and housing department had had discussions and meetings and conversations and housing were alive to the concerns of social care but had made their determination that provision of alternative housing was not required. Whether s27 applies or not, social care don’t get to make housing bend their own rules and policies and statutory duties.

 

 

  • Mr Wise submits that the system in force does not equate to that which s.27 would require. It is I think important to bear in mind the obligation on the requested authority which is to comply with a request for help if it is “compatible with their own statutory or other duties and objectives and does not wrongly prejudice the discharge of any of these functions.” In R v. Northavon DC ex p. Smith [1994] 2AC 402 the House of Lords considered what the correct approach should be. Lord Templeman’s observations on the manner s.27 should be applied were agreed with by the other members of the committee. On page 410 between letters D and H, Lord Templeman said:-

 

“The provisions of section 27 of the Children Act of 1989 which, as Mr Lester observed, required the housing authority to co-operate with the social services authority, imposed on the housing authority a duty to ascertain whether the housing authority could, without unduly prejudicing the discharge of their functions, provide a solution or co-operate in securing a solution to the problems of the Smith family to the extent necessary to prevent the children from suffering from lack of accommodation.

Following such consideration the result might have been that no solution was obtainable with the reasonable co-operation of the housing authority. There might have been no available accommodation which the housing authority could provide without unduly prejudicing the discharge of any of their functions. There might have been no solution which did not impose on the housing authority a financial burden which they considered unduly prejudicial to the discharge of their functions. Mr Smith might have been an unacceptable tenant. Failing any acceptable solution, it would have been the duty of the social services authority to protect the children of Mr Smith by providing financial assistance towards the accommodation of the family or by exercising the other powers available to the social services authority under the Children Act 1989.

In the event the housing authority were able, without in their view unduly prejudicing the discharge of any of their functions, to co-operate in arrangements whereby the children of Mr Smith did not suffer from lack of accommodation. The social services authority are responsible for children and the housing authority are responsible for housing. The two authorities must co-operate. Judicial review is not the way to obtain co-operation. The court cannot decide what form co-operation should take. Both forms of authority have difficult tasks which are of great importance and for which they may feel their resources are not wholly adequate. The authorities must together do the best they can.”

His concluding remarks on the undesirability of using judicial review to obtain the necessary co-operation are to be noted. And it is equally important to bear in mind that s.27 does not require that the functions of the requesting or the requested authority are changed. The same approach will be material in a unitary authority where one department is requested to assist the other.

 

 

There is some complex points system, and actually there is reference obliquely in the judgment to the Deeqa Mohammed case referred to earlier, since this is the same London Borough

 

  • The witness produces a copy of the exceptional housing needs policy which applies to children in need. It provides that any professional employed in specialist services (which will cover children such as the claimant) may make a referral under the policy and by doing so will be seeking to prioritise the housing needs for the benefit of a child or young person. It is only to be used if (so far as material to these claims) there is a significant risk of a child needing to be looked after and no suitable housing is available and an ordinary transfer application would be likely to lead to delay which is considered detrimental to a child’s welfare. Such a referral can be dealt with by what is known as ‘the Director’s Scheme’ which enables the Director of Children’s Services to make up to 15 nominations for priority housing to the Housing Department. Acceptance by the housing department will result in an initial award of 150 points and the case will be kept under regular review.
  • Apart from the Director’s Scheme, there is the RAG system. If the TAC meeting which will follow if the OT’s assessment of risk recommends that there is a need for alternative accommodation, there will be a placement on the Risk Register at red or amber. A Housing Needs meeting attended by officers from Children Services, Housing and OT is held monthly and at such meeting the OT will raise an amber case that needs to be reviewed. In paragraph 10 of her statement, the witness states:-

 

“In order to promote co-operative working between Housing and Children Services, I have arranged training in safeguarding for my officers involved in the allocation process. Officers in my division understand that Children services can request assistance from Housing and that they are required to support Children Services in their safeguarding duties. I have recently implemented a monthly drop-in surgery for social workers from Children Services to come and seek advice on the housing allocation scheme and housing options for their clients. Cases on the risk register are kept under review at TAC meetings and at the monthly Housing Needs meetings; Children Services can request further assistance from Housing at these meetings as necessary.”

 

  • Mr Wise criticises the system in that the OT who assesses the risk is not an employee of the defendant. There is, he has submitted, no children services input into whether a child goes on the risk register whether red or amber. This he submits is a fatal flaw since if there is to be an equivalent arrangement to that provided for by s.27, the request for assistance must come from the social services department and so social workers must be able to instigate it. It is clear that the system does involve all relevant professionals. There is no reason to doubt that an OT is the best person to assess risk. It is apparent from the evidence of Ms Lucas that it is open to anyone in Children Services to raise any concerns about risk in existing housing. The fact that the OT and the Head of Paediatric Therapy and Specialist Nursing are not employed by the defendant is not of any significance since they work together with social workers.
  • While no family on the amber level of risk has been made a direct offer of alternative accommodation, Ms Lucas has said that there is no bar in principle to that happening if a meeting identified such a case.
  • I have no doubt that the system in operation, which owes much to the death of the child in 2012 when a new approach was recognised to be needed, is such as does comply with the indirect application of s.27.

 

The Judge was content that this system was compatible with s27 (which did not apply on the statue, but as a result of the guidance and case law nearly did so would be treated as though it did) and thus for judicial review purposes, the Local Authority had not behaved unreasonably.

I guess in a judicial review, you’re not able to make the succinct argument that the last time social workers were worried that a child might fall out of a window in Islington the child did, so maybe when you’re worried that three children (one of whom is autistic) might fall out of a window it is reasonable to re-house them  (since it might not be unreasonable to not re-house them)

Who knew there was quite so much case law and controversy about section 27?

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Appeal about the transparency in the Poppi Worthington case

Posted on February 25, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

At first glance, this looked a bit  “Let me just fix this stable door, it is SO much easier without the horse being in here getting in the way and standing on my foot“, but the appeal was actually heard in November  BEFORE the re-hearing of the fact finding, and it is just that we’ve only today had the judgment itself.

I know that some people were curious about how much material was allowed to be reported (for example Poppi’s name, and the name of the father) and some were curious about the ‘live’-tweeting aspects and the Press being present during the hearing itself.

Re W Children 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/113.html

Mr Justice Peter Jackson had given a decision about his plans as to what could or could not be published, in advance of that re-hearing and what role the Press could play.  The Guardian appealed that decision, supported in part by the father. The mother and Local Authority were neutral.

The Court of Appeal were asked specifically to consider what role the welfare of the children had to play in a decision about reporting and press attendance. They bravely duck that question  (to be fair, I think it ends up being a conflict between some  authorities one of which is a House of Lords case, so it has to be resolved ultimately by the Supreme Court). Given that the Guardian’s case was largely based on the degree of openness and transparency here being inimical to the welfare of the other children, that decision was pretty fatal to the appeal.

  1. During the hearing of the appeal we accepted the jointly argued approach of counsel and that, in turn, was the basis upon which we came to the decision on the appeal which we announced at the conclusion of the oral hearing. In the process of preparing this written judgment, however, I have come to the preliminary view that there may be a conflict, or at least a tension, between the apparently accepted view that welfare is not the paramount consideration on an issue such as this, on the one hand, and Court of Appeal authority to the contrary on the other hand. As this present judgment is a record of the reasons for our decision announced on 23rd November 2015 and that decision was based upon the children’s welfare not being the paramount consideration, I do no more than flag up this potential point which, if it is arguable, must fall for determination by this court on another occasion.
  2. The key authorities to which I am referring are a criminal case in the House of Lords, Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593, a private law family case in the Court of Appeal, Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878; [2007] 1 FLR 11 and a public law child case in the High Court, Re Webster; Norfolk County Council v Webster and Others [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam); [2007] 1 FLR 1146.
  3. Although, in my view, a reading of those cases may give rise to a potential point relating to the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, which, as I have stated, must fall for determination on another occasion, it is not necessary to go further in this judgment and consider the matter in any detail.

 

Counsel for the Press association (the always excellent Caoilfhionn Gallagher) set out the case for openness and transparency in this case very well  – and it really explains why so much was allowed to be reported in this case.

a) In the unusual circumstances of this case, the judge’s decision on publicity and reporting is entirely justified for the reasons that he gave after giving careful thought to the submissions of each party;

b) In general, there is a strong principle in favour of open justice which has long been regarded as integral to protecting the rights of those involved in court proceedings, and as essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;

c) The President of the Family Division has drawn attention to the importance of transparency in the context of family justice in Practice Guidance Transparency in the Family Courts: Publication of Judgments [2014] 1 FLR 733 and in a 2014 consultation document Transparency – Next Steps;

d) The Practice Guidance identifies two classes of judgment, (i) those that the judge must ordinarily allow to be published and (ii) those that may be published; the present case falls into category (i) and there is therefore a strong presumption that the final judgment should be published in due course;

e) There is already an extremely strong public interest in transparency being applied to this case at this time;

f) The Appellant’s acceptance that paragraph [1] to [100] of the July 2014 judgment should be published, which contains a summary of the medical evidence, renders illogical her opposition to the publication of the remaining paragraphs (albeit in a redacted form);

g) There is already substantial publicly available information regarding the injuries that Poppi sustained prior to her death and the fact that her father had been arrested with respect to an allegation of sexually abusing Poppi. Reference is made to the clip of media reports provided to the court;

h) Daily news reporting is justified against the backdrop summarised in (g) above and is justified in this ‘highly unusual’ case. In any event the judge will retain some measure of control over reporting through the ability to impose a retrospective embargo if some particularly sensitive material is disclosed in court;

i) The challenge relating to the judge giving judgment in public is misconceived as the judge did not make any such direction. His proposal to sit in private, with the media in attendance, prior to publishing the judgment was entirely proportionate in the circumstances.

 

The Court of Appeal concluced that this was unusual, but that Poppi was  ahighly unusual case, given that so much was already within the public domain. They largely upheld Mr Justice Peter Jackson’s decision, albeit limiting the amount of medical information that was to be published from the original finding of fact judgment (you may recall at the time that the judgment published initially had such huge chunks redacted from it that one couldn’t see what father was alleged to have done and it was left to astute reading to see that taking a sample swab from father’s penis suggested something very dark. )  They also said that tweeting from Court would have to wait until the end of the day, when the Judge could consider anything unusual arising from the evidence and give directions about it.

 

  1. Ms Gallagher accepts that daily reporting of a child protection case was unusual, but she submits that this has now become a highly unusual case in terms of there being a second fact finding hearing in circumstances where a good deal about the case is now in the public domain.
  2. During the hearing the court asked for more detail of the arrangements that the judge had put in place to maintain some control on the material that could be reported by press representatives who were attending court. The judge’s proposal was that if, for example, a witness were to give unexpected evidence, the disclosure of which might unnecessarily breach the Article 8 rights of the children, or more generally cause them unnecessary harm, the court could embargo that part of the evidence from that which could otherwise be reported. The wording of the judge’s order on this point was that ‘such reporting is subject to any further directions given by the court concerning what can and cannot be published if an issue arises during the course of the hearing’.
  3. In considering the appeal on this point, the starting point must be that the introduction of a facility for daily reporting of an ongoing fact finding hearing in a child protection case is indeed highly unusual. It is not profitable to debate whether this is or is not the ‘first’ such case. For my part, in a slightly different context, I recall that there was widespread national media reporting day by day of the sad case of Re RB [2009] EWHC 3269 (Fam); [2010] 1 FLR 946; other judges will no doubt be aware of other cases. Be that as it may, no party submits that Jackson J was acting outside his powers by permitting daily media reporting. For the reasons that I have given at paragraph 37, such a course was plainly within his discretion.
  4. In circumstances where, as the Appellants have accepted, the final judgment will be published in due course, the issue of daily reporting relates to the quantity and timing of reporting rather than to reporting the facts of this case as such in principle. It is a matter that calls for a proportionate approach, over which a trial judge is entitled to exercise a wide margin of discretion; as I have stressed, in the present case that is particularly so with respect to this trial judge at this stage in this trial process.
  5. Although I must confess to having a feeling of substantial unease at this degree of openness at the start of an unpredictable fact finding exercise, I am clear that it is simply not possible to hold that Jackson J is wrong in his analysis of the issue and his decision to grant media access to this degree. I am, however, sufficiently concerned about the laxity of the terms of the order dealing with daily reporting as it is currently drawn to stipulate that a further sub-paragraph be added to that part of the order in the following terms:

    ‘such reporting (whether by live reporting, Twitter or otherwise) may not take place until after the court proceedings have concluded on any given day, in order to ensure that the court has had an opportunity to consider whether any such additional directions are required.’

    The purpose of this new provision is, hopefully, self-explanatory in that it allows for stock to be taken at the close of the court day so as to identify any aspect(s) of the evidence which should be subject of embargo before any reporting, of any nature, can take place.

  6. The grounds of appeal relating to whether or not the judge should sit in public to deliver his judgment were not pursued and therefore fall away.
  7. For the reasons that I have given, I would therefore allow the appeal to the very limited extent of (a) requiring the removal of reference to any of the medical evidence from the edited 2014 judgment, and (b) inserting a tighter requirement in the court order relating to the control of daily reporting.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Posted in case law, transparency and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Court Supporter

Posted on February 25, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

A consultation document has been published, making some suggestions about McKenzie Friends. One of the proposals is that their name be changed to something more meaningful

(I think I have told the story before about how the term McKenzie Friend just arrived out of chance because that was the name of the case where it was first asked for – in fact, as the person who was asking to assist was a Australian pupil barrister called Mr Hangar, it could just as easily have been “Hangar Friend”  – though if you say that aloud, it takes on the murderous imperative sense.     Digression 2 – for similar reasons, it is never advisable to attend Court singing the Smiths song “Panic” where the chorus goes “Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ”  as Security will probably take you into a dark room and shine lights in your eyes)

The suggestion is “Court supporter”

Whilst that makes sense in terms of “It is a person who supports you in Court”,  it carries the other connotation – as in “West Ham supporter”  being a person who supports and admires and endorses West Ham. There are a few McKenzie Friends who wouldn’t really describe themselves as being a supporter, admirer or endorser of the family Courts.

Anyway, I know some McKenzie Friends read the blog and may be able to share this with others.  [I’m not sure how the authors of the consultation intended to let practicing McKenzie Friends know about it]

 

Here are the details for responses

 

1.6 Consultation responses may be submitted by

email to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk or by post to: McKenzie Friends Consultation, Master of the Rolls’ Private Office, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL.

1.7 The consultation opens on 25th February and closes on 19th May 2016

 

The document itself is here

Click to access consultation-paper-mckenzie_friends_feb2016.pdf

 

Sorry if you can’t do PDFs, I’d suggest emailing the address above and asking for a copy in a different format.

Here are the ten questions they pose

Question 1: Do you agree that the term ‘McKenzie Friend’ should be replaced by a term that is more readily understandable and properly reflects the role in question? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 2: Do you agree that the term ‘court supporter’ should replace McKenzie Friend? If not, what other term would you suggest? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 3: Do you agree that the present Practice Guidance should be replaced with rules of court? Please give your reasons for your answer. Please also give any specific comments on the draft rules in Annex A.

Question 4: Should different approaches to the grant of a right of audience apply in family proceedings and civil proceedings? Please give your reasons for your answer and outline the test that you believe should be applicable. Please also give any specific comments on the draft rules.

Question 5: Do you agree that a standard form notice, signed and verified by both the LiP and McKenzie Friend, should be used to ensure that sufficient information is given to the court regarding a McKenzie Friend? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 6: Do you agree that such a notice should contain a Code of Conduct for McKenzie Friends, which the McKenzie Friend should verify that they understand and agree to abide by? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 7: Irrespective of whether the Practice Guidance (2010) is to be revised or replaced by rules of court, do you agree that a Plain Language Guide for LIPs and McKenzie Friends be produced? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 8: If a Plain Language Guide is produced, do you agree that a non-judicial body with expertise in drafting such Guides should produce it? Please you’re your reasons for your answer.

Question 9: Do you agree that codified rules should contain a prohibition on fee-recovery, either by way of disbursement or other form of remuneration? Please give your reasons for your answer.

Question 10: Are there any other points arising from this consultation on that you would like to put forward for consideration? Please give your reasons for your answer.

 

I thought this bit of suggested legislation was interesting.  (I am really looking forward to seeing how one defines ‘quietly’)

Except where a rule or other enactment provides otherwise, where a hearing is in public a court supporter may assist a litigant. Assistance may, as the litigant requires, take the form of any of the following:

(a) providing moral support;

(b) helping to manage the court documents and other papers;

(c) taking notes of the proceedings;

(d) advising the litigant quietly on—

(i) points of law and procedure;

(ii) issues which the litigant might wish to raise with the court;

(iii) questions which the litigant might wish to ask a witness.

 

If the proceedings are in ‘private’ (i.e a family case), the person needs permission from the Court.

McKenzie Friends may wish to know that although the proposed legislation allows a Court to allow a “Court supporter” to conduct litigation or have rights of audience (the ability to address the Court or put questions to witnesses) the proposal is that this MUST NOT be given where the “Court supporter” is charging for it in any way.

Permission granted under rule 3.23(3) will be withdrawn by the court at any time where the court supporter is receiving, either directly or indirectly, remuneration from the litigant in respect of exercising the right of audience or carrying out the conduct of litigation

 

This bit imposes the same duties on a Court supporter as a on a solicitor

 

Where an individual is authorised to act as a court supporter, that individual in respect of those proceedings is deemed to be an officer of the court and thereby owes such duties to the court as if they were a solicitor.

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part2/rule5/content.page

O(5.1)

you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;

O(5.2)

you are not complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;

O(5.3)

you comply with court orders which place obligations on you;

O(5.4)

you do not place yourself in contempt of court;

O(5.5)

where relevant, clients are informed of the circumstances in which your duties to the court outweigh your obligations to your client;

O(5.6)

you comply with your duties to the court;

O(5.7)

you ensure that evidence relating to sensitive issues is not misused;

O(5.8)

you do not make or offer to make payments to witnesses dependent upon their evidence or the outcome of the case.

 

 

The proposed Rules also give the Court the discretion to refuse a particular individual to act as a “Court supporter”

 

(6) Assistance from a court supporter may be prohibited, refused, or withdrawn under rule 3.22(5) where:

(a) such assistance would be or is contrary to the efficient administration of justice; or

(b) the court supporter is an unsuitable person to act in that capacity (whether generally or in the proceedings concerned).

 

The proposed Rules also say that a person subject to Civil Restraint Order (i.e someone who isn’t able to make their own Court applications as a result of having made a number of frivolous or vexatious ones) can’t be a Court Supporter AND that a Court may consider making a Civil Restraint Order against a “Court supporter”

 

1. This Practice direction applies where the court is considering whether to make –

(a) a limited civil restraint order;

(b) an extended civil restraint order; or

(c) a general civil restraint order;

 

against:

(a) a party who has issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit;

or

(b) against a court supporter who has acted in any proceeding or proceedings

(i) in a manner which is contrary to the proper administration of justice;

(ii) for remuneration contrary to any rule or order of the court; or

(iii) sought or exercised a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation on a regular basis.

 

I suspect lots of people will have views on these changes, one way or another*, so if you want to express your view, participate in the consultation.

 

(* for example, some people may consider that the changes are long overdue and level an unequal playing field, whereas some people may consider that the changes are a grudging acceptance that McKenzie Friends are necessary and required as a result of savage cuts but an attempt to starve/scare them out of taking on the role. Your mileage, as the saying goes, may vary. )

40 Comments

Posted in consultation and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

OK, take custody

Posted on February 24, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

The High Court in Re D (Children: Abduction) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/3990.html

dealt with a private law dispute between parents over their children.  (I know that most family lawyers are gritting their teeth, wincing and in agonies about the use of the word ‘custody’ in the heading, but it is a direct quote from the key part of the case).

There seemed to be a lot of unhappiness between the parents as to the amount of maintenance that the father was paying to the mother.  The mother and children lived in France, the father in England.  They had a frank exchange of views by email and texts – starting about mother’s request that father extend his holiday with the children for two days and then getting very heated.  Unfortunately for the mother, this exchange of views happened whilst father was having holiday contact with the children so they were in his care, and she at one point used the words ‘OK take custody’

The father duly did, and when the mother sought the return of the children to her care and made an application to that effect relying on his abduction, the father’s case was that the mother had given clear and unequivocal consent in the message “Ok take custody” for the children being in his care, which is a defence to the Hague Convention abduction remedies.

On the face of it, “Ok take custody” is not a wise thing to say to someone when you are arguing about where the children should live, but it is also important to look at the context. Mother’s case was that the words were heat of the moment in a heated and difficult exchange and not to be taken seriously, father’s case was that she meant them literally and clearly and unequivocally consented.

Let’s look at the whole exchange :-

 

 

  • In the summer of this year the parties agreed that the father would bring the children to England for a holiday lasting about five weeks. It was agreed that he would collect them on 26th June and return them on 30th July. Prior to the children’s departure to England, and over the first few days after their arrival, the parties engaged in a lengthy email exchange arguing about a range of matters. Translations of all the relevant emails have been put before me. Initially, they argued about whether the father could keep the children for two further days. It was the mother’s request that he do so; the father refused. The mother asked again; the father refused again. In so doing, he alluded to the fact that he was paying what he described as an “enormous amount of maintenance”.
  • That led to a lengthy email from the mother in which she said inter alia about his payment of maintenance:

 

“It’s your duty to do that. You’re not doing it for me. Don’t pay maintenance if you don’t want to, couldn’t care less. What are you complaining about? Do you want to swap roles, even though my maintenance won’t be such an enormous amount as yours, as you make so clear?”

In his reply the father said inter alia:

“If you’re not there to pick them up on 30th July in the afternoon I will file a written record of your absence and they will go back to school in England.”

In her reply, the mother said:

“Okay, if it was so simple then separated parents would send their children here and there without worrying about their wellbeing. Instead of filing a solution, you threaten me. Okay, I’m waiting to see. Bring them back the last week at school or else I’ll file a complaint for kidnapping.”

The father replied:

“It’s very simple, you agreed to take them back on the 30th of July and I cannot keep them any longer.”

A little later:

“There’s no point in making a fuss about nothing, everything was very clear and the dates were clearly stated.

You’re the one who wants to change the dates, so it’s up to you to come up with a solution.

This is my last email on this subject.”

 

  • All those emails took place on 20th and 21st June. That was the end of the exchange. The children were collected by the father and brought back to England on 26th June for their holiday.
  • On 1st July the email exchange resumed with further arguments about money. In the course of these arguments, at 14.49 on 1st July the father sent an email saying inter alia:

 

“If you’re not happy with the maintenance you get I can take custody back. I’m fed up of you treating me like a bank.

I’m waiting for you to confirm about the 30th of July.”

The email exchange then continued as follows. At 15.12 the mother sent an email saying simply: “OK take custody.” A minute later she sent a further email to the father saying:

“You must still be in Paris? Pop round to pick up the rest of their belongings.”

At 15.23, that is to say some ten minutes later, the father replied:

“I will need a letter from you saying that I have formal custody starting today, I will also use this email.

It’s not very important about their belongings.

You need to pay about €450 maintenance.

I let you have custody because you were creating problems when I had them last year. Unfortunately you carried on creating problems once you had custody.

This time you’ll have to get sorted, it will be the last time they move, you’ll have to sort visits out the best you can.”

At 15.33, some ten minutes afterwards, the mother replied:

“You know the procedures.

Start by making an appointment with the Family Judge.”

At 15.42, nine minutes later, the father replied:

“They are in France because I agreed to it, and that was following procedures in their original place of residency.

This time is simply them coming home.”

At 15.52, some ten minutes later, the mother replied:

“Oh no. They go to school in France and their primary residence is in France. You want to go to prison, abduct them. You will need the French judge’s ruling to put them in a school. Good luck.”

At 15.55, some three minutes later, the father replied:

“Abducting? You just told me to take custody.

I’m not playing around here.

No worries about the judge in France, seeing as you’re the one who enrolled them in school in France and they were staying with you. I’ll let you fill in the questionnaire which you can find here.”

He then attached a website link, presumably to the French court office. At 16.01, some six minutes later, the mother replied:

“Why should I fill this form in? You sort it out.

End of conversation.

Have a good day.”

If you can read that without wanting to bang both of their heads together, I’d like to thank you for visiting the blog St Francis of Assisi. Quick reminder that these people are actually adults, who have responsibility for looking after children.  My take here is that mother was not clearly and unequivocally consenting (things like “You want to go to prison, abduct them” are pretty suggestive that she’s not agreeing to a change of residence), but that she was also pretty foolish in not picking up that the father was more than willing to call her bluff on the sarcastic ‘ok take custody’ email.

  • The leading case on the question of consent in this jurisdiction under Article 13(a) is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re P-J (Children)(Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588. Consent is a defence which the defendant has to prove. At para.48 Ward LJ identified the following nine principles to be applied when the court is considering a defence of consent:

“(1)  Consent to the removal of the child must be clear and unequivocal. 

(2)  Consent can be given to the removal at some future but unspecified time or upon the happening of some future event. 

(3)  Such advance consent must, however, still be operative and in force at the time of the actual removal.

(4)  The happening of the future event must be reasonably capable of ascertainment.  The condition must not have been expressed in terms which are too vague or uncertain for both parties to know whether the condition will be fulfilled.  Fulfilment of the condition must not depend on the subjective determination of one party, for example, ‘Whatever you may think, I have concluded that the marriage has broken down and so I am free to leave with the child.’ The event must be objectively verifiable.

(5)  Consent, or the lack of it, must be viewed in the context of the realities of family life, or more precisely, in the context of the realities of the disintegration of family life.  It is not to be viewed in the context of nor governed by the law of contract.

(6)  Consequently consent can be withdrawn at any time before actual removal.  If it is, the proper course is for any dispute about removal to be resolved by the courts of the country of habitual residence before the child is removed. 

(7)  The burden of proving the consent rests on him or her who asserts it.

(8)  The enquiry is inevitably fact specific and the facts and circumstances will vary infinitely from case to case.

(9)  The ultimate question is a simple one even if a multitude of facts bear upon the answer.  It is simply this: had the other parent clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal?”

  • It is the father’s case here that the mother in her emails made statements which amount to “clear and unequivocal consent”. He points in particular to her use of the word “consent” in the email to which I have alluded and the subsequent emails, which he invites the court to read as clearly indicating that the mother was genuinely consenting and inviting him to go to the French court to obtain a formal order to avoid being accused of abduction. This is his interpretation of the references in the email exchanges which I have quoted to the court forms.
  • On the other hand, Dr. Rob George on behalf of the mother submits, first, that there was no clear or unequivocal consent and, secondly, even if the mother did give consent in the email exchanges on 1st July, that was plainly withdrawn on 23rd July, seven days before the end of the holiday on 30th July which constituted the point at which the children were retained in this jurisdiction.
  • I have no hesitation in accepting Dr. George’s submissions. First, I do not regard the mother’s words as I have quoted in the email exchanges on 1st July as amounting to “a clear and unequivocal consent”. Plainly what she said in those emails was said in the heat of the moment, and I remind myself of the observations of Ward LJ in the passage from Re P-J which I have just quoted, namely that: “Consent, or the lack of it, must be viewed in the context of the realities of … the disintegration of family life.” This exchange took place in the course of a heated conversation between the parties in which the mother was becoming frustrated and angry about what she saw as the father’s unreasonable behaviour so far as the precise timing of the contact was concerned, the date on which the children would be returned, and matters of money. Whether or not she was justified in becoming frustrated and angry, I know not, but what is clear to me is that her statements made in the emails have to be viewed in that context, and I do not in those circumstances regard them as clear or unequivocal. To my mind, the fact that she referred to abduction only a few minutes later in a further email further shows that the emails do not amount to “a clear or unequivocal consent”.
  • Secondly, even if I am wrong about that and the statements made in those emails were “a clear and unequivocal consent”, manifestly that consent was withdrawn before the children were retained.
  • Accordingly, applying, as I do, the principles in Re P-J which relate to removal by analogy to the retention of the children, any consent that was given was plainly withdrawn on or by 23rd July in the email which I have just read out. This, to my mind, is a blatant example of unlawful child abduction and my plain duty under the Hague Convention is to order the summary return of all three children, which I shall now do.

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in case law, private law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

It’s time… for Pig to say sorry to Hartley

Posted on February 23, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

In my youth, there was a TV show called Pipkins, in which Hartley, a moth-bitten hare with a personality disorder lived in a house with a Brummie pig, a monkey called Topov, a creepy tortoise who slept in a shop till and a Zsa-Zsa Gabor type ostrich. There would always be a section in the show where the human presenter would tell one of the characters to say sorry to another – with the “It’s time…. for Pig to say sorry to Hartley”

(There would be a montage of clocks and the noise of clocks striking during the “Time” bit)

 

This looks like the stuff of some sort of fevered Shock-Headed Peter nightmare, not a children's entertainment. (I am not even showing you the evil tortoise)

This looks like the stuff of some sort of fevered Shock-Headed Peter nightmare, not a children’s entertainment. (I am not even showing you the evil tortoise)

 

That pig looks as though he’s going to lunge at me and eat me from the soles of the feet up.

Besides being largely responsible for my life-long aversion to tortoises (seriously, I have to leave the room or look away if I see one on television, they give me the Fear), that expression always stayed with me.

In the case of Re K (children) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/99.html

The Court of Appeal were considering the father’s appeal against a decision that he have no contact with his children, there having been domestic violence between the father and mother and the children having been exposed to some of this. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, ruling that the Judge had not gone far enough in the duty to exhaust the reasonable avenues of getting contact re-established.

The interesting feature of the case is that both the Judge and the Guardian had become quite fixed on the idea that the father needed to apologise to the mother for his behaviour.

Vos LJ firmly rejected this and it may have a bearing on other cases.

 

I agree, and would only add a few words on one aspect of this case that I found somewhat disturbing. As Lady Justice King has recorded, the recorder seems to have taken the view that the father’s failure to make a genuine and heartfelt apology to the mother precluded him from seeing his children. I cannot accept such a starting point. It may well be that a repentant father would offer a reduced risk of harm to the children, but it is that risk and the welfare of the children generally that are important in contact cases, not any moral judgment of either parent. As has been often pointed out, parents are of all kinds and demonstrate all levels of moral virtue. It is not the court’s job to judge a wrongdoing parent for the sake of doing so, because it will, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, be in the children’s best interests to see their parents. If the failure to apologise posed a risk to the children, that might have been a different matter, but that does not seem to have been the case here. The recorder was wrong to impose a pre-condition of repentance and apology. Those matters were relevant, but only insofar as they had a bearing on the welfare of the children.

 

 

And if you want some more nightmare fuel, there were Pipkins episodes where Hartley (to my mind a cross between a really annoyed Kenneth Williams and Al Pacino at the end of Scarface) had his own puppet, which was even more malevolent.

 

Will I ever sleep again?

Will I ever sleep again?

6 Comments

Posted in assessment of risk, cafcass, case law, private law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →