Category Archives: case law

Like I care – anonymous defamation on the internet

Posted on July 18, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

I don’t write about Queen Bench Division cases very often (not least because I usually can’t understand a single word of them), but this one seemed pertinent.

It relates to a McKenzie Friend operating in the family Court sphere,  who is also a blogger. And a satirical website that took a disliking to him.  It also relates to whether anonymity is a thick shield or a flimsy one in a defamation case.

Smith v Unknown Defendant Pseudonym ‘Likeicare’ and Others 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/1775.html

 

  • There is before the Court today an application for default and summary judgment against the Second Defendant. The Claimant is a former borough councillor in Welwyn, Hatfield. He is active as a McKenzie friend. The Defendants are, so the Claimant asserts, users and operators of the website EncyclopediaDramatica.se (ED). ED is a satirical website which uses the Wiki software. The site is, to put it mildly, controversial and it takes steps to anonymise itself. This enables the site administrators to hide the country in which the site operates from and the real IP address of the servers. Editors and staff use pseudonyms.
  • In his particulars of claim the Claimant states that whilst the website is satirical much of what ED publishes is accurate and this accounts for its widespread popularity. The site exposes genuine wrongdoing and other material of interest. Mr Smith, who appeared as a litigant-in-person before the Court upon this application, describes the site as “...a more vulgar online Private Eye magazine“.
  • For some time, the site has published articles about the Claimant calling him a “zealot” in child protection matters. The Claimant operates a blog which, from time to time, deals with child protection matters. The position of the Claimant is that the original publications about him were satirical but not objectionable.

 

 

That’s part of the deal with satire – if you’re in the public domain, you might have to develop a thick skin about what is said about you.

However, things went quite a bit further than that

 

 

  • However, between 10th May 2016 and 12th May 2016 users of the site known as “KiwiDynastia” and “LikeICare” (an administrator) amended various articles to state that the Claimant was a paedophile and a child rapist. The website is accessible in the United Kingdom and has been viewed here. The Claimant has set out in particulars the specimen words complained of and what he alleges is the defamatory meanings to be imputed to them. These are, upon any view, vile allegations. The version of the material which was published on the website was copied and is in evidence before the Court. In this material the Claimant is accused of being a “KNOWN CHILD MOLESTOR”. It is said that “…his salivating lust for young ass is apparent”. It is said that he loves being able to have violent sex with his mother (the actual text uses more evocative language) which she forgets 5 minutes later. The heading to the article is “Samuel Collingwood Smith is a paedophile and child rapist”. The material has graphic mock-ups of the Claimant engaging in sexual activity. In his particulars of claim the Claimant denies the imputations which flow from these words. The Claimant denies having any criminal convictions, cautions or warnings which are remotely relevant to the words used.
  • The Claimant discovered these articles on 13th May 2016 and he, as he puts it, complained politely. The normal way to effect a complaint on a Wiki is to write on the talk pages of officials. The Claimant posted his complaint to several of the highest of the officials on the site, known as Bureaucrats. He received a prompt reply from an administrator “LikeICare” delivered on his own talk page which stated: “Fuck off LOL”. Another administrator “DarkLordTR” amplified stating that if the Claimant continued his course of action he would be banned and they would see to it that their article came higher up in the Google page rankings.
  • The Claimant responded by the service of a notice pursuant to section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 and also a letter before claim which he posted, once again, to the talk pages of the Bureaucrats and to his own talk page. He received a response again delivered by the administrator “LikeICare”. The response was in the following terms:

 

“**** Official response from myself, and on behalf of KiwiDynastia and entirely of ED staff **** LOL Don’t care faggot, go for it”.

 

  • Subsequently, the Claimant was unable to respond to the site which displayed what the Claimant describes as “...a montage of revolting, gory and sexual images” which is, he understands, the response communicated to banned persons.

 

I think that most people would consider that satire and accusing someone of being a child rapist are not quite the same thing.

Mr Smith sued for defamation – obviously it was problematic that the website were not willing to communicate with him and were anonymous.

The Court set out the position with defendants who were anonymous

 

B. The availability of relief against unknown persons

 

  • The ability of the Court to provide protective injunctive relief against persons unknown has been acknowledged for a considerable period of time: see for example Bloomsbury Publishing Group Plc v News Group Newspapers Limited [2003] 1 WLR 1633. It is necessary, however, for the person unknown to be capable of identification by description in such a way as to identify with sufficient certainty those who are included within the order and those who are not. In Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown, Responsible for Operation and Publication of the website http://www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB) (“Brett Wilson“) Mr Justice Warby stated that it was sufficient to describe a defendant as “Persons Unknown Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the website […]” (cf ibid paragraph [8]). In that case, Mr Justice Warby pointed out that the Court had jurisdiction not only to grant interim relief but to grant final injunctive relief against persons unknown, including upon a summary judgment basis pursuant to CPR 24.2 (ibid paragraph [10]). The relevant procedural safeguards must, of course, be respected and this includes ensuring that the unknown defendants have been duly served with the proceedings and with any application for interim or final relief. In the present case, there can be no possible query or doubt as to the fact that service was effected since the administrators of the site not only responded to the pre-action documents but also published the same on the internet site itself. In my judgment, it is clear that the proceedings in the present case were duly served and brought to the attention of the relevant defendants. None of the Defendants have sought to file an acknowledgement of service or a defence by the deadline for so doing. Indeed, the Defendants have not formally responded in any way, shape or form to the threat of litigation. Their heads are well below the parapet.

 

So the fact that the architects of a website conceal their names and identities is not necessarily a protection against civil litigation

 

 

  • Pursuant to section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant. In the case of harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit harm is not “serious” unless it causes or is likely to cause that body serious financial loss. The Claimant in the present case is someone who claims to trade for profit. He advances his case upon the basis that the website, which is widely read and enjoyed for its satirical comment, commands respect and attention. Accordingly, the fact that manifestly untrue and malicious content is directed at the Claimant is likely to cause him serious reputational harm and also make him less likely to receive fee-paying work. That harm will be exacerbated by the fact that the Claimant’s photograph is plastered all over the website. Indeed, false photographs of the Claimant, naked, engaging in sexual activity with multiple other males simultaneously were also included. There can be no doubt but that the Claimant’s reputation will have been substantially and deleteriously harmed by the publication of this material and that this was precisely the intention.
  • In my view, there is sufficient for me to make an order for judgment for damages. The Claimant’s application seeks summary disposal pursuant to sections 8 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1996. Section 8 empowers a Court to grant judgment to the Claimant in a defamation case and grant “summary relief” where it appears that there is no defence to a claim which has a realistic prospect of success and no other reason why the claim should be tried. Pursuant to section 9(1)(c) damages not exceeding £10,000 may be ordered by way of summary relief. In Brett Wilson Warby J observed that this was a relatively little-used procedure not least because summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24 was available in defamation cases and the damages recoverable pursuant to section 9 remained capped at £10,000. In that case Warby J observed that the procedure could be invoked in order to bring a swift end to a matter to avoid an assessment procedure which might be disproportionately expensive. He observed that the procedure had been used in similar circumstances in other cases, for example in Robins v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 1912 (QB). In Robins, Tugendhat J held that the jurisdiction to grant summary disposal was available after a Court had entered default judgment for damages to be assessed and on a summary basis he awarded the sum of £10,000. In Brett Wilson, Warby J also considered that a summary assessment at the maximum level was appropriate. The Judge in that case did not consider it necessary to undertake precise quantification of the loss. He was satisfied with general evidence that the firm in question would suffer financial loss but as he observed “quite apart from this, the award needs to serve the purpose of vindication“.
  • In my judgment, given the popularity of the website and the vile and offensive publications thereon, and the need for vindication, it is appropriate to make an order in the sum of £10,000. I will, however, in order to enable the Defendant to have a chance to put his side of the case on quantum, include as part of the order a liberty on the part of the Defendant to apply to vary the quantification if he considers that it is excessive or otherwise unjustified. The Defendant will have 14 days in which to lodge an application with the High Court for variation of that part of the order. If no such application is made within 14 days, then the sum of £10,000 will remain definitive. In this way, in my judgment, the interests of the Defendant are adequately protected. Any such application must however adhere to the normal procedural rules. It cannot be anonymous. The true name and address of the Defendant must be provided.
  • I am also satisfied that the pleaded allegations establish a case for the grant of injunctive relief against the Defendants. The Defendant has deliberately declined to participate in any process whereby the offending material was removed from the website. There is reason to believe that the Defendant would, unless enjoined, persist in the offensive campaign against the Claimant. In coming to this conclusion I have regard, as I have already observed, to section 12 of the Human Rights Act. The injunctions are prohibitory and mandatory. I have considered whether it is appropriate to grant relief in both forms. On the facts of this case I am satisfied that it is.

 

 

 

4 Comments

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

The Hungarian Games

Posted on July 13, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

A peculiar case where the parents were agreeing to adopt their child and the fight was about whether that would be in the UK or Hungary.

Hence the title. And not by any stretch of the imagination, a cheap opportunity for a Jennifer Lawrence photo.  Goodness looking through those photos to find a decent one was a terrible hardship.

 

 

I mean, seriously, I had to research the heck out of J Law for this piece

I mean, seriously, I had to research the heck out of J Law for this piece

 

Re AO (Care proceedings) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/36.html

 

And yes, this Judge was setting me up for an A-O Let’s Go, Ramones * title, and I spurned it. I feel bad and all, but c’mon. J Law!

(*yes I lost my mind in first draft and put the Buzzocks)

In this case then, the parents were both Hungarian, but had been living in England for some time. They had a baby and didn’t feel able to care for the baby, so they contacted the Local Authority to say that they wanted to relinquish the baby for adoption. They understood what was involved and freely agreed to it.  The LA felt that the baby should really grow up in Hungary, to be in touch with the parents culture.  The parents were adamantly against this. That argument meant that the only way the baby could be adopted in Hungary would be if the LA obtained a Placement Order. And in order to do that, they would need to prove that the section 31 Children Act threshold criteria were met – that the child was suffering significant harm, or likely to do so.

Tricky to do.

Let us see how the LA argued that threshold was met.

 

 

  • In this case, the local authority’s case was that, by failing to care for AO themselves and by relinquishing her to be looked after by the local authority, the parents had caused her to suffer significant emotional harm and to be likely to suffer further such harm, that harm being attributable to the care given to her not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide. The local authority further contended that the fact that the parents said that they were content for AO to be placed for adoption in England did not reduce the harm in question because the harm and likelihood of harm arose from AO

 

(a) having to be permanently removed from her mother at birth;

(b) having to be cared for by a foster carer, however caring and competent, rather than her own parents;

(c) having in due course to be moved to another carer, whether in England or in Hungary;

(d) being deprived of any relationship with her birth parents and possibly with their extended family;

(e) being deprived in her early weeks and months of experiences consistent with her Hungarian culture and heritage;

(f) being likely to become an adopted person rather than being brought up by her birth family, and having in due course to learn that her parents chose not to bring her up themselves.

 

  • In oral submissions, Mr Stuart Fuller on behalf of the local authority conceded that not every case where a child is given up for adoption would satisfy the threshold criteria. He submitted that in this case, however, the parents’ actions in not only giving AO up but also insisting that she should not be placed in Hungary either with her birth family or with adoptive parents was unreasonable and was causing, or likely to cause, harm to AO in depriving her of the opportunity to live with her birth family and/or in her birth culture.

This position was supported by the children’s guardian. He submitted that neither parent had in fact provided AO with any care at all. He concluded that it was in her best interests to live in Hungary. The parents’ withholding of information concerning the family would prevent her having a complete understanding of her background and history and would impinge on her emotional welfare

 

I think this is skilfully put together, but it is nowhere near establishing threshold.

Unusually, the parents here shared the same silk, Frank Feehan QC, but each had their own junior counsel. I haven’t ever come across that before. But if you think that Frank Feehan QC (of Re B fame) was going to swallow that threshold, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

 

  • On behalf of the parents, Mr Frank Feehan QC, leading Ms Grainne Mellon for the mother and Ms Katherine Dunseath for the father, submitted that the threshold criteria were not satisfied in this case. They reminded me of the definition of “harm” in section 31 (9), and also reminded me of the provisions of section 31(10):

 

“where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the chart’s health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child”.

Mr Feehan and the juniors representing the parents further cited the well-known observation of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 at para 70:

“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

 

  • The core submission made on behalf of the parents was that the factual assertions made by the local authority and accepted by the mother did not amount to a finding of significant harm. It was submitted that to find that, as a relinquished child born in this country and now highly adoptable, AO would suffer significant harm as a result of growing up English rather than Hungarian would be a distortion of the statutory criteria. These parents took a decision as to the future of their child which many do not take: that they are simply not ready and not able to care for her and others should do so. They were in early contact with the authorities and fully cooperated with arrangements to ensure more than adequate care. In addition, it was submitted that, contrary to the suggestion that no information had been given by the parents as to AO’s background, the parents had in fact given brief but full details of their own families and background and upbringing.

 

 

 

The Judge, Mr Justice Baker, was also mindful of public policy issues – if you make it too difficult and too onerous and too intrusive for a parent who wants to give their child up for adoption to do so, well then you’ll return to the days of children being left in wicker baskets on the doorsteps of hospitals and police stations. There has to be a balance

 

 

  • In my earlier judgement, I considered earlier reported cases in which a child had been given up by parents for adoption. In particular, I cited the observations of Holman J in Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 :

 

“Adoption exists to serve many social needs. But high among them has been, historically, the desire or need of some mothers to be able to conceal from their own family and friends, the fact of the pregnancy and birth. So far as I know, it has not previously been suggested, nor judicially determined, that that confidentiality of the mother cannot be respected and maintained. If it is now to be eroded, there is, in my judgment, a real risk that more pregnant women would seek abortions or give birth secretly, to the risk of both themselves and their babies …. There is, in my judgment, a strong social need, if it is lawful, to continue to enable some mothers, such as this mother, to make discreet, dignified and humane arrangements for the birth and subsequent adoption of their babies, without their families knowing anything about it, if the mother, for good reason, so wishes.”

I observed (at para 47 of Re JL, Re AO)):

“It might be thought that giving up a baby for adoption is a dereliction of responsibility. In many such cases – perhaps most – the truth will be very different. Anyone who has read the accounts of persons who have given up a baby in those circumstances will soon come to see that it is usually a decision taken only after a great deal of thought and anguish, by parents who realise that they cannot look after the baby and wish to give the baby the best opportunity to grow up in a loving home.”

 

  • As I pointed out in the earlier judgment, very few babies nowadays are given up for adoption at birth. In the first half of the 20th century, when illegitimacy still carried great social stigma, the numbers of babies adopted at birth were very much greater. As the stigma has evaporated, so the numbers of deduction so the numbers of babies relinquished for adoption have dwindled. New techniques for reproduction have provided different ways of meeting the requirements of couples who are unable to have children themselves. But there remain a few isolated cases where a mother concludes that she is unable to look after her child. It may be because her past history demonstrates that she is incapable of caring for a child. Or it may be that she feels that she cannot keep the baby for other reasons. A civilised society must accommodate such feelings and decisions, as societies always have. These feelings and decisions come within the range of diverse parenting to which Hedley J was referring in Re L. If society does not tolerate and facilitate such decisions, mothers who feel that they cannot keep them babies will be driven to take other measures.
  • It follows, therefore, that the fact that the mother has given up her baby does not by itself satisfy the threshold criteria under section 31. When a baby has been simply abandoned on a doorstep, it is likely that criteria will be satisfied – each case will, as always, turn on its own facts. In cases where the mother has reached the difficult decision that she cannot keep the baby, notified the local authority in advance, and made responsible plans for the relinquishment of the baby in a way which minimises the risk of harm, it is in my judgment unlikely to be the case that the threshold criteria will be satisfied. It is likely that a baby deprived of her mother’s care will suffer some form of harm but that will be diminished if the baby is swiftly moved to another carer in a planned way. Even when a baby suffers harm from being deprived of her mother’s care, it does not follow in these circumstances that the harm can be described as being attributable to the care given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. A mother who concludes that she cannot care for her baby, and who notifies the authorities and makes responsible plans for relinquished in the baby at birth, is not, in my judgment, acting unreasonably.
  • The local authority argued that, in this case, the relinquishment has been accompanied by an insistence on the baby being placed in England, and a reluctance to co-operate with attempts to contact the Hungarian extended family or place the child in that country. As a result, A had suffered harm through being deprived of links with her extended family and culture. I agree that on one view this could be considered detrimental, but it is doubtful that it can be regarded as significant harm and, even if it can, I do not consider that the parents can be said to be acting unreasonably. It is not unreasonable for them to want the baby to be placed for adoption in this country. Such views also fall within the range of diverse parenting identified by Hedley J. Unless society tolerates and facilitates such decisions, mothers who want their children to be placed in this country will be driven to take other steps.
  • Accordingly, I concluded that the local authority has failed to prove the threshold criteria for making a care order under section 31 in this case.

 

 

 

As it was not possible to make a Placement Order without either parental consent or satisfying the threshold criteria, it wasn’t NECESSARY for the Judge to rule whether it might be better for the child to grow up in Hungary rather than England  – but Baker J made it plain that he would not have done so in any event

 

Welfare

 

  • In the light of my decision as to the threshold criteria, it was strictly speaking unnecessary to determine whether the local authority plan for placing AO in Hungary would be the best outcome for her welfare, having regard to the provisions of section 1 of the Children Act. As I indicated at the conclusion of the hearing, however, it is my view, having considered the arguments, that such a plan would not be in AO’s overall interests, and I here set out the brief reasons for so concluding.
  • The local authority’s consistent view throughout these proceedings was that it was in AO’s interests to be brought up in Hungary. She is a Hungarian citizen whose heritage is Hungarian. Other than the place of her birth and placement with her foster carer for the last six months, she has no connection with this country. She has no extended family here. In addition, the local authority submitted that, were she to be adopted here, she would in due course be told of her background and would learn that she has Hungarian parents and extended family. It was argued that, were she then to learn that she had been “turned into” an English child because that was what her Hungarian parents wanted, she would be likely to suffer identity confusion which in turn could lead to emotional harm and stress within her adoptive family. In addition, if she is brought up in England, by the time she learns of a Hungarian background it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for her to make any meaningful connection with her heritage.
  • In reply, the parents’ consistent view throughout these proceedings has been that it would be better for AO to be brought up in this country. In addition, she was by the date of the hearing nearly seven months old and settled with her English carer. If she was moved to Hungary, she would move to a country where she is unfamiliar with the surroundings and language. In addition, if placed in Hungary, she would be subjected to at least two further moves of family – an initial preliminary foster placement to be followed by a move to a permanent family. In contrast, if she remained in this country, she would stay with the current carers until such time as an adoptive placement has been found.
  • The children’s guardian supported the local authority’s plan for moving AO to Hungary. He attached particular importance to her cultural heritage which would not be sustained if she was placed with an English family. A further concern highlighted by the guardian was that Hungary would be unlikely to recognise the adoption in England of a Hungarian child. This could create difficulties were AO to visit Hungary. Her ability to get to know Hungarian culture and background would therefore be impeded. The guardian feared that this might impinge adversely on her ability to gain a true sense of her identity, which in turn could lead to a sense of injustice with adverse consequences for her self-esteem, development and behaviour.
  • Set against that, however, the guardian expressed concern that with every passing week AO was becoming more attached to her current placement. He also pointed out that, if she was to be adopted here, a transition plan would be formulated involving both carers offering reassurance to help her with the change of primary care. In contrast, if she were to be placed in Hungary, the transition timespan would inevitably be much shorter which might cause difficulties in adjustment. Although it had been agreed that her carer and social worker would take AO to Hungary and take part in the transition arrangements, that process would, as the guardian identified, inevitably take place over a shorter period of time than in England. While supporting the local authority’s plan, the guardian was concerned that the details of how a Hungarian adoption would be arranged remained unclear, in contrast to the clarity of the process by which an adoption would be arranged in this country.
  • I accept that, other things being equal, it would be in AO’s advantage to grow up in her own culture. However, other things are not equal. AO is settled with her English foster carer and a move to Hungary would in my judgment be far more disruptive and damaging than an adoptive placement in this country which will involve only one change of carer, no language difficulties, and a transition that can be arranged at a pace and in a way that best meets AO’s needs. It is, of course, very important that AO should be brought up with an awareness of her cultural background, but in my judgment this can be addressed by carefully selecting adopters who are able and willing to accept that she has such needs which they as her permanent parents will have to meet. I acknowledge the potential difficulties if Hungary refuses to recognise an English adoption of a child that it regards as Hungarian, but in my judgment this factor, and the others identified by the local authority, do not outweigh the clear benefits of proceeding to place her for adoption in this country. Accordingly, had I been required to do so, I would not have accepted the local authority care plan as being the right option to meet AO’s needs.

 

 

 

A good decision, in my book. And it clarifies the position for other Local Authorities, and indeed parents.

 

Sometimes the law can be fair and kind, despite all the complex language and mystique.

Oh boy, did someone say “Mystique?”

 

Yes, these images are completely necessary to convey the legal niceties of the case

Yes, these images are completely necessary to convey the legal niceties of the case

2 Comments

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

Judgment on Reporting Restriction on the Butler/Gray case

Posted on July 5, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This was the request of the Press to be able to have access to material from the family Courts relating to Ellie Butler, Ben Butler and Jennie Gray and to be able to report it. They made the application following the conviction of Mr Butler for murder and the conviction of Ms Gray (having pleaded guilty) to lesser counts

 

London Borough of Sutton v Gray and Others 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1608.html

 

It is worth noting that at the start of the hearing, the Local Authority and Guardian were in support of release of materials and publication (subject to some minor redactions for anonymity) but during the course of the hearing became concerned, as the Judge was, that publication might result, if an appeal were lodged, in a mistrial claim for any criminal re-hearing

 

“It would be horrific if these parents were to avoid a retrial on the basis of publication at this stage”

 

[Despite everyone’s desire for transparency and information and a proper public debate, I think all of us can agree that we would not want Mr Butler to be freed on a technicality – as opposed to convincing a fresh jury of his innocence]

 

The Press application was put in this way

 

  • A number of principles are, as Mr Bunting suggests, applicable. Open justice is at the heart of our system of justice and vital to the rule of law. It promotes the rule of law by letting in the light and allowing the public to scrutinise the workings of the law for better or for worse. There is a particular need, I altogether accept, for the media to act as a public watchdog in care proceedings in the Family Court because of the intrusion or potential intrusion into the family lives of those concerned and what could be a serious interference by the state in family life.
  • Accordingly, while there is no presumption in favour of open justice, in private proceedings concerning the welfare of children there is a fundamental need for the press to play a scrutiny role in family proceedings. That is a matter enshrined within the President’s Practice Guidance (Family Courts: Transparency) [2014] 1 WLR 230. All of that I altogether accept.
  • The foundation of the jurisdiction to restrain publicity in a case such as this is derived from rights enshrined within the European Convention on Human Rights. A balancing exercise is required between competing rights. The balancing exercise as between Articles 8 and 10 has been addressed in a number of authorities; they are well described within paragraph 17 of the application. There is no need for me to read them into this judgment. I accept Mr Bunting’s analysis.
  • It is suggested that the proceedings before Eleanor King J are of the utmost public interest. There should therefore be, it is said, a strong presumption in favour of publication. There is an important public interest in the press being able to follow and understand those proceedings for the reasons described by Mr. Bunting; and there is a profound public interest in the press being able to investigate and, as necessary, report the varying approaches of the Family Court to the care proceedings relating to Mr. Butler and Miss Gray. These care proceedings, it is said, and I accept, place the Family Court under a particular spotlight and cry out for public exploration.
  • Mr. Bunting then goes on to say that in so far as the judgment and order of 30th June 2014 have been withheld from the press to protect against injustice in the criminal proceedings, this justification falls away upon the verdict given yesterday at the Old Bailey by the jury.

 

 

The Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffley, was rightly concerned with the prospect of an appeal being lodged and if successful it being argued that disclosure of material which a jury would not ordinarily see being used as a technical argument for that Mr Butler could not get a fair trial at any such re-hearing.

 

    2. My starting point is the President’s guidance of 16 January 2014 – ‘Transparency in the Family Courts: Publication of Judgments’ and particularly paragraph 19 where he makes clear that in deciding whether and, if so, when to publish a judgment, a judge shall have regard to all the circumstances, the rights arising under any relevant provision of the European Convention, particularly Article 6, respect for private and family life, Article 8 and Article 10 freedom of expression. The guidance then, materially, continues thus, “And the effect of publication upon any current or potential criminal proceedings”.
    3. All the signs are that the criminal processes involving Ben Butler are not yet over. Yesterday, as is reported on the BBC website, after the guilty verdict, Mr. Butler shouted out, “I’ll fight for the rest of my life. Unbelievable” before adding, “I want to be sentenced now so I can fight in the appeal court”. He added, “I’ll fight for ever to prove this wrong. My daughter was jumping in the house. I am 100% not guilty.” Miss Gray added, “Big mistake. Spend another ten years proving you wrong”. Those expressions of view, albeit uttered in the heat of the moment and immediately after the verdict, give some solid indication that the criminal proceedings are likely to extend to the making of an application for permission to appeal and to a submission that his conviction should be overturned.
    4. The reporting of King J’s judgment, were I to give permission to release it to the media, is likely to be very extensive indeed. It will be, if I am able to forecast anything, front page news. I am fully aware of the extent of public interest in the circumstances of this case, the background, the extent to which the Family Court has been involved as well as to the many legal processes leading to yesterday’s verdict.
    5. It is instructive, to my mind, to recall the manner in which there was reporting of the very sad circumstances of Khyra Ishaq’s pitiful life and terrible death in the aftermath of her mother’s conviction for causing that child’s death in about February 2010. There was, in the immediate aftermath of the criminal trial widespread front page, very prominent and extensive references to the judgment given many months, even perhaps years, previously by Eleanor King J.
    6. There is a very high likelihood, indeed it is inevitable, in my assessment, that there would be the most widespread and extensive reporting of the content of King J’s judgment in this instance. Would there be repercussions for the criminal appeal’s process? Mr. Bunting invites me to significantly doubt that there would be prejudice. He says there is a long way to go before any retrial. It is unclear as to whether one would be ordered. There may be a slender prospect, he argues, and it may be in the distant future and it is insufficient to outweigh the public interest in favour of publication.
    7. I would suppose that three options exist for the appeal which Ben Butler made clear yesterday he is intent on pursuing: firstly, that it is dismissed; second, that it is allowed and the conviction quashed; and, third, that the appeal is allowed to the extent that a retrial is ordered. I have no means of forecasting, no one has any means of predicting with any degree of accuracy, or at all, what will happen in connection with the proposed appeal. If there is any potential for a retrial then it seems to me that for exactly the same reasons as underpinned the decision of Eleanor King J not to release her judgment in 2014, I must do likewise.
    8. It is useful to reflect upon the words of Mr. Justice MacDonald in the case of H v A No. 2 [2015] EWHC 2630 when he said, albeit in a slightly different context:

“In the age of the Internet, … today’s news story no longer becomes tomorrow’s discarded fish and chip wrapper, but rather remains accessible in electronic form to those with the requisite search terms …”.

  1. We are, I would observe, in a very different environment to that which existed even ten years ago. There is the potential for prejudice to, even the derailing of, the criminal process. That, to my mind, is manifest. The risk may be, as Mr. Bunting suggests, small but the consequences for the criminal process could be incalculable.
  2. One scenario, quite obviously, is that Mr. Butler might seek to argue that consequent upon the publicity accompanying the publication of Eleanor King J’s judgment, which is bound to contain a great deal more material than is currently in the public domain, he could not be assured of a fair trial. That possibility, the potential for that eventuality, inevitably compels me to dismiss this application.
  3. One thing though should emerge and be made abundantly clear. The arguments in favour of the release of King J’s judgment are powerful and strong. They will remain so. I fully expect that so soon as the criminal appeals’ process is at an end a full, suitably redacted version of the 30th June 2014 judgment will be published. That is my judgment.

 

 

Unless an appeal is brought on fresh evidence, a criminal appeal must be lodged within 28 days of conviction (if appealing against conviction) or 28 days of sentence (if appealing on sentence), so the appeal window expires at the end of July.  If Mr Butler does not lodge such an appeal, I would expect the Press to revive their request to see the judgments and to be able to publish stories that provide detail from them.  If an appeal IS lodged, then the publication and release of the material will have to wait until that appeal runs its course, which could be many months.

Frustrating, particularly given how much material came into the public domain after conviction (for example Mr Butler’s previous convictions, which a jury would not normally see or hear about) but absolutely nobody would want this case to be determined on a technicality. If Mr Butler does appeal and gets a re-hearing, it must be decided on the facts of the case and its merits, not by a technicality.

 

 

 

2 Comments

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

Surrogacy and exploitation and Facebook

Posted on July 1, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This is a grubby and desperately sad case, which indicates that there urgently needs to be some proper system of regulation over commercial surrogacy  (which ought not to exist at all in this country but is doing so under the guise of ‘reasonable expenses’)   This case highlights how easily someone very vulnerable, whose financial circumstances were so stretched that she couldn’t afford phone top-ups might be persuaded by what in that context is a huge amount of money.   (Here £9,000. If you are on benefits, £9,000 is a LOT of money)

Z (Surrogacy agreements : Child Arrangement Orders) 2016

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

 

Here a baby boy Z, was born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement in 2015.  Z’s mother X, agreed to be a surrogate for a same-sex couple A and B.  The child was the biological child of A, but the eggs were provided through an anonymous egg donor. So X was the vessel for carrying the baby, but was not a biological or genetic mother to the baby.

The surrogacy arrangement was set up through a Facebook Group.

The applicants, who are a same sex couple, were introduced to X through a Facebook surrogacy site, which was run or administered by W and others, to provide a forum for the introduction of potential surrogates and commissioning parents. Although it is the applicants’ evidence was they were not members of the forum it was through that social media site that they were introduced to X. There is no screening of either surrogate or commissioning parents and no support available other than support from others involved with the forum. This court has heard, in this case and in others, that the surrogates were paid sums of money for their expenses at what was considered to be the “going rate”; which apparently varied from about £8,000 to £15,000. This unregulated form of surrogacy means that there are on the one side vulnerable surrogates, and on the other commissioning parents who are legally unprotected from unpredictable outcomes.

 

 

A and B had had Parental Orders granted in relation to twins, born in another surrogacy arrangement through a woman V.  Within 48 hours of the orders, they began making arrangements for another child through surrogacy.

 

Here are some of the things that the Judge said about V and the way that A and B had behaved towards her

 

  1. The applicants are a same sex couple who are in a civil partnership; they are both professionals, A an academic and B works for a charity as an advisor. Socially and economically they are in a much more secure position than X and much more affluent, although by no means wealthy. They are the parents of twin boys born in June 2013 by virtue of parental orders made in January 2014 by the Family Court. Within 48 hours of those orders being granted B started to make contact online to find another surrogate.
  3. The twins are the biological children of A and a known egg donor. They were conceived as a result of IVF treatment in the same clinic in Cyprus later used for the conception of Z. The twins were carried by V, a gestational surrogate. This first surrogacy agreement and the circumstances surrounding it are relevant as the applicants’ conduct was repeated in their agreement with X. Of particular note was their attitude towards the surrogate V which was mirrored later in their attitude towards X. The applicants ‘met’ V online or on Facebook in late September 2011, they knew very little about V relying instead on the views of L who was also involved in the surrogacy forum; what they did know was that V was in the process of what they called “matching” with another couple of commissioning parents but that that agreement was breaking down. There is no evidence before me that the reason for the breakdown was explored or that the applicants were concerned about it.
  5. Once introduced the applicants and V had become further acquainted online and arranged to meet in person. As was clear from the oral evidence of the applicants to this court the purpose and focus of that, their first meeting, was to sign the surrogacy agreement. A told the court in his oral evidence that the three had met in a services area in a “restaurant off the motorway in the West Midlands” and, that at the meeting which lasted 3-4 hours, they had discussed “the agreement and who we were”. They had signed an agreement at that meeting and that had constituted “matching”.
  7. It was abundantly clear from their evidence that A and B knew very little at all about V, her circumstances or her motivation for acting as their surrogate when they signed the agreement with her. L, who gave evidence before me, knew that V was in some financial difficulty because her phone had been cut off prior to the meeting or “match”. Money and payments were an issue between the applicants and V during the pregnancy and after it; as could be seen from electronic messages exchanged between them. L said, in her written statement, that V had “money trouble” throughout the pregnancy. It was known that V had separated from her partner at the time of the “match” so it would be fair to assume that she was, at the very least, more emotionally vulnerable than she otherwise might have been but neither of the applicants appear to have given this any thought and were firmly focussed on what she would be doing for them.
  9. In his oral evidence B, who told me that he had found V’s behaviour to be too demanding just after the twins’ birth, dismissed her need for his support at the time unsympathetically describing it as being “because of her hormones”. B was unable to demonstrate any understanding or empathy for a woman who had just given birth to twins, was in hospital alone and unsupported there or at home until he was pressed to do so. L was similarly dismissive and also gave a harsh unsympathetic description of V; who was described in a similar vein by all three witnesses; L, A and B.
  11. V was characterised by all three of them as “volatile” without any thought being given as to why she might be in an emotional, still less in a vulnerable, state. When considering their evidence about V in its totality I found the applicants to be dismissive of the considerable positive contribution to their lives she had made, at considerable physical risk to herself. She was unwell for the last three months of the pregnancy and required someone to live in at the end of the pregnancy to look after her own children. In their descriptions of V as a person they were largely negative and appeared almost wholly uninterested in her, rather, it seems, they saw her primarily as a service provider to whom they had paid £12,500.
  13. The applicants complained about V demanding too much attention from them after the twins were born and handed over to them. B said that she kept texting him when she and the twins were still in hospital after the birth, and that she kept wanting him to spend time with her. Both he and A saw this as unreasonable as they wanted to be with the twins who had to remain in hospital for some time for treatment. The applicants remained on speaking terms until after the parental orders were granted and it was part of the evidence before the court when the parental orders were made that they had an agreement with V that she would remain involved for the twins’ sake. By the time of this hearing they had “fallen out with her entirely“. The terminating event was, they claim, because she had failed properly to acknowledge the children’s first birthday. I find this evidence inherently contradictory as they also claimed they had found it necessary to limit V’s involvement as they found her to be both intrusive and demanding.

When the baby was born, X did not want to hand the child over to A and B (and you might get a sense of why later on) and that then led to private law proceedings to determine where the child should live.

 

The case was decided by Ms Justice Russell, who is very experienced with surrogacy and HFEA cases.

 

Firstly, and significantly, X was cognitively assessed and was found to have difficulties in understanding things and had to be helped during the hearing.

  1. X has been assessed by Dr Willemsen as having learning difficulties, which appeared to him to be congenital. Until she was seen by him and his report prepared, it would seem that neither her family nor her partner were aware of her difficulties although she had been perceived as different from her siblings and her peers at school, and her partner told me that while he was aware she was vulnerable he did not know just how vulnerable. X is aware of what she sees as her own short-comings and, as described by Dr Willemsen, will want to please people to hide her shame and embarrassment. X has difficulty in speaking up as observed by the guardian and confirmed by Dr Willemsen. Dr Willemsen told the court in his report that on growing up she has become more aware of her difficulties and this has been accompanied by self-doubt and insecurity; to deal with this she has sought isolation and did so from her partner during the pregnancy. Dr Willemsen, who gave oral evidence, reported that X “is a vulnerable young woman who is susceptible to influence and pressure from others. She gave a few examples where she felt she had not been able to speak out loud about her thoughts and feelings to the couple who asked her to be a surrogate.”
  3. Dr Willemsen emphasised that despite her difficulties she had been able to concentrate during their meetings (with half hour breaks) and that what was not affected was her “ability to be emotionally available. She was able to relay her frustrations, as well has her love for [her son with P] and [Z]. She was able to speak as openly as she could about her life and the course of events she had found herself in.”

 

If surrogacy were properly regulated, it is hard to believe that a person such as X could have been approved as someone who really knew what she was getting into or the emotional turmoil it might cause her.  It was not that her problems were so subtle that only an expert assessment could reveal them :-

 

  1. It is striking how the applicants did not seem able to see how vulnerable X was even at this stage. The guardian was almost immediately struck by it and on her behalf her counsel pointed out how many other people have commented on her vulnerability, over and above Dr Willemsen and the intermediary. The guardian said even on their first phone call she sensed that X was lacking in confidence and that by the time she had met X and spoken to her she believed she had learning difficulties. Everyone that the guardian had spoken to in August and September when she visited the area where X lives, to assess X’s support network, all commented on her vulnerability: they included the mid-wife; P’s mother who described the X as ‘naïve and gullible‘; P, himself, spoke about “how vulnerable [X] is”; X’s step-father described her as “gullible”; her own sister described X as “very naïve”; a family friend described X as lacking confidence.

 

Do we as a society, want someone who is vulnerable, naïve and gullible, being paid money to have a baby on behalf of someone she barely knows?  Let’s look at the circumstances in which the surrogacy agreement was signed

 

Although X had agreed to act as a gestational or “host” surrogate for the applicants, the circumstances in which agreement was reached and signed by X is a matter of some concern and one that I shall return to. The agreement was one found on-line and based on overseas commercial surrogacy agreements from the USA. The provisions and regulation of commercial surrogacy in the USA do not, in any real sense or detail, mirror the supposedly altruistic and non-commercial surrogacy in the United Kingdom. It was signed by X at a fast-food outlet at or near a railway station after a brief face to face meeting lasting less than two hours. X was accompanied by her young son and a young relative, no more than eighteen years old. X’s partner did not support the surrogacy although he did not object to it; as he later told me, he did not believe that it was for him to tell X what to do with her body.

 

By the time of the hearing, in considering whether a Parental Order could be made, the Judge had to look at whether X WAS consenting (she was not) and whether if she was consenting that she was doing so on an informed basis (she was not)

 

Legal framework

  1. The HFEA s56 (6) provides that a parental order can be made if the court is satisfied that the woman who carried the child (X) has freely, and with full understanding of what was involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order. I have to say that, in this case, even if X had given her consent I would not be satisfied that she had done so with a full understanding of what was involved. X does not consent freely or unconditionally so neither limb of s54 (6) has been met and there is no question of a parental order ever being made.

 

Looking at the pregnancy, it seemed that initially, there was a wave of enthusiasm from both sides about the arrangements

 

From the first few days the messages on Facebook, as described by Dr Willemsen, provide an illustration of the faux-intimacy that developed between the applicants and X. As he said “fairly soon an amicable, almost euphoric, atmosphere develops between people who hardly know each other. There is a shared excitement based, probably, on two very different realities. It is easy to read a great deal into Facebook (and email) messages.” It was his view, and one I share, that X was unable to put forward her opinions, just to say that she was “totally fine” when the applicants message that they are now “matched” and “totally fine” with an agreement that she had signed, although it is clear that she could not read or understand the contract she had signed. So little were they concerned about any protection for X’s position, moreover, that the applicants never even bothered to send her a signed copy. The applicants’ sole focus was on signing an agreement. There was little, if any, evidence in their messages of interest in X herself, just as there had been little interest in V.

 

But then look at how things soured  – and squirm as you read the attitude of A and B towards the woman who was carrying a child for them and her financial circumstances.

 

  1. The level of compensation or expenses which the applicants were willing to offer was, at £9,000, at the low end of the scale that is prevalent on the online websites and forums. From evidence I heard, and from the emails and electronic messages provided to the court, it would seem that this was the figure suggested to the applicants by W before it was suggested to X. In his oral evidence B (who was responsible for most of the communication) said that he assumed X was on benefits but admitted he was not sure, did not appear interested either way and certainly took no steps to find out. This presumption would seem to indicate that he expected financially vulnerable or impoverished women to be more likely to be putting themselves forward for surrogacy.
  3. In her messages X often referred to having problems using the phone and/or the internet because she had no credit, which should have revealed something of her straitened financial circumstances and economic vulnerability but this was not a matter ever taken up by the applicants. Nor is there any evidence that they considered, at any stage, whether a need for money might affect her ability to enter freely into any agreement. As commissioning parents entering into an agreement which can and does compromise the health of the surrogate they owed her a basic duty of care and did not carry out that duty or signal that they considered they had a responsibility for her well-being other than as a healthy surrogate for their off-spring.
  5. The applicants did not consider with X, or discuss with her, what she knew or understood about her rights or legal status in respect of any child or their legal rights and status. In his oral evidence B said he assumed she would know about such things from the Facebook forum. There is no evidence before this court that they had touched on the legal and ethical considerations that arise in surrogacy at all. They had not informed themselves of what professional support may be available to assist in successful surrogacy arrangements such as implications counselling; indeed when giving his oral evidence A did not know what it was. The sums offered, by way of compensation, for “contingencies,” such as £1,000 for a hysterectomy, were wholly inadequate and can only be taken as evidence of the low value that they placed on the physical and emotional well-being of the woman who acted as their surrogate. The language used by the applicants was unequivocally the language of the market-place; “the absolute maximum we could offer for each potentially happening would be £1000″. Their approach to X was, at the very least, potentially exploitative and they did little or nothing to ameliorate it

 

 

Neither applicant, in his evidence, was able to give more than a perfunctory account of their meeting with X in March 2014 or to recall anything of what she was like as a person. The meeting in the fast-fast-food outlet, near to the railway station they had all travelled to, was very brief. There were three children present, the twins and X’s little boy and a young man not much more than a child himself, who was X’s 18 year old nephew, and who acted as a witness. From their own evidence it was clear that the applicants discussed only those aspects of the agreement about which they were concerned. X did not, could not, read or properly understand the agreement and such was their self-absorption that neither applicant noticed, and in any case they did not see fit to go through the agreement with her to reassure X, or even themselves, that she understood it. Despite promising to send her a signed copy they only emailed the “agreement” to her several months later leaving her to try to read it on her phone – she does not have a computer. It is inexplicable how the applicants could have ever considered this meeting as an acceptable way to “get to know” the woman who would carry their children and consider that they had, even in the loosest sense, “matched”.  

 

 

Remember the twins commissioned from V ? And V being cut out of the twins life afterwards? Well, as V and X had both been members of the same facebook group, they were in communication with each other.

 

  1. In planning the trip to Cyprus the applicants were concerned with their own convenience, such as A going instead of B, who had had the bulk of the contact with X. B accepted in his oral evidence that they did not discuss between themselves or consider at all how X might experience the trip or how to make it comfortable for her. In his evidence A came across as seeming to believe that X should have been grateful for the trip, which, after all, they were financing. Their behaviour towards her was crass; they did not know that she had never been abroad before because they didn’t ask. They took no steps to ensure that she was comfortable or to find out from her what they could do to make her feel supported, and, above all appreciated.
  3. The trip was a very unpleasant one for X. In his evidence A spoke only of the symbolism for him of being present during transfer of the embryos and was either unwilling or unable to recognize how lonely or frightening the trip was for X. He came across as emotionally unavailable and entirely self-regarding.
  5. X was effectively excluded from discussions at the clinic; certainly she did not, on anyone’s account, actively participate in any conversation with the consultant in the clinic. It is understandable that X felt intimidated by A and his suggestion that he had helped her by holding her hand while the embryos were put inside her body is an example of the crass behaviour to which I have already referred. X, naturally, felt nervous throughout the trip and was not at ease with A. The food was strange and unpalatable to her and she felt even more isolated because she did not have credit on her phone. Why A did not see to it that she was able to contact her family and top up her phone is incomprehensible. To repeat what Dr Willemsen said, as fantasy met medical reality she felt used and deeply uncomfortable about the arrangement but she could not find a way of expressing her feelings because she was concerned that she might upset and displease the couple. She found herself caught in a conflict; in the words of Dr Willemsen “between maintaining the fantasy and facing up to reality. She must have felt very alone at times.”
  7. The procedure in Cyprus had a huge impact on X. She had never wanted to carry two embryos and later told W that she did not say anything to the applicants as she did not want to let them down. She was both scared and anxious about it but believed the applicants when they told her that “probably only one would work.” X’s relationship with the applicants deteriorated as the reality of the uncomfortable and intrusive IVF procedure and the pregnancy took hold and she began, increasingly, to see herself as being used. Her reaction at the time has been graphically described by Dr Willemsen; as her emotional state and responses are essentially subjective I accept his evidence, and, furthermore I consider that the way that X responded to her treatment by A and B was entirely predictable. The fact that her own difficulties made her more vulnerable to suggestion and pressure being put on her does not in any way detract from her reaction, but it made it more difficult for her to stand up to the applicants and tell them that she no longer wanted to proceed. She told Dr Willemsen that she had had doubts before the trip but her experience while she was there intensified her feelings of doubt and uncertainty and she felt used.
  9. It was from then that she had started to look for a way out of the agreement. It is clear from the messages that she sent in late October 2014 that she felt worried about having twins “how scairy twins lol xx” and … “my partners like its gunna damage your body blah blah…” to which L, who she was in touch with online, replied “no it wont [sic]”; a response, which while might have been meant as reassuring, was patently untrue. The applicants had not arranged life insurance as agreed despite the agreement stipulating it would be arranged before pregnancy and X became so worried, that this issue was revisited 4 days later, when, in early November 2014, W emailed the applicants about arranging a scan for X and X messaged A “I would like to get insurance starting today please, as it should have been done befor we [sic]got pregnant xx”.
  11. Then in mid-November V was told by L that X was the next surrogate for the applicants. When A became aware of this two days later he sent a message to W about V saying “she can turn really nasty” A sent a message to X telling her “to try not to get stressed and ignore nasty msgs we had such good news today with the heartbeats lets focus on the future”. He clearly had not thought about the effect that V might have on X when she would come to realise that they had deliberately withheld information from her about the poor relationship that had developed between V and the applicants during their “journey”. His messages are further evidence that the applicants had sought to ensure that V did not find out about the second pregnancy to stop her from putting any surrogate off entering into a surrogacy agreement with them, not, as they said in their evidence, to avoid confrontation with V.
  13. Over the next week in November X received several messages from V in which she complained that the applicants had not paid her fairly; that she had been ill during and after pregnancy with the twins; and that they had treated her badly. Unsurprisingly this increased the fears X already had about her agreement with the applicants. The standard response from the applicants and from L was to minimize the concerns by repeatedly blaming V and saying, amongst other similar epithets, that she was “bonkers”. A then sent X a message saying ‘its sad but I’m reconciled now to having no relationship’ with V which, far from reassuring her must have sent the unspoken message to X that she, too, could be cut out of any child’s life in the future.
  15. In their oral evidence both applicants showed limited if any real understanding of the various factors which had undermined X’s confidence in the agreement and led her to consider a termination. Instead I was left with the clear impression that they seemed to expect her to be grateful for acting as their surrogate rather than the other way around. From the messages filed in the court bundle it is clear that there were emotionally intense exchanges from V, W and others on the forum to X. Later in November 2014 B travelled to be there during a scan and saw X for the first time since March 2014 (when they met at the fast food outlet to sign the agreement). They do not appear to have discussed V or what had happened between them. X’s anxiety had increased and in late November she asked V to speak to or text her sister. It was around this time that she decided to seek a termination and turned to W for support.

 

 

 

In the event, she didn’t have a termination, but she did tell A and B that there had been a miscarriage. The woman running the Facebook group, W, doesn’t come out of this judgment terribly well.

 

Miscarriage, birth and the role of W

  1. Although there is no evidence before the court to establish that W is an agent or runs an agency it is clear that she has had a very strong interest in linking surrogates to commissioning parents and being involved in surrogacy. Precisely what her motivation for taking on this role is not something that this court is in a position to decide. As can be seen from the messages that passed between them W offered to “link” or introduce the applicants to X and repeatedly told them she had many other contacts and options for them should the “match” not work out. W’s influence over X can be seen in her successful attempt to persuade X not to have a termination and W accepted, in her evidence, that she was instrumental in that decision.
  3. Although W has tried to insist that she did not want to get involved in things which did not concern her, she actively and deliberately placed herself at the centre of the crisis that X was experiencing and which unfolded on the Facebook site over V in November 2014, and which, in turn, lead to X deceiving the applicants. When W gave oral evidence before me she was by turn defiant and defensive; she was unsympathetic to X and sided with the applicants who she referred to as “the boys“. W accepted that she had encouraged X to tell the applicants she had miscarried and gave as her own motivation for doing so her determination to ensure that there was no termination. She told me she was aware that the applicants’ relationship with V had ended badly and said that when X complained to her, for example about the life insurance not being in place, she had begun to believe that V might have been right about the applicants as there were now two surrogates with complaints about them.
  5. It remains unclear from W’s written statement or from her oral evidence why she later changed her mind, took against X and decided to inform the applicants that she and X had deceived them about the miscarriage. I accept the submission made on behalf of X that W seemed personally to invest in continuing the pregnancy and then disclosing that X was still pregnant to A and B; she had no reason to involve herself to this extent apart from her own personal gratification in a sense of power or exercise of a controlling influence over the lives of others with whom she was so singularly unconcerned. At first, as can be seen from the messages exchanged between them, W urged X to carry the child rather than terminate a pregnancy; she explained to X that she was the legal parent, as X had thought she would go to prison if she did not hand over the baby at birth (another example of how little X had understood her legal position and the effects of the agreement). There can be no doubt that W can be characterised as manipulative, just as there is no doubting that X was easily led. W’s messages were directive and it was she who suggested to X how she should lie to the applicants, going as far as to say “make sure you get paid first”.
  7. That W was duplicitous is obvious from her conduct; on the one hand she encouraged X to deceive the applicants, and some of the comments she made about A and B were vicious and unkind; and on the other having convinced X to keep the baby she then told the applicants about the pregnancy while pretending to X that she was supporting her. In what Ms Fottrell described as a particularly cruel exchange about X’s inability to afford a lawyer in any court proceedings she messaged A “lets hope she xant afford a solicitor if she cannot even afford credit on her phone! Xxx”. A’s response of “isn’t she a joke, [W]!” exposed the contempt in which he held the woman who had gone through a very difficult pregnancy at his behest, whether or not she had ended up trying to deceive him. This is in contrast to X, who has continued to seek to please the applicants, as evidenced in her readiness to agree to extended contact whenever it has been suggested to her and to ensure that Z has had an opportunity to develop a relationship with his biological father.

 

[The Judge doesn’t say that these messages were vile, but my personal view is that she would have been entitled to do so. You can all form your own personal views, I’m sure]

  2. While W’s manipulation of X was calculated and had a direct impact on her, the continued inability of A and B, in their evidence before this court, even to consider that their conduct may have had something to do with the manner in which X had reacted to them is noteworthy, and in keeping with the air of victimhood on the one hand and sense of entitlement on the other trailed throughout their written evidence. It was palpably evident that A seemed to feel he had ownership of Z and that X was merely a gestational surrogate, a mere vessel, with no rights over the child she was carrying and none over the child when he was born. Throughout these proceedings as can be seen from their reaction to the guardian’s recommendations about contact and other matters concerning Z’s care both the applicants struggled to accept X as Z’s mother; the woman who carried and gave birth to him. It was not until they gave oral evidence that there was, reluctantly, an emerging acceptance of the importance of that role in Z’s life.

 

 

Like me, you might well be very relieved that the view of the Court was that X, with help from her partner and support, should keep Z and that Z should not be moved to A and B.  Z will have contact with A and B one weekend every two months.

There are some massive lessons to be learned from this case – treating people with kindness and respect is much more likely to result in a workable surrogacy arrangement than treating them as merely a ‘vessel’ and the arrangement as a commercial transaction or purchase; that if surrogacy agreements go wrong they can take a great deal of time, heartache and money to unpick and put right, and that surely we need some proper form of protection so that someone like X who was naïve, gullible, easily led, vulnerable and sufficiently poor that she had difficulty in even keeping credit on her phone is not exploited or manipulated by others who don’t have those vulnerabilities.

 

 

 

 

6 Comments

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

Ellie Butler drawing together some strands and discussion

Posted on July 1, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This post is a collaboration between myself, Lucy Reed of Pink Tape, Sarah Philimore of Child Protection Resource and Louise Tickle who is a freelance journalist – you have probably seen her pieces on family Justice in the Guardian.

 

You can also read it here

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/ellie-butler-drawing-together-some-strands-and-discussion/

 

Several family lawyers have been discussing this case on Twitter, and it was suggested to us that it might be helpful to draw together a document with some important questions and our answers. We won’t necessarily agree on everything, but even our disagreements might help with the debate.

This post is a collaborative post to which a number of people have contributed. We would welcome others responses to the specific questions we’ve set – email info@transparencyproject.org.uk with your replies.

We are Lucy Reed (barrister and author of the Pink Tape website www.pinktape.co.uk)  Sarah Phillimore (barrister and author of the Child Protection Resource website – for a discussion of the principles the courts must apply when trying to find out in family cases how a child has been hurt, see this post), Andrew Pack  (local authority lawyer and author of the Suesspicious Minds website www.suesspiciousminds.com) and Louise Tickle, freelance journalist writing for the Guardian newspaper.

On the evidence that Hogg J heard at the time, what do we think about the finding that the father didn’t cause the shaking injury to Ellie?

Andrew Pack:

When I read the judgment about the shaking injury at the time, it looked to me like a solid and fair analysis of very complicated medical evidence. What causes that sort of head injury in infants is very complex and very controversial, and medical science is moving on all the time. Doctors in this field are talking about it all the time – a decade ago, the medical consensus was that these injuries could NEVER be caused by birth trauma and now we now that birth causes these bleeds on the brain (albeit to a lesser extent) in 50% of births. Reading the Court of Appeal decision in the criminal case, where the conviction was overturned, they highlighted some really unusual aspects about this particular case which would have given more doubt than is usual even in this very controversial field – Hogg J then had added to that the fresh medical evidence about the cyst, and whether that would have been a causing or contributory factor.  I think that the Court had the benefit of the best experts around, arguing both sides, and all of the evidence, and making the finding that the LA had not proved that it was more likely than not that father shook the child was the only safe one to make.  One might argue that the Judge did not give sufficient weight to father’s criminal history of violent behaviour and whether that might have tipped the balance if it was very finely balanced. Reading her analysis, I don’t think that she viewed the evidence as that finely balanced.  She was, on the evidence, confident that father had not done this.

Sarah Phillimore:

I agree with this. I don’t think the Judge can be faulted for how she treated this evidence.

Lucy Reed:

I also agree. The judge heard a large number of the most eminent experts in their respective fields, in some cases several from a single discipline – ophthalmologist, ENT, paediatrician, radiology, neuro-radiology, neuro-surgery…She also heard the evidence of the parents, which she took a particular view on – she thought the father convincing. The law is : if, having heard all the evidence, she was unpersuaded that it was more likely than not that the injuries were inflicted she should determine the infliction not proved – and exonerate the father of those acts.

What do we think about the exoneration speech and letter?

Andrew Pack:

As a matter of law, once the Judge has found that the LA didn’t prove their case about the shaking injury the legal finding is that father did NOT do it. Professionals working with the family would have been told of that legal finding and that the father could not be treated as a risk as a result of the head injury/shaking injury. The Judge clearly felt that father HAD been exonerated and that he had NOT caused the head injury, and her language reflected, I think, her view that the removal of Ellie and his imprisonment had been a miscarriage of justice. From the Serious Case Review, I think you can see that the strength of language that she used made professionals feel that they were being given the message of ‘back off’ and the parents felt that they were bullet-proof. That may have made professionals feel that when they were encountering behaviour that they found concerning they were powerless to act. I think it was a bit too strong at the time but not wildly out of order, and of course with the benefit of hindsight, it was far too strong and could have been couched more carefully – that there were other residual issues about the father that still presented a risk.

Sarah Phillimore:

This is the issue that troubles me. Yes, if there was no evidence that he caused the injuries in 2007 on either the civil or the criminal standard of proof, then as a matter of fact, no one could say that he did. But this was a man with – as I understand it – a clearly documented history of violence, who had served a three year prison term? ( I think – I have not been able to re-read the 2012 judgment as I understand it was removed from publication on line and has not been returned.). I do not know how that history was presented or what weight the Judge put on it. But, in the light of that history, and that the LA were clearly justified in being worried about the initial injuries caused to Ellie when she was a baby, I do not understand why the Judge thought it was appropriate to remove the LA from further oversight of this case and require that a letter setting out Butler’s ‘exoneration’ was sent to other agencies. The Judge found he had NOT hurt Ellie when she was a baby. She did not make findings about his propensity for violence and his criminal history. It may not have been appropriate to do that, particularly if the LA had not relied on these issues to prove their case. BUT. They were clearly part of the background and should, in my view, have given pause for thought before going down any route of widely publicised ‘exoneration’.

This issue also brings into focus some more general concerns about the standard of proof in care proceedings being the ‘balance of probabilities’. I appreciate the arguments that it is not always compatible with the need to protect children, if we insist on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, my concerns arise about the subsequent status achieved by a ‘finding of fact’ on the balance of probabilities. The courts are clear that a binary system operates; something is true or it is not. Therefore a finding of fact against a parent can determine the whole course of the proceedings. Parents are required to ‘accept’ the findings with little time for reflection, or risk the LA – and the court – ruling them out entirely as lacking ‘insight’. On serious and life changing matters, I do not feel comfortable with ‘truth’ being established as 51% more likely than not. As the Judge was operating in Butler’s case on the ‘balance of probabilities’ this also should have given some pause for reflection before being keen to ‘exonerate’ him and establish him as an entirely safe and responsible parent.

Lucy Reed:

There is a question as to how the exoneration letter came to be drafted and how it came to be expressed more broadly than the judgment itself. I’ve raised this in my blog post on Pink Tape here. The main issue for me though is the interpretation / response to the exoneration. Ben Butler was exonerated of the physical injuries. The LA elected not to appeal or to argue that he was culpable in any other way. The suggestion in the SCR is that professionals were paralysed by the exoneration. Some time passed before the LA conceded the balance of the threshold, and decided not to pursue findings on any broader threshold risks – from the judgment it is easy to infer that the LA took the reasonable view that to pursue such findings would have served no purpose, partly because the subsequent assessment of the parents was positive and this made it unlikely that the judge would find the threshold crossed on the basis of behaviours that on one view were attributable to the parents being wrongly accused and unlikely (based on the assessment) to endure. The more I consider this point the more I think it would be very illuminating to see the assessment report itself.

I don’t fully understand why, after proceedings had concluded and Ellie returned home, the exoneration should have made professionals feel like the couldn’t / shouldn’t pursue matters of concern. In any event, it appears (based on the SCR) that that subsequent events and information were assessed as not being sufficient to cross the threshold to move into child protection / proceedings, so I’d query what ongoing impact the exoneration had.

Louise Tickle:

I agree with Sarah on this. The psychological impact on on professionals working with Ellie of that letter could not have been anything but one of profound reluctance and fear of stepping in, and being torn to shreds by their own managers and in court if Butler and Gray had protested – which of course they would have done, and I believe in the case of the school raising concerns, did. This was a very senior judge, the LA had fought very hard, and lost. Where, really, were they to go at that point, without fresh evidence of harm reaching a high threshold – and how were they to be able to make assessments given total lack of access, and fear of what would be forthcoming if they were to seek such access?

Were the other issues that could have amounted to threshold properly dealt with, or did the non finding on shaking dominate?

Andrew Pack:

I think this really is the million dollar question. In the first fact finding hearing before Hogg J, the case was all about the head injury, and all of the evidence called and 95% of the documents looked at would have been about that. Having failed to prove that, there was of course still the convictions for violence to consider. Those offences were not against children, so they would not automatically mean that father would have posed a risk to a child, but it was material which needed to be considered in detail in an assessment and could have satisfied threshold.  That, coupled with the child’s presentation around father and the grandparents evidence COULD, have led to a decision that despite the finding on the head injury, Ellie wasn’t going to be moved from grandparents.  I would like to see the threshold document with the findings sought, and to have more clarity about which ones the Judge was specifically asked to make findings on and heard evidence about, and which were simply not put to her as a result of her very clear finding on the head injury and the direction of travel.

Sarah Phillimore:

I agree with this. If this was presented as a ‘single issue’ case – i.e. did he hurt Ellie as a baby, that would seem – with hindsight – to be a mistake. But of course, Judges can only decide the cases before them.

Lucy Reed:

The press coverage at the time focused heavily on the physical injuries but other matters of concern were known about and before the court, but were not the subject of findings. It is arguable that the other matters could have potentially amounted to threshold but the fact and force of the exoneration may have affected decision making about whether it was going to be a good idea to pursue them. The critical question is whether the other matters were presented and pursued and if not why not – and whether any thought was given to reframing threshold after the exoneration. Following the ISW assessment the balance of threshold was crossed. Although we don’t have the threshold document itself it appears from the judgments that the fact of the fathers convictions was not pleaded as a threshold risk in itself. The question of suspected domestic violence / control in the parents relationship was raised and evidence was heard – but the judge made no ruling on this evidence and adjourned off for further assessment. By the time the matter returned to court the LA were not pursuing findings and nobody seems to have asked the judge to record or make findings in respect of this evidence. The first judgment records that evidence was heard but does not record its extent or cogency. It is reasonable to assume that if the evidence was compelling and of high concern this would not have been dropped and would have been the subject of judicial comment or findings. But we don’t actually know.

Was the decision to have Independent Social Workers (ISWs) deal with not just the assessment of whether Ellie should move from her grandparents but the actual social work of the move unusual, and did this make a difference?

Andrew Pack:

The Judge was clearly taking into account that during the earlier hearing, the parents had been substantially criticised by the Local Authority for not accepting that father had injured Ellie and the working relationship was very strained. Having made the finding that father was exonerated, it was put to her, and she agreed, that any assessment by the Council would be ‘doomed to failure’.  That’s strong, but I think it wasn’t unreasonable to ask for the assessment as to whether Ellie should go home to be done by Independent Social Workers. What is much harder to understand is why those ISWs were also charged with doing all of the direct social work with grandparents, Ellie and parents, to prepare Ellie for the move and do the social work visits. The Serious Case Review shows that that agency were not given clear background information and essentially just had the judgment exonerating father – was it clear enough to them that this man had a history of violent offending? Might that have made them more concerned about the visits where they now report that he had been angry and unable to calm down for 10-15 minutes for some of these visits? Or, in the absence of knowing about his convictions for violence, did they assume that this was justifiable frustration about the process from a man who on that judgment had lost his child and been wrongly sent to prison and was still not reunited with his child?  I think that consideration should have been given to a fresh social work team within London Borough of Sutton doing the social work (ISW to do the assessment is fine) or if that wasn’t possible, perhaps a neighbouring authority.  ISW assessment work and direct social work with a family are very different. I think that the Judge got that wrong. At the time, I’d score that decision a 4 out of 10 (it was unusual and a bit strange at the time) and obviously in retrospect it was a major factor to the Court not having the proper evidence about Ellie after the fact finding judgment.

Lucy Reed:

I agree with Andrew. There is a big difference between an independent social work assessment and an independent agency taking over social work responsibility. I’m not sure whether the court intended them to perform this broader role or whether this got mixed up in the process of instruction or at some later stage – perhaps the LA / professionals took the view that they were being ousted for all purposes. It’s unclear whether the ISWs considered themselves to hold this broader responsibility (I’d say doubtful). It’s concerning to learn that over this period the Guardian was off sick and no cover provided. This may well have had a significant impact on the way in which the assessment was carried out and monitored.

Why did grandparents have to pay £70k for legal costs, can anything be done?

Andrew Pack:

The grandparents had parental responsibility by virtue of the Special Guardianship Order, so if these had been care proceedings (the Local Authority wanting to take Ellie away from them) they would have had free legal representation. Because instead this started as a rehearing of a fact finding, and then proceedings primarily regarding a younger sibling not cared for by the grandparents, the grandparents didn’t get legal aid, had to pay their own costs and eventually ran out of money. Grandparents representing themselves, up against two of the best family law Silks around, and a Judge who was viewing Ellie’s case as a miscarriage of justice to be put right – it certainly wasn’t a level playing field. I would strenuously argue for reform of the law here – these grandparents had been caring for Ellie for a long time and doing it well, and if they were to lose her against their will and what their eyes and ears were telling them was right, then they should have had lawyers to fight the case.  A starting point would be for the Ministry of Justice to write the grandfather a cheque for the full amount of his costs – it is bad enough that he lost Ellie, he shouldn’t have lost his life savings too.

Sarah Phillimore:

I agree with this. Ellie had lived with them since she was a very small baby. It is simply wrong in a civilised society that they were left in this position. It wasn’t a level playing field.

Lucy Reed:

This is a problem for grandparents AND parents – even where a parent or other adult has care of a child, public funding is means and merits tested for anything other than the main care proceedings. So, applications to discharge care or placement orders, to appeal or to apply to revoke placement orders or oppose adoption orders, standalone applications about special guardianship or any other private law application – no matter how complex – are means and merits tested. The threshold to be ruled out on means grounds is low so it is easy to be ineligible whilst still being unable to pay.

Judicial accountability and unwillingness to participate in the serious case review (SCR).

Andrew Pack:

I don’t think that the judiciary should routinely participate in Serious Case Reviews. Judicial independence is very important, and the way that SCR’s are conducted, with all parties being very honest about what happened, what could have happened differently, what lessons can be learned, don’t sit entirely comfortably with the judicial role, and the need for them to be independent and to NOT be a part of the professional agencies charged with child protection. However, in a case like this, where the child dies in a placement that the Court have not only sanctioned, but sanctioned in the teeth of opposition from grandparents and social workers, I think that it was unwise for the Judge not to at the very least have spoken with the authors of the Serious Case Review. There needs to be some mechanism for the most exceptional cases of this kind. Likewise, the family judiciary knew of this case 2 years before the verdict – yet the Judge was still given difficult family cases to decide, and they had no press statement or comment. It gives the distinct impression that the judiciary aren’t scrutinising this decision and accepting any part in this tragedy, and that’s a bad impression to give to the Press and public.

Sarah Phillimore:

I agree with this.

Lucy Reed:

On a human level it would be immensely helpful to hear the judge’s view in hindsight, and an explanation of what was going through her mind. But I agree that there are sound constitutional reasons why that should not happen. It’s really important that a judgment is an authoritative and final explanation of a decision or a set of findings. That’s an important protection for adults and children and I think that if alongside a judgment there is a public rumination about what might have been wrong about a judgment then the judgment loses its specialness and the authority of the court is lost. I think it’s right that where a judgment is wrong it can be appealed, and where material new evidence arises a finding can be revisited. That happened in this case when new medical evidence pointed towards a miscarriage of justice against Ben Butler, and of course with hindsight many people are now reappraising the exoneration finding.

For me though the corollary of saying that a judge should not participate in an SCR is that there must be meaningful transparency in terms of the judgments and process. We don’t have that in this case because the judgments have been pulled and the public can’t appraise the judgments or case documents against the SCR. Having seen some of the judgments in this case it seems to me that there is some tension between some of the accounts given and views expressed in the SCR and in media reports and the content of the judgments themselves. I think that constitutionally the public need to have access to this material.

Louise Tickle:

I don’t agree with this. I cannot see why the judiciary should have zero accountability when every other actor in the case has had to answer for their decision making and judgement calls. I think, in response to Lucy’s point, that the authority of the court is only as good as the public’s confidence in it. I do not think public confidence in the judiciary has been increased by this case, but worse, I think it has been even further damaged by the position taken by the President that a judge simply will not enter into the processes of examination as to why she acted in ways that went, in some people’s view, far further than was required, on a standard of proof that can be hardly said to truly exonerate anyone. Particularly anyone with the previous, safe, criminal convictions for violence that Ben Butler had. Overall, I cannot see why any part of our society’s agencies should be above questioning and scrutiny. A child has died. The ‘specialness’ of the judiciary is an irrelevance and an abuse of privilege in this extreme circumstance, if there is something to be learnt by other judges and indeed the rest of us. It is not about demanding heads on plates – it about Hogg’s thought processes and levels of risk aversion and judgement relating to facts and evidence she was appraising that could, if it were to be known, be reflected upon, considered, discussed and learned from. We do not get better understanding of failures by refusing to look at what let up to them. And judges have vast powers. The more power you have, the more accountable you should be when something very terrible goes wrong.

What pieces of information are we still lacking? Should for example suitably anonymised medical reports be in the public domain so press and public can see how complex and difficult the medical evidence is?

Andrew Pack:

I think we need the judgments available to the public and put in one easily accessible place – the Court of Appeal criminal judgment, the fact finding judgment from Hogg J, the second judgment from Hogg J where she decided that Ellie would live with Jennie and  Ben, and very vitally the judgments from King J about Ellie’s sibling after Ellie had died. At the moment, we don’t know whether King J reconsidered Hogg J’s exoneration at all, or whether it proceeded just on the evidence about Ellie’s death. Nor do we know what the outcome was for Ellie’s sibling– of course we shouldn’t have name or details of the sibling’s address, but I think there’s public interest in whether the child was placed with the grandparents and if not why that was decided. I think that unusually in this case, there is justification for the entire court bundle to be available to be seen. Obviously one has to be careful about any photographs and we don’t want prurient rubber-necking, but there is such public unhappiness about this decision that seeing the medical reports would, I think be justified.

Sarah Phillimore:

I agree with this.

Lucy Reed:

I agree also. I would in particular like to see skeleton arguments or written opening / submissions presented to the court at the rehearing, threshold documents filed at particular times, position statements and orders.

22 Comments

Posted in assessment of risk, case law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Court can EXTEND a Supervision Order after the original has run out

Posted on June 29, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

I disagree myself, but I’m not a High Court Judge, so my view doesn’t count.

For me, you extend something that currently exists, and if it no longer exists then you are applying for a new one not extending it.  You can extend the Victoria line, but you can’t extend Atlantis High Street.  You can extend Wayne Rooney’s contract at Manchester United, but you can’t extend Cristiano Ronaldo’s contract at Manchester United.  The word means ‘to add to something to make it bigger or longer’  or rather, it means that in plain English, but it doesn’t in law.

Anyway, I’m wrong about that, because the High Court has ruled on it.  If you let your Supervision Order lapse and no longer have one, you can still make an application to extend it.

 

A Local Authority v D and Others 2016

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1438.html

 

 

 

  • Having considered very carefully the very helpful skeleton argument of Mr. Lamb, which sets the case out, to my mind, conclusively, I am satisfied that the court’s power to extend a supervision order pursuant to Schedule 3, para.6(3) of the Children Act 1989 does not depend on the supervision order which is sought to be extended to be current or, for that matter, for an extension to have been made prior to the expiration of the existing supervision order.
  • In my judgment, an application to extend can be made properly after the supervision order has run out, so to speak, and there are, in my judgment, very good policy reasons why the statute should be interpreted in that way. These are set out in para.5.19 to 5.22 of Mr. Lamb’s skeleton argument. As he rightly says, supervision orders are entirely child-focused and will only be extended if it is in the child’s best interests. There are practical benefits, as he rightly says, to local authorities and to parents of an interpretation of the statutory words, which would enable the local authority to monitor the children’s progress whilst the supervision order has not run out without the need to rush back to court, and he rightly says, in para.5.21, the three-year limit to the extension of a Supervision Order prevents families having a sense of lingering uncertainty. So there are strong policy reasons for reading down of the words of the statute to permit the application to be made after the order has run out. Indeed, there is nothing in para 6(3) to suggest to the contrary.

 

 

So I am of the clear view, following the line taken by the President in Re X [2014] EWHC 3135, which was concerned with the seemingly unextendable term of six months referred to in s.51(1)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, that that should be read down in a way which is consistent with the interests of children as well as human rights. So following that line I reach the clear conclusion that I do and, in so doing, I am conscious that I am making a decision at variance with the obiter dictum of Lord Justice Thorpe in the decision of T v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 199, where, at para.20, he, in giving his guidance, was clearly of the view (although the point that I have to decide had not been argued before him in any depth) that the application for extension in fact had to be not only issued before the expiration of a current order but heard before the expiration of a current order. I have to say that I do not agree with that approach in the slightest.

 

(I am with Thorpe LJ on this, but as I’ve said, my view doesn’t matter a jot. Words now mean exactly what Judges choose that they mean neither more nor less, a la Humpty Dumpty. Apologies to those who have ever practised law in Birmingham, for whom the Humpty Dumpty metaphor might well bring about an episode of Post-Traumatic Stress, if they have had the ‘treatment’ )

 

Neither the King's Men nor the King's Horses are excluded from the pool of perpetrators

Neither the King’s Men nor the King’s Horses are excluded from the pool of perpetrators

 

I’m also grumpy because Mostyn J uses the same magic trick that the President used when he ‘interpreted’ s54(3) of the HFEA 2008 “the applicants must apply for the order during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the child is born.”  to mean that they didn’t. Presumably rewriting the word ‘must’ in the statute to mean ‘can, but it’s not like they HAVE to, or anything’  and I didn’t like that decision either.

In the normal run of events, not much is going to turn on whether a Local Authority who want a new Supervision Order after the first one ran out have to apply for a fresh Supervision Order (though they have to reprove threshold there) or extend it (where they DON’T have to reprove threshold, the existence of the previous one is sufficient).  It saves the LA a few quid in the issue fee, the Order gets made or doesn’t get made, no big deal.

Although if a Local Authority obtain a Supervision Order on a 1 year old, and that lapses when the child is 2, Mostyn J’s decision here means that the LA CAN apply to extend that Supervision Order when the child is 11.  And they won’t have to demonstrate that threshold is proven, because you don’t need to do that for an extension. If they made a FRESH application, 10 years after the original threshold was found, they’d have to prove that threshold was met – they could point to the 10 year old threshold, but it wouldn’t be determinative.  Of course, the LA in EITHER scenario might have a hard job persuading the Court of the NEED for an order…

9 Comments

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

Application to dismiss a Guardian for bias

Posted on June 29, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

Very rare application this, and one that should interest both professionals and parents alike.  It also raises important issues about the fine detail in the construction of a Position Statement at an interim hearing, particularly for lawyers representing the child.

 

QS v RS & Another 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1443.html

 

This was a case in the High Court before MacDonald J  involving international adoption – two people had adopted a child in Nepal, the girl now being ten years old and her ‘parents’ were British citizens. (I’ll drop the air-quotes from here on to keep it simple).  Her parents moved with her to Dubai, and applied for British Citizenship and obtained that for her.  The parents later split up and there was an argument as to whether the child should stay in Dubai with father, or be in England with mother. So it isn’t a run-of-the-mill care case, but some of the general principles applied by the Court and the issues it throws up are relevant.

The Court appointed a Guardian to make enquiries into the case and to represent the child in the proceedings.

As part of the process, the Court had directed the Guardian (who was a replacement for the initial Guardian who left the service) to file and serve a Position Statement commenting on the outcome of a meeting with T, the child.  This wasn’t the final hearing, nor the final Guardian’s report.

The Guardian’s position statement included the following :-

 

“The children’s guardian takes the view from talking to T and interpreting her wishes and feelings captured in her ‘How it looks to me’ submission annexed as MH1 that her family life is firmly rooted in Dubai and up until now this appears to have worked for her, even in the absence of M for three years”

Now, not all of the evidence had been received by that point, and it seems that some of the material which had also been directed to be produced by the parents and their representatives had not yet made its way to the Guardian.  In fact, looking at the end of the judgment, it seems that the Guardian’s Position Statement was drafted and filed BEFORE the due date, and thus ahead of the father’s evidence.  The Judge criticised that decision to file early and hence out of sequence.

The mother took the view that the Guardian, who would be in a powerful position to make final recommendations, had by giving that clear view of the case reached a decision and conclusion before seeing all of the evidence and that there was a perception of bias.

 

[I must briefly comment that in a EVERY set of private law proceedings I ever did for parents, my client always told me without fail having met the CAFCASS officer that the CAFCASS officer had taken against them and was siding with the other parent. Fifty per cent of times, when we got the report and it didn’t recommend what my client wanted, they would say “See, told you?” – the other fifty per cent they would say either “well, that surprised me” or “It just goes to show how strong my case is that even a biased CAFCASS officer didn’t dare go against me”.   Sometimes, there are valid reasons for being unhappy with a CAFCASS report – but actual evidence of bias is pretty rare.  When it is flawed, it is more likely to be as a result of shoddiness, lack of care, failure to double-check assertions or being rushed. Those things absolutely do happen, I’m afraid. ]

 

So mother applied to the Court to discharge the Guardian on the grounds of bias or apparent bias.

What’s the application in those circumstances?

 

  • FPR 2010 r 16.25 provides as follows in respect of the power of the court to terminate the appointment of a children’s guardian appointed under FPR 2010 r 16.4:

 

16.25 Court’s power to change children’s guardian and prevent person acting as children’s guardian

(1) The court may –

(a) direct that a person may not act as a children’s guardian;

(b) terminate the appointment of a children’s guardian;

(c) appoint a new children’s guardian in substitution for an existing one.

(2) An application for an order or direction under paragraph (1) must be supported by evidence.

(3) Subject to rule 16.24(6), the court may not appoint a children’s guardian under this rule unless it is satisfied that the person to be appointed complies with the conditions specified in rule 16.24(5).

 

  • FPR 2010 PD16A para 7.17 makes clear that where an application is made for an order under FPR 2010 r 16.25 the applicant must set out the reasons for seeking it and that the application must be supported by evidence.

 

 

The FPR (Family Procedure Rules) don’t go on to advise the Court on what criteria to apply when considering the application.

 

The Court therefore looked for guidance in the case law, to see what principles if any could be drawn from cases where Courts HAD removed Guardian’s or refused such an application.

 

When examining the almost identical provision in CPR 1998 r 21.7 dealing with the power to terminate the appointment of a litigation friend, Foskett J observed in Bradbury v Paterson [2015] COPLR 425 at [31] that the court’s discretion is a full one

 

[That’s a posh way of saying “It’s basically up to you Judge. Use the Force…”]

.

 

  • There are few authorities concerning the termination of the appointment of the children’s guardian. In Oxfordshire County Council v P [1995] 1 WLR 543, [1995] 1 FLR 552 Ward J (as he then was) allowed the application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian in circumstances where the mother had disclosed to the guardian that she had caused injuries to the child and the guardian was thereafter interviewed by the Police to obtain a witness statement from her to prove criminal charges arising out of the injuries, during which interview she disclosed the mother’s admissions without the leave of the court. Ward J concluded in respect of the guardian that “To encourage frankness on the part of the parents, she must be replaced even though her work in all other respects has been wholly admirable and my criticism of her is technical not substantial.”
  • In Re J (Adoption: Appointment of Guardian ad Litem) [1999] 2 FLR 86 the Court of Appeal refused an application to terminate a guardian’s appointment (made within the context of an application for permission to appeal an order appointing a guardian in adoption proceedings) notwithstanding that at a meeting following the cessation of her appointment in the care proceedings, but prior to her appointment in the adoption proceedings the guardian had expressed agreement to the proposal that the child be placed for adoption. In Re J Ward LJ held that it is untenable to assert that there is bias or the appearance of bias based simply on adverse views expressed in the course of long proceedings.
  • Further, in Re J Ward LJ agreed with the observation of the judge at first instance that, frequently, a children’s guardian holding a certain view can be persuaded under cross-examination to change their minds, that the “flexibility, rigidity, competence, balance, wisdom or other aspects of her conduct of the case are matters which the court will be invited to take into account when deciding whether to accept her evidence or recommendations” and that “Only in very rare circumstances can such factors disqualify a Guardian from acting at all“. Within this context I also note the observation of Sir Nicholas Wall in A County Council v K, C and T [2011] 2 FLR 817 at [117] that:

 

“The reasoning of the Cafcass guardian, whether given orally or in writing is always open to challenge in cross-examination, which can always go to method. Added to which, of course, where the report is in writing, good practice requires the investigative and reasoning processes to be set out. Once again, the decision is for the court, which is heavily dependent upon the quality of the advice it receives.”

 

  • Finally, in respect of Re J, at 88 Ward LJ agreed with the observations of the judge at first instance that the guardian’s function is not a judicial function. In short, and once again, the court and not the children’s guardian is the final arbiter of what is in the child’s best interests. Within the context of this latter point, it is important, once again, to note the observations of Macur LJ in MW v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 405 at [32] that the children’s guardian is a witness subject to the same judicial scrutiny as any other witness and starts with no special advantage in proceedings as compared with other witnesses.
  • Finally, in relation to the authorities, in Re A (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment)(No 2) [2001] 1 FLR 267 Ward LJ held that the court can terminate the appointment of a Children’s Guardian where he or she has acted manifestly contrary to the best interests of the child, observing as follows:

 

“It was not necessary for the President, in order to dispose of the application, to attempt any comprehensive statement of the circumstances in which it might be expedient to remove a guardian ad litem, and the President wisely did not embark on that course. Neither r 4.10(9) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 nor the corresponding provision of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (r 21.7(1)) specifies any limit on the court’s power to terminate the appointment of a guardian ad litem or litigation friend. The President focused on the particular situation in which the court is asked to replace a guardian ad litem because the guardian has in the conduct of litigation taken a course of action (in which we include an omission), or is about to take a course of action, which is manifestly contrary to the best interests of the child whose interests it is the guardian’s duty to safeguard. If the guardian (or litigation friend) does act manifestly contrary to the child’s best interests, the court will remove him even though neither his good faith nor his diligence is in issue.”

 

  • Overall, it would appear that whilst the court’s discretion to terminate the appointment of a children’s guardian under FPR 2010 r 16.25(1)(b) is a full one, it is nonetheless a discretion that should be exercised sparingly, taking into account the imperative of the overriding objective in FPR 2010 r 1.1 to deal with the case justly having regard to the welfare issues involved. Within this context, where the grounds relied on in support of an application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian concern the methodology adopted by the guardian, the court may terminate the appointment where the guardian acts manifestly contrary to the child’s best interests or, but only in very rare circumstances, where the guardian has engaged in conduct that the court would ordinarily be invited simply to take into account when deciding whether to accept or reject the guardian’s evidence or recommendations.

 

The Court also considered the authorities on judicial bias  (our old friend Porter v Magill)

 

 

  • Where an allegation of apparent bias is made the test set out in Porter v McGill [2002] 2 AC 357 falls to be considered, namely “whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased“. There is there is no difference between the common law test of bias and the requirement for impartiality contained in Art 6 of the ECHR (Lawal v Northern Spirit [2003] ICR 856).
  • As the terminology used in the test in Porter v McGill suggests, the question of apparent bias is ordinarily considered in the context of the conduct of a person or persons occupying a judicial or quasi-judicial role. Where the person whose conduct is in question is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity it is inappropriate for the case to be approached in the same way as one would approach a person performing a normal judicial role or quasi-judicial role; a situation where the person is making a determination (R v Secretary of State for Trade and others ex parte Perestrello and another [1981] 1 QB 19 at 35). In such circumstances, the position of the person whose conduct is the subject of criticism is better considered by reference to whether the person in question was under a duty to act fairly, the ambit of that duty, and whether they have acted with the requisite degree of fairness, rather than by reference to the concept of apparent bias (R v Secretary of State for Trade and others ex parte Perestrello and another [1981] 1 QB 19 at 34). I pause to note that, pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.27(1)(b) and PD 16A para 7.6, a children’s guardian appointed pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.4 is required to conduct the proceedings on behalf of child fairly.
  • Art 6 of the ECHR enshrines the right to a fair hearing. When considering whether a hearing has been fair, the court will look at the proceedings as a whole as well as any alleged individual deficiencies (Barberá, Messegué and Jarbado v Spain (1988) 11 EHRR 360 at [68]). The right to a fair trial guaranteed by Art 6 is not confined to the ‘purely judicial’ part of the proceedings. Unfairness at any stage of the litigation process may involve a breach of Art 6 (Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730).
  • Where it is said that biased or unfair conduct on the part of person under a duty to advise the court will lead to bias or unfairness in the proceedings, such a causal link must be demonstrated. In R v Gough [1993] AC 646 at 664C the House of Lords held that it must be shown that by reason of the adviser participating in the decision making process there is a real likelihood that he or she would impose his or her influence on the tribunal (see also R (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 472 at [132]).
  • In this case the children’s guardian has been appointed pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.4. Within this context, the role and duties of the children’s guardian are set out in FPR 2010 PD 16A. As I have already noted, pursuant to paragraph 7.6 of that Practice Direction it is the duty of a children’s guardian appointed under FPR 2010 r 16.4 to “fairly and competently to conduct proceedings on behalf of the child”. Further, pursuant to FPR 2010 PD 16A paragraph 7.7 the children’s guardian must advise the court on, inter alia, the child’s wishes and feelings and the options available to the court in respect of the child and the suitability of each such option, including what order should be made in determining the application. Pursuant to FPR 2010 PD 16A paragraph 6.1 the children’s guardian must make such investigations as are necessary to carry out his or her duties.
  • Within this context, it is important to note the observations of Macur LJ in MW v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 405 (a case in which the children’s guardian was appointed pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.3) at [21] and [32] respectively that the children’s guardian is not a “neutral” party or participant in proceedings and that the children’s guardian does not have a “special” status within proceedings. Whilst the children’s guardian is required to proffer advice to the court, in doing so the guardian becomes a witness subject to the same judicial scrutiny as any other witness. The children’s guardian starts with no special advantage in proceedings as compared with other witnesses.
  • When the court is reaching its decision with respect to the welfare of a child it must consider all the evidence in the case including, but not limited to, the evidence of the children’s guardian. The court is the decision maker and must reach its decision by reference to the matters set out in the Children Act 1989 s 1 having regard to the totality of the evidence before the court.

 

I will pause there. MW v Hertfordshire 2014 says something very important – that the Guardian is just a witness like any other, and their evidence can be tested by cross-examination and they don’t start with any additional Brownie Points or judicial weight given to their evidence over and above any other witness. To which I would say that that’s a very fine notion, and I believe that it ought to be true, but it absolutely isn’t true in practice.  I’ll give you all a specific counter to that.

In the form given for Facts and Reasons, which is what Magistrates have to fill out when they are making a decision about a child, there is a specific section that says “Views of the Guardian and the reasons for the Court departing from those views if they do so”.   There isn’t a similar specific section asking the Court to specifically justify why they didn’t do what the mother asked, or the father, or even the Local Authority.  Every single social worker will tell you stories of how they got to the end of a case with a happy outcome where the child remains at home with parents and the Court were all over the Guardian  “I’d like to thank the Guardian for all of her hard work in this case” and the social worker doesn’t get a mention.  If Guardians who were previously social workers are honest, they will tell you how the experience of Court moved from being looked at as though you were something nasty on the sole of a shoe to being more or less the next living incarnation of the Dali Lama when they just move offices and become a Guardian.  This isn’t me having a go at Guardians – I think there are very good ones, and very bad ones and most of them fall on a spectrum well between those points, just as social workers. But MW v Hertfordshire’s lofty claim that a Guardian has no preferential treatment from the Court is a crock, I’m afraid.

 

I wrote about the Hertfordshire case at the time, here   (it was a Court of Appeal judgment that had LOADS of important stuff in it. It was like a selection box for law geeks. I’m afraid that I see the ‘no special treatment for Guardians’ being the bar of Turkish Delight in said selection box, that doesn’t get eaten or even taken out of the box because it looks inedible. Well, here, MacDonald J takes it out of the box and tucks into it, proclaiming it to be delicious.)

 

Guardians are not a ‘neutral party’ and don’t get brownie points

 

The Court’s decision on this issue, looking at the test for judicial bias and considering whether a Guardian is in the same sort of position or whether (as MW v Hertforshire suggests) they are just  a witness like any other and any issues of bias are simply to be taken up in cross-examination was this :-

 

DISCUSSION

 

  • I have decided that the mother’s oral application for an order terminating the appointment of Mr Power as T’s children’s guardian should be dismissed. My reasons for so deciding are as follows.
  • The mother’s allegation of “apparent bias” against the children’s guardian (as distinct from the court) as a ground for terminating the appointment of the guardian is in my judgment misconceived. The question of apparent bias falls to be considered in the context of the conduct of a person or persons occupying a judicial or quasi-judicial role. The role of the children’s guardian is not a judicial or quasi-judicial role. Whilst he is under a statutory duty to advise the court he is not the decision maker in these proceedings. In the circumstances, it is inappropriate for the mother to seek to approach actions of the children’s guardian in the same way as one would approach a person performing a normal judicial role or quasi-judicial role (R v Secretary of State for Trade and others ex parte Perestrello and another [1981] 1 QB 19 at 35 A-C).
  • Notwithstanding that the mother’s primary contended ground of termination is, in my judgment, misconceived, in circumstances where, pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.27(1)(b) and PD 16A para 7.6, the children’s guardian must conduct the proceedings on behalf of T fairly when, inter alia, advising the court on the T’s wishes and feelings, the options available to the court in respect of the T and the suitability of each such option, including what order should be made in determining the application, it is nonetheless necessary in my judgment to consider whether the children’s guardian has failed to act with the requisite degree of fairness such that the termination of his appointment is justified in accordance with the legal principles I have outlined above.
  • Turning first to the specific passages of the Position Statement in issue, I am not able to accept Mr Perkins’ submission that the passage in the Position Statement lodged on behalf of the children’s guardian set out at Paragraph 11(i) above setting out his analysis of T’s wishes and feelings evidences a lack of impartiality on the part of the guardian. The views of the guardian are plainly grounded in statements made to him by T. The missing statement of the father could only have acted reinforce the conclusion reached by the guardian. The matters which Ms Hamade has been asked to consider do not go to interpreting the nature or significance of T’s wishes and feelings. The child’s guardian makes clear in his report that he spoke to T after she had met with her mother specifically to check whether her views had changed.
  • The position in respect of the passage in the Position Statement lodged on behalf of the children’s guardian set out at Paragraph 11(ii) above is, I accept, of greater concern. It is clear that in coming to his views the children’s guardian considered the position of the mother, both in terms of the quality of T’s attachment to her and her travel difficulties with respect to the United Arab Emirates and appreciated that the matter remained subject to final determination by the court. However, statement that “The children’s guardian takes the view that T has suffered enough change and suggests a formula of arrangements that add, expand and compliment the advantages that accrue to her living with F in Dubai” does have the appearance of a recommendation regarding the final outcome of this matter and both parents appear to have taken it as such. Further, it is beyond dispute that the guardian reached his conclusion without seeing the totality of the evidence he had been directed to consider. Whilst, once again, the missing evidence of the father may well only have reinforced this conclusion, the report of Ms Hamade was potentially relevant to it in circumstances where it bore on the question of how easy ongoing contact between mother and daughter would be to maintain in light of the nature and extent of any continuing issues regarding the mother’s ability to enter and leave the United Arab Emirates.
  • In circumstances where, pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.27(1)(b) and PD 16A para 7.6, the children’s guardian must conduct the proceedings on behalf of T fairly, it is unfortunate that the Position Statement lodged on behalf of the children’s guardian is expressed what appeared to be a settled recommendation prior to the children’s guardian having had sight of all of the evidence and without the Position Statement making clear on its face that the children’s guardian acknowledged that his “suggested formula of arrangements” had been arrived at in that context. Whilst I accept that the Position Statement is a document drafted on behalf of the children’s guardian and not by him and that the document evidences his understanding that the matter remained subject to final determination by the court, I also accept that concern as to the impartiality of the guardian and, accordingly, the fairness of the proceedings has been generated in the mother in circumstances where the children’s guardian reached his conclusion without considering all of the evidence he was directed to.
  • However, having considered the position carefully and acknowledging the concerns of the mother, I am not able to accept, having regard to the respective roles of the Guardian and the court, that there is a real likelihood that the approach of the children’s guardian will lead to unfairness in the proceedings as a whole such that the criticisms of the methodology of the children’s guardian require the termination of his appointment pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.25(1)(b).
  • As I have already noted, it is the court that is the decision maker in this case and not the children’s guardian. The court is required to consider fully and fairly all of the evidence before it when reaching its final decision on the welfare of T, having regard to the matters set out in the Children Act 1989 s 1. Within the context of that process, two matters are of particular importance when considering the mother’s application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian.
  • First, during the course of that process the children’s guardian enjoys no special status relative to other witnesses before the court (MW v Hertfordshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 405 at [21] and [32]). The fact that the children’s guardian is under a duty to advise the court the options available to it to make recommend what order should be made does not mean that the advice and recommendation of the children’s guardian carries with it preferential, let alone determinative weight in the proceedings. The views of guardian, even when set out in a final analysis and recommendations report, are not binding on the court. At all times it is the application of the principles and factors set out in the Children Act 1989 s 1 to the totality of the evidence before the court that drives the court’s conclusion as to what is in the child’s best interests. There would be more force in mother’s application if the court was bound to follow recommendations of the children’s guardian or if the recommendations of the guardian carried preferential weight in the proceedings. However, neither of these propositions is sound.
  • Second, within the context of this legal framework the evidence of the children’s guardian falls to be evaluated by the court in the same way as any other witness having regard to factors including its credibility, internal consistency and fairness, with the results of that evaluation being applied in reaching a final determination. Specifically, the evidence of the children’s guardian will be the subject to forensic scrutiny by the court through the medium of cross-examination. Within this context the mother will be able to test the aspects of the guardian’s methodology that concern her and make submissions to the court on the consequences of any challenges she makes good. In particular, she will be able to put to the children’s guardian that he has pre-judged the issue of T’s living arrangements and the court can consider whether the guardian’s recommendation is thereby undermined. The court is well used to hearing and considering challenges mounted in cross examination by way of an allegation of prejudgment against social workers and children’s guardians.
  • In the foregoing circumstances, and with these procedural protections in place, in my judgment the matters recorded in the Position Statement of the guardian that cause the mother concern do not amount to grounds for terminating the appointment of that guardian on the basis of unfairness. Whilst it is unfortunate that this position has arisen, I am satisfied that the trial process as a whole will allow the mother a fair opportunity at the final hearing to challenge the methodology and reasoning process of the children’s guardian, which challenges will be taken into account by the court when deciding what weight to attach to his views. Within this context, I am satisfied that the parties can remain on an equal footing and that the court can deal with the case fairly notwithstanding the statements included in the Position Statement drafted on behalf of the children’s guardian.
  • I of course acknowledge the principle that it is not only important that justice is done but that it is seen to be done. However, once again, I am satisfied that the fact that it is the court who is the decision maker in this case, coupled with the opportunity the mother has to challenge the methodology and conclusions of the children’s guardian prior to the court reaching its decision, meets the requirements of this cardinal principle. I also bear in mind that the children’s guardian has yet to file and serve his final analysis and recommendations report and that he will do so having had sight of all of the evidence that has been placed before the court.
  • In reaching my decision I have also had regard to the delay that will be engendered in these proceedings if the appointment of the current children’s guardian were to be terminated and the matter adjourned for a new guardian to commence work. I have also borne in mind that such a course of action would necessitate T having another meeting with a different professional to talk once again about her wishes and feelings. Having regard to the statutory principle that delay is ordinarily inimical to the welfare of the child, and whilst not determinative, this in my judgment is a further reason for refusing the application to terminate the appointment of the current children’s guardian.
  • Finally, and again whilst not determinative of my decision on the mother’s application, as I have already observed the mother made her application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian pursuant to FPR 2010 r 16.25(1)(b) orally (without even having given notice of the intention to make such an application in her Position Statement) and absent any written or oral evidence in support of that application, contrary to the requirements of FPR 2010 r 16.25(2). In the circumstances, I also note that the court has not been taken to evidence in support of the mother’s application as mandated by the rules of court when pursuing an application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian.

 

 

I don’t think that this was the strongest application on bias, it was fairly clear that the Guardian’s views about the child’s wishes and future were as a result of the Guardian’s discussions with the child, who was ten years old. The position statement was somewhat clumsy in not making the position more explicit that there was no final decision but rather an interim view.

Finally the Court said this :-

 

CONCLUSION

 

  • There will, in very rare circumstances, be cases where the court accedes to an application to terminate the appointment of the children’s guardian where the guardian has adopted a methodology that the court would ordinarily be invited simply to take into account at a final hearing when deciding what weight to attach to the guardian’s evidence or recommendations. This, however, is not such a case. For the reasons given above I am satisfied that the mother’s application to terminate the appointment of Mr Power should be dismissed, and I so dismiss it.
  • As I have already observed, in Re J Ward LJ endeavoured to reassure the mother that the judge in that case was confident about the impartiality of the children’s guardian, was alive to the issues in the case, and that it was the judge who would have the very difficult task of resolving those issues. I reassure the mother in the same terms in this case.
  • Finally, the need for the court to consider the issues set out in this judgment stems, in large part, from the failure by CAFCASS Legal to adhere to the directions made by this court on 5 April 2016. Mr Hinchliffe’s decision to complete his Position Statement on 2 June 2016 ahead of the receipt of evidence due to be filed on 10 May 2016 in respect of the report of Ms Hamade and on 3 June 2016 in respect of the statement of the father, which evidence the court required the guardian to consider before the lodging of a Position Statement, together with the terms in which the Position Statement was drafted in those circumstances, have caused the mother unnecessary worry and concern and the court additional work. That worry and work could have been avoided had CAFCASS Legal complied with the directions made by the court or applied to vary the same. I hope that CAFCASS Legal will reflect on this.
  • That is my judgment.

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

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

“Blood on her hands”

Posted on June 21, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

Ben Butler convicted of the murder of his girlfriend’s daughter Ellie, in the criminal Court.

Ellie had been removed from the care of Ben and Ellie’s mother (who was convicted of child cruelty and perverting the course of justice) in 2007 by the family Courts with findings made that they had caused her a serious injury  and placed with Ellie’s grandparents.

In 2012, Mrs Justice Hogg overturned the previous findings and returned Ellie to the care of Ben and Jennie Gray. The Judge had said that fresh medical evidence showed that the previous findings were wrong, and that Ben and Jennie were exonerated and that it had been a miscarriage of justice and that it was a joy to be able to return Ellie to their care.

 

The case was widely reported as a miscarriage of justice in the family Courts, put right by Mrs Justice Hogg and the unusual step was taken to name the family in the judgment, so that everyone could see that their names were cleared.

 

A tapestry of justice

 

Eleven months later, Ellie was dead.

 

At the hearing before Mrs Justice Hogg, we now learn that Ellie’s grandfather warned Mrs Justice Hogg that she would have ‘blood on her hands’ if she returned Ellie to Jennie and Ben.

 

You can read about the murder trial here, and the guilty verdict. It was a vicious attack, cynically covered up by the couple, including arranging for Ellie’s sibling to find Ellie’s body 2 hours after the death.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/21/ben-butler-found-guilty-of-murdering-six-year-old-daughter-ellie

 

One shudders now in retrospect (knowing what we know about both parties) about the detail that Ben and Jennie employed Max Clifford to run a PR campaign for them in their fight to get Ellie back.

It is really important here not to be wise after the event. The judgment given by Mrs Justice Hogg (which sadly has been taken down from Bailii so as not to prejudice the criminal trial, but which ought in the public interest to go back up) was one that I read at the time, as so many others did, of a case involving very complex medical evidence in a field (shaking injury) which is very medically controversial and with fresh evidence emerging which showed an organic cause for the injury which meant Ben and Jennie were blameless.  The case involved multiple medical experts, whose evidence was pored over by extremely able Silks and lawyers, in front of a very experienced High Court Judge who has always been conscientious and dedicated.

The Local Authority fought very hard to stop Ellie being moved from her grandparents, and her grandparents also resisted it. That meant that all of the evidence was gathered and tested – as fiercely as everyone involved was able to. This was not a rubber-stamp, or a rushed decision. It was a judgment that had all of the safeguards and protections that our system can muster  (a range of experts, all the documents obtained, the evidence tested and tested hard, and a Judge who knew her stuff)

There was nothing within that judgment to make one feel AT THE TIME, that this was a terrible tragic mistake.

But it was.

Even with all the protections of the system, the Court system on this occasion got a decision wrong. And as a result, a child who was safe, is now dead.

That doesn’t mean that we get to apply hindsight and seek to pass blame. The persons responsible for Ellie’s death were Ben and Jennie. Not this Judge. Not the experts who thought there was an innocent explanation for the earlier injury. Not the lawyers who fought fearlessly and to the best of their ability for Ben and Jennie. Certainly not the Local Authority, who fought to prove that Ben and Jennie had hurt Ellie before and would do so again.

Even when you pore over every scrap of paper, hear every shred of evidence, hear all of the arguments and can be sure of your conclusions, predicting the future is an uncertain business. And from time to time, we need to be honest and acknowledge that.

The EVIDENCE that Mrs Justice Hogg heard pointed her to a conclusion that Ben and Jennie had been wrongly accused and had paid for it with the loss of their child, and the EVIDENCE drove her to wanting to put that right. The EVIDENCE that we now have is that this was the wrong decision. But how can a Court decide any other way than on the EVIDENCE that it has at the time?

The system got it wrong here, in deciding what had happened in the past and what would happen in the future, and with awful consequences. The system in the past has got it wrong the other way and removed children that could and should have stayed at home. The system will continue to make mistakes, no matter how hard we try, because human beings are not built to predict the future.  We make all efforts to ensure that we get it right, but we can’t always.

I am very sure how the Press would have handled this case if it had been a social worker who had taken the child away from grandparents and put her back with Ben and Jennie.  The headlines write themselves. The clamour for sackings and heads must roll, and this must never happen again.

Seeing that even a High Court Judge, seized with all of the evidence, with the luxury of seeing that evidence tested as hard as evidence ever can be, can make a mistake reminds us that human beings are beautifully and fearfully made, and all of us have fragility.

 

Mrs Justice Hogg has retired now, and I am sure that the consequences of her decision will weigh heavily on her.

Perhaps this story shows us that sometimes, in assessing the EVIDENCE that one has at the time decisions can be made by very bright, very capable, very conscientious people wanting nothing more than to get things right and to be fair, but still be wrong, and that our knee-jerk Witch-Hunt blame culture doesn’t take account of that, and the inherent difficulty that child protection involves.

55 Comments

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

Very tangled web and a very sad situation

Posted on June 21, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

This is a case in which a Judge had to consider very serious sexual abuse allegations and concluded that

The sad fact I have to record is that every female member of that extended family, with the exception of B, has, at some stage in their lifetime, been either sexually abused, or been the subject of inappropriate sexual behaviour, or been groomed for the purposes of sex.

 

The child B, had been placed with a man, Paul E, who was her uncle, but for five years she was brought up believing that he was her father and that Mary E (her aunt) was her mother.  In that household lived an older child A, who really was the daughter of Paul E and Mary E, and thus was B’s cousin, but A and B were told that they were siblings.

 

B’s actual mother Carol M, lived in the house with Paul E and Mary E, and B was brought up thinking that Carol (her real mother) was her sister.

As will be apparent from the description I have given of the relationships between the individuals involved, this is a large family with different familial connections. For reasons which I will deal with in due course, Mary E has, at all times, maintained a house full of children. There has in recent times at the heart of this household been a significant lie. B was led to believe by them that Mary E and Paul E were her parents. Her mother lived with her as her sister. The obviously difficulty created by a lie is that it encourages dishonesty from all affected by that lie. What is clear to me is that when Cafcass, and when Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen Social Services have been involved in assessing this family in the past, they also have been lied to, as I will elaborate below. That has meant that the value of their assessments was completely undermined. There have been a number of investigations into this family, none of which have got close to the truth of what was going on.

 

The Judge raised that B had been placed there as a result of private law proceedings and that professionals had reported on the family circumstances, and had acquired a false sense of security about the family situation because of the previous involvement of the family Court and because reports and assessments had been written. That involvement gave what was a very risky and dangerous family set up a sense of legitimacy that was not warranted.

 

Legitimacy by court order

  1. One matter I should raise right at the outset. At the time these proceedings were commenced in 2015, A was living with Paul E, her father, and Mary E, his wife, pursuant to a court order made on 20th April 2012. B, at that time, was residing with Paul E and Mary E, neither of whom was her parent, as a result of a court order made on 26th September 2011.
  3. There have been previous proceedings in relation to A. Section J in the bundle was generated by proceedings in 2011 running into 2012, which include a Section 37 Report from Lancashire County Council, together with an addendum to that report, and a report from a Cafcass Officer appointed to assist the court in those proceedings.
  5. Documents relating to previous proceedings concerning B are in Section K in the bundle. Those include a Section 7 Report from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council from September 2011, provided to the court immediately before the residence order was made to which I have already referred. There was a Cafcass report in addition, which was effectively a letter from the Early Intervention Team setting out what was known about the family.
  7. There have been Social Services and Police involvement with other members of the family in circumstances that I will set out in a little more detail in due course. None of those investigations, whether by the Police, by Cafcass, or by Lancashire, or Blackburn with Darwen Social Services had, in reality, got to the truth of what was going on in the lives of the children who were being cared for by Mary E and Paul E. The fact that there had been investigations and court orders made in favour of Mary E and Paul E gave them a false authority, false in the sense that it was based on a false premise, but authority in the sense that it gave them validation for the way they were bringing up the children, a validation made in ignorance of the truth. It has only been with the benefit of a full investigation into this family that what I am satisfied is the truth has, at last, emerged.

 

 

Paul E (father of A, and uncle of B but caring for her) was the subject of some very grave allegations and the Judge in due course made a series of very grave findings against him. After the Court had heard the evidence and submissions, concluding on a Friday, but before judgment could be given, Paul E took his own life. That must have been horrendous for everyone involved, and awful for the children  (no matter what he had done and what he had exposed them to )

 

The fact finding hearing began on 11th April 2016. By Friday of the second week, I had heard submissions from the advocates as they closed their cases. I had heard evidence from Paul E, and he had attended all of the hearings. On Sunday, 24th April, Paul E took his own life. He left a note maintaining his innocence, and I make it plain I had reached my conclusions on the factual matters in this case before his death. I do not regard his suicide as a tacit admission of his guilt of the matters alleged against him.

 

It emerged from the evidence, and the judgment, that Paul E had received a very serious head injury in 2005 having been assaulted in a pub and kicked in the head. The judgment reads as though this head injury had an impact on his personality, behaviour and possibly sexual functioning. That is not to excuse or condone the actions that the Judge found that he had undertaken, but it does to an extent provide a better understanding of it.

 

The Judge was also mindful of the effect of alcohol on Paul E

 

In fact the evidence I heard shows conclusively that throughout his adult life Paul E had drunk to excess and when under the influence of drink could be a very different man from the pleasant individual he could be when sober.

5 Comments

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

Inordinate delay in issuing proceedings (£45K damages)

Posted on June 17, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

 

This is a Circuit Judge decision made in my local Court (it is not a case that I or any of my colleagues are involved in, so I can write about it) so I will try to avoid much comment and stick to the reported facts.

 

Re X, Y and Z  (Damages: Inordinate Delay in issuing proceedings) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B44.html

Three children had been s20 accommodated from January 2013 until July 2015 when an Interim Care Order was made. The Court determined that the s20 had been lawfully entered into and was valid, but of course on the authorities, a valid s20 does not prevent a human rights breach based on delay.  Whilst the mother in this case had never formally withdrawn her consent or lodged an objection, she had been asking for more contact with the children and saying from time to time that she would like them to come home.

 

  1. The mother clearly frequently stated that she would wish to care for the children and certainly to see them :
  3. i) 8.2.13 Letter from Z seeking to see the children.

ii) 1.3.13 Z asks for contact and to have the children back in her first meeting with a social worker

iii) 3.4.13 Z seeks fortnightly contact in a telephone call.

iv) 5.9.13 LAC review – stated that Z would like to be able to care for the children.

v) 14.1.14 Report for LAC review notes that Z would like to see the children and that she sometimes states she wants to care for the children and sometimes that she just wants to have contact with them.

vi) 8.4.14 Legal Planning Meeting Solicitor for Z stated that she had requested both children be returned to her care as soon as possible…if not returned to her care, would like increased contact.

vii) 26.11.14 LAC Review Z would like to be able to care for the children.

 

 

The Judge ruled that the children’s article 6 and  8 rights were breached in the following ways

 

  1. It follows from all that is set out above that I make the following declarations:
  3. i) West Sussex County Council acted unlawfully and in violation of the Convention Rights of X, Y and Z as follows:

a) Purported to exercise parental responsibility for X and Y for a period of almost two and a half years when they did not hold parental responsibility for the children.

b) Failed to promote contact between the children ,X and Y and their mother Z.

c) Failed to issue care proceedings for almost two and a half years causing the children to be without access to independent representation, failing to carry out adequate assessments and allowing the children’s permanence plan to drift.

d) The Independent Reviewing Officer failed to challenge the conduct of the Local Authority sufficiently robustly.

The judgment contains analysis of the relevant authorities on s20 breaches, s20 drift, human rights claims and calculating quantum.

The Judge concluded that each of the  children should receive the sum of £20,000 in damages  (*initially, with the case being called X, Y and Z, I’d assumed three children and hence £60k, but I am told two children. Still £45k is a lot of money)

 

  1. The factors to be considered for the children are substantially different to those for the mother and consequently must be assessed separately. The main factors in relation to quantum are :
  3. i) A failure to assess their needs for an inordinate period of time – over two years before any report was obtained;

ii) The fact that they were denied access to any independent legal representation for two and a half years – of particular importance when they had no relatives in the country who would be able to care for them and when they had been the subject of apparent abuse during their time in Jamaica;

iii) Little promotion of contact with their mother even though X indicated in February 2013 that he would like to go back to her – there was no contact for the next twelve months;

iv) No comprehensive assessment of their needs although it was indicated as early as March 2013 that such an assessment was required;

v) Frequent changes in placements without any input from anyone with parental responsibility

vi) Placement with W, the previous foster carer, without any such assessment or understanding of any abuse they had suffered in Jamaica;

vii) The fact that the children are now in separate long term foster placements with no contact with each other or any other relative and X is not in a culturally appropriate placement;

  1. It is apparent that the end result for these children is not a good one. It is not possible now to say that the outcome would have been any different if proceedings had been issued in early to mid-2013 which should have occurred. However, it is difficult to see how the outcome would have been much worse and the loss of a chance of a better conclusion must be reflected in any award that is made.
  3. This case appears to be at the upper end of the bracket that has been awarded in similar cases. The only aggravating feature which is not present in this case, which is present in the majority of other such cases, is the fact that I have found that the s.20 agreement is a valid one. I am not going to set out all of the possible comparators as they appear in the table in the Medway case but I would simply state that this case involves the longest period as well as a poor outcome which may not have been the case without the breaches. As a result due to all of the issues which have been highlighted I am satisfied that the children should be awarded the sum of £20,000 each for all of the breaches of their Article 6 and 8 rights.

 

 

In relation to the mother

 

The Mother’s Award

  1. The mother is in a different position as she did have the benefit of legal advice from June 2013 onwards and as a result would have been able to withdraw her consent at any time thereafter. This must be of significance in considering damages as the inordinate delay in this case is the most troubling aspect and that delay could have been stopped at any time by the simple act of instructing her solicitor to withdraw her consent.
  3. It is argued on behalf of the Local Authority that this feature is of such significance that it should mean that the mother would receive ‘just satisfaction’ by way of a declaration alone. However that ignores the other crucial factors in her case which include :
  5. i) The frequent requests for contact to her children which were simply ignored by West Sussex although there was no legal basis to do so;

ii) If proceedings had been issued the Local Authority would have been obliged pursuant to s.34 Children Act 1989 to promote such contact;

iii) The failure to properly assess the mother due to the fact that she had been fully assessed in the previous proceedings some five years earlier.

  1. It seems unlikely that the children would have been placed with their mother if the proceedings would have been commenced in a timeous fashion and as such there does not need to be any award for the loss of that chance. However, the same cannot be said in relation to contact as that may have been very different if addressed much earlier. The children are now stating that they will not see their mother but that was not the position when they first arrived at Gatwick in January 2013. This loss is even more significant now that each child has no contact whatsoever with any member of their family.
  3. In these circumstance the appropriate level of damages for the mother must be far lower than for the children and I assess the figure of £5,000 as the correct amount to compensate her for her Article 6 and (more significantly) Article 8 rights.

 

 

Looking at the chronology given in the judgment,  there was involvement with lawyers as early as 24th June 2013, which was still 2 years before proceedings were issued.

 

The Judge was very critical of the  Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), who would have been holding Looked After Child Reviews at regular intervals during the 2 1/2 years of s20. He found that they, too, had been responsible for breaches of both the mother and the children’s human rights.

 

  1. The Independent Reviewing Officer failed to challenge the conduct of West Sussex and did not promote care proceedings. The functions of the IRO are set out within s.25 Children Act 1989 and they include monitoring the performance of the Local Authority of their functions in relation to the child’s case. In the case of A and S v Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 1689 at para 168 it was submitted (and Jackson J did not demur) that the task of the IRO was to “monitor, persuade, cajole, encourage and criticise fellow professionals in the interest of the child”. Their roles are more fully set out within the “IRO Handbook” which provides the relevant statutory guidance. In the Lancashire Case it was found that the failures of the IRO amounted to a breach of the children’s rights.
  3. The actions of the IRO in this case are fully set out within the statement of Children’s Safeguarding Manager and which is referred to above, which concludes with a list of ‘Strengths’ and ‘Areas for Development’ and the latter included :
  5. i) “the Review minutes do not consistently contain sufficient specific evidence of IRO challenge, especially on issues in relation to progress towards permanence”

ii) “the decision specific to the permanence plan was not specific enough and did not contain any target dates”

iii) “would have expected more explicit detail in relation to the permanence plan of long term fostering and the need to seek legal advice”

  1. It does not seem to me that this adequately highlights the deficiencies of the IROs (there were two) in this case. There does not appear to be any note whatsoever of the IRO cajoling the Local Authority on timescales and this can be highlighted by two simple issues :
  3. i) There is a bald statement in the second review held in May 2013 that an SGO assessment is about to commence in relation to the paternal aunt. This is repeated in the fourth review in January 2014 which records that “an SGO assessment will be undertaken at the appropriate time”. It is noted at the fifth review in July 2014 that the paternal aunt still wished to have the children living with her under SGOs but the assessment is still not there some fourteen months after it was first raised. This is a simply appalling delay and does not seem to be criticised by the IRO – if there is not going to be criticism in such cases then one has to ask when would it ever occur?

ii) The IRO was aware in May 2013 that the mother wanted contact to the children but no decisions were made on this crucial point at the time. In September 2013 it was noted that indirect contact had happened and the next stage would be to consider re-introducing direct contact yet by the fourth review it is simply noted that they were “working towards direct contact”! The first face to face contact did not take place until February 2014, a full 13 months after the children had arrived in the UK with the mother saying that she wanted to see the children throughout and the eldest child, X, having said he would like to see his mother in February 2013. It is entirely possible that the contact would not have been successful (as has in fact occurred) but it must be the duty of the IRO to challenge this astonishing delay in attempting such contact in circumstances when the children had no involvement with any member of their birth family.

  1. The lack of urgency in the case is breath-taking and it is simply wrong to point out the failures of the IROs to force the issues as an “Area for Development”. It was a total failure to “monitor, persuade, cajole, encourage and criticise fellow professionals in the interest of the child” as they should have been doing. This was clearly a case that should have come before the courts years before it actually did yet the IRO did not appear to put any pressure upon the Local Authority to ensure that this occurred. There is power within s.25B(3) Children Act 1989 for an IRO to refer the case to CAFCASS if it is considered it was appropriate to do so. It is difficult to understand why such action should not have been carried out in this case in order to ensure that the welfare needs of these children were fully protected.
  3. It follows that the failures of the IRO were sufficient in this case to amount to a breach of the children’s and the mother’s rights to family life and a fair trial.

 

 

If I were a betting man, and I am, I would expect an increase in care proceedings issued when the September set of CAFCASS stats come out.  And the volume of care proceedings issued is already at an all-time high.

13 Comments

Posted in case law, judicial spanking, section 20 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →