Can one simultaneously be baffled and pleased?

Posted on December 3, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

It appears so. The MoJ have published a consultation on Court fees. Long time readers of this blog will know my rather low opinion of consultations  (they are a way of breaking bad news to people whilst pretending that “your view can make a difference”)

 

And any consultation on Court fees normally means one thing – they’re going up, stand still whilst the MoJ mugs you. It is so tiresome for the MOJ if you wriggle about whilst they go through your pockets and wallet.

 

This one, it appears not

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/court-fees-proposals-for-reform

 

 

Please send your response by 21/01/14 to:

Graeme Cummings Ministry of Justice Law and Access to Justice Group Post Point 4.38 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ

Tel: (020) 3334 4938

Fax: (020) 3334 2233

Email: mojfeespolicy@justice.gsi.gov.uk

 

[Might actually be worth doing that, this time]

 

 

Here are some good news items from it  (good news, from an MoJ consultation on fee changes, you can see why I am baffled)

 

Removing the fee from Non-molestation or Occupation order applications (currently £75).  Given what a palaver getting the fee-exemption was, many people ended up just paying the fee, and it always seemed wrong to me that people should have to pay a fee to get protection from domestic violence.

 

The fee for any application in Children Act cases (other than s31) is now just £215, same across the board. No more looking up in a chart to try to work out just what the bloody fee is for those applications that you hardly ever make. It’s just a standard fee across the board. That’s gone up a bit (£35) for most of the applications.

 

And here’s the odd one  – you may recall that the fee for issuing care proceedings went up several thousand per cent – from about £175 to over £5,000, and went up again in April.

The lie / spin at the time was that this was completely cost-neutral and would be covered by central government funding and that it was not an attempt to artificially depress care proceedings or provide a financial incentive for Local Authorities not to place cases before the Court.  You may recall a judicial review that didn’t succeed, and then all the various reports saying “these fees should be abolished”.   If the fees ever were cost-neutral, which almost anyone in local government would dispute, they certainly aren’t now, as central funding has been salami sliced over many years. Those court fees represent a significant drain on public authorities limited resources.   

 

The current arrangement is that the LA pay the court a fee of £3,320 up front, and then a further fee of £2,155 if there’s a final hearing.

 

Well, I immediately look for that section, to see how much care proceeding court fees are going to go up by, and see the proposals are :-

 

Flat fee on issue to change from £3,320 to £2,000   (yes, that’s actually gone DOWN)

 

Fee for final hearing to change from £2,155 to £0   (yes, that’s actually nothing)

 

This is something of a climb-down – I mean, it’s not the recommendation of the Laming report, the Plowden report or the Family Justice Review (all of which the Government said in advance they would implement in full) that the fees be scrapped entirely, but it’s a START.

 I couldn’t find anything within the consultation document that was a rationale for this reduction, so I went to the public attitude survey here

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262917/public-attitudes-civil-family-court-fees.pdf

 in which people were surveyed about court fees and given some hypothetical examples to set fees for. (There are some interesting things, more useful for private law, about public attitudes towards fairness of the court system)

 

[I did this exercise  because if I see a gift horse, the first thing I DO is look in its mouth. It is nonsensical advice to say “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”  – the story comes from the Trojan War, and OF COURSE the Trojans should have been wary about the gift horse…]

 

Anyway, there’s nothing in that either.  In any event, thank you MoJ for a consultation document that made me happy rather than miserable. Let’s see if it translates into action.

 

(That’s potentially a lot of money that can be spent on services to help and support troubled families, so it is not just good news for Local Authorities, but for real people too)

3 Comments

Posted in consultation, costs. Bookmark the permalink.

Death by a thousand cuts – expert fees take another hit

Posted on December 3, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

 

You might remember some time back that there was a consultation on a proposal to reduce expert fees further from the drastic cuts brought into play in October 2011   (I say consultation, what I mean of course is, breaking the news to experts that this was definitely going to happen and giving them a few months notice whilst pretending that no decisions had yet been made)

 

As ever with a Government agency, finding the document that actually publishes the new rates is a forensic ferreting exercise all of its own, but this is it, below

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/funding-code/remuneration-of-expert-witnesses-guidance.PDF

 

These rates now come in to all cases with a start date after December 2013   (so it is worth knowing that an expert who is INSTRUCTED in January 2014, might get paid at the old rates if the CASE itself started before December 2013. If you’re an expert, that might well be a question worth asking)

 

 

Picking out the ones most common in care proceedings  (these are non-London rates, some of the London ones are slightly different)

 

[When I say 2011 rate, that was the rate from Oct 2011 until April 2013, when there was an interim cut]

 

Child psychiatrist now £108 per hour  [the rate in 2011 was £135]

 

Child psychologist £100.80 per hour [the rate in 2011 was £126]

 

DNA testing  £252 for the sample and testing, £72 for the report  [2011 was £315 and £90]

 

Interpreter £28 per hour   [2011 was £32]

 

Neurologist £122.40 per hour [2011 was £153]

 

Paediatrician £108 per hour            [2011 was £135]

 

Psychiatrist £108 per hour               [2011 was £135]

 

Psychologist £93.60 per hour          [2011 was £117]

 

Risk assessment expert £50.40 per hour [2011 was £63]

 

 

 

If you imagine a ballpark of the costs having been cut by 33% in two years (having already been cut down extensively in the 2011 changes) you’d be about right.

 

The new guidance is silent on social work costs, which have historically been at £30 per hour.  Let’s take that to mean that ISWs can still be paid at £30 an hour, which is good news, because applying the 33% cut given to other experts would mean ISWs working at £20 an hour, and there really would be none left at that rate.

4 Comments

Posted in consultation, costs, experts. Bookmark the permalink.

Untimely ripped part two

Posted on December 3, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

Firstly thank you to all the contributors to the debate on the first post, I think this case undoubtedly stirs up not only emotions but some genuinely important issues. No doubt once we get the Court of Protection judgment (which is the really important one) more issues will be stirred up.

I have to point you all towards Pink Tapes very thoughtful and considered analysis of the case

http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/#more-4418

which makes the very important point that the Press are conflating two separate decisions and applications

1. The Health authority’s application for a determination about capacity and surgery to the Court of Protection, which would have been about health issues

2. The Local Authority’s application for removal of the child on an interim basis, which would have been about risk  (and appears from the reporting to have taken place in mother’s absence and whilst she was not conscious)

It is the conflation of those two separate decisions and applications into one that suggests that the C-section happened to make it easy for social workers to remove the child that raises the temperature so much.   There are still very interesting and important issues in the case, however, and still a legitimate public debate to be had about whether this is right or not.

It occurred to me that I could imagine all sorts of scenarios where this choice was a genuine life-or-death one for both limbs (it would be wrong for me to speculate about those, but it doesn’t involve much of a stretch to concieve of a situation where it appeared that the only way to save A baby’s life was to take this incredibly harsh action). Now, we don’t know whether that was the case here or not, and await the judgments to give us an informed view.

[So from here on out, I am not talking about THIS particular case, I am talking about a hypothetical case, where the Court is satisfied that there is a genuine life-or-death choice to be made, where the issue is either to save the child OR to intervene in the starkest and harshest way  –  the Court is of course bound by Art 2, so would have no choice BUT to act, if the choice were that stark]

Hypothetically, IF the evidence was that this action was the only thing that could have saved the child’s life and the risks there were ones that no Local Authority could sensibly ignore, one still has to consider whether the State (which in my view effectively ‘borrows’ its powers with the consensus of the people) ought to have those sorts of powers, even after a legal process with safeguards and the highest tests before such powers can be used.

I think that there is a very legitimate question, along the lines of Ben Franklin’s famous aphorism  “Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither”

If we as a society, and as a free press take the view that even in a life or death situation, an outcome like this is abhorrent and wrong  (and I think I am probably leaning towards that myself, in terms of ‘are these powers that the State should have’ as opposed to ‘those powers existing, was it right to make use of them?’  but I reserve my final position) then in coming to that judgment, we have to accept the consequences of it, which will be that we must be willing to accept that it might be better for the baby faced with this hypothetical situation to die than to use very draconian powers to secure its safety.

That’s a big question put in those terms.  I have immediately thought of  three conflicting positions in relation to that :-

(a) in a life or death situation, pretty much anything goes to save the baby, although the burden to demonstrate that this really is life or death is high

(b) Even in a life or death situation, the State shouldn’t have such powers and it is wrong to exercise them

(c) I would be absolutely opposed to such powers being used in anything short of life or death, and I still feel pretty uncomfortable about the powers existing, because of the draconian nature of them, the fact that the decision is being made in haste and what appears ‘life and death’ might not be in the cold light of day

[I think that in the hypothetical situation, I am probably C, but I MIGHT be B]

I do feel uncomfortable that a removal hearing takes place whilst mother was unconscious, if the reporting is accurate, and I would want evidence of a very high level that there was really nothing that could be done to safeguard the child whilst a hearing took place with mother being present.

I have little doubt, that IF we had a hypothetical situation like this, and the risks were genuine life or death and this draconian action was the only way to save the baby, and the LA HAD NOT acted, there would be equal criticism and vitriol from the Press about bungling social workers who let a baby die even though they knew how big the risks were  – “what were they thinking?”.  Does anyone honestly think that we wouldn’t have been seeing “heads must roll” headlines and speeches in Parliament? 

So whilst this case is based on a particular set of circumstances which may never ever crop up again, it does raise an issue of wider importance – are we as a society willing to accept that if the system is rebalanced so that we have a higher tolerance of risk to allow more children to stay with their families, are we at the same time willing to accept the less palatable consequences of that?

14 Comments

Posted in assessment of risk, court of protection. Bookmark the permalink.

Untimely ripped

Posted on December 2, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

The case involving the Italian mother who whilst in the UK had a caeserean section without her consent, and awoke to find her baby had been removed.

The Press, understandably have taken a very hard line on this – the Independent isn’t one of the Camilla Cavendish / Christopher Brooker brigade, but even they tell the story with very emotive language – social workers ‘forcibly removing the baby from the womb’  – I’ve even seen the phrase ‘ripped from the womb’ employed by the mainstream press today. The Independent even headline their piece that social workers were condemned for this action  (which makes you immediately think “by a judge”, but no, it is by human right campaigners)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-services-forcibly-remove-unborn-child-from-woman-by-caesarean-after-she-suffered-mental-health-breakdown-8975808.html

 

First things first then – we don’t know the facts.  There will be three judgments in this case, all of which we need to see and consider before we could claim to be informed on the issues. Because contrary to the impression one might form from the Press accounts, social workers don’t have powers to conduct surgery, nor to remove children without either consent or a court order.

The judgments would relate to the applications and would be these :-

 

1. The Court of Protection decision that the mother in question lacked capacity to make a decision about the way in which she was going to give birth, and giving a declaration that a C-section was in her best interests (note that the Court of Protection don’t have the power to make the surgeons carry out the operation, only to tell them that they CAN do it without mother’s consent)

2. The initial decision for removal, which is probably going to be an ex-parte Emergency Protection Order – the existing law on this is that removal of a child from a parent without the parent being present to oppose is a draconian order that requires the most compelling evidence, and the Court should be very reluctant to grant such an order

3. Given that those two matters happened in August 2012, we now have the final hearing in care proceedings in which, it seems, the Court made a Care Order with a plan of adoption, possibly with a Placement Order.  As recent readers of this blog will know, the test for that has become very high (many would say rightly so) – that “nothing else will do”

 

There are three judgments then, two involving very very high and stringent tests and robust evidence – the Court of Protection would undoubtedly have needed to consider the operation very carefully before granting it.

So, firstly, we don’t know the circumstances – given the public debate I think that all 3 of these judgments should be published forthwith and that the Press should also be given access to the documents and evidence in the case (so long as anonymity is preserved). It is vital that one sees in this case whether :-

(a) The proper high legal tests were observed in this case

(b) The authorities involved made the applications that they were entitled to make in law in good faith, and that there was no other option realistically open to them  [were they gung-ho, or just in a genuinely impossible position? We don’t yet know]

 

But over and above that

(c) Whether as a society, we are content for the State to have such powers at their disposal, particularly when they are used on a person who whatever the scenario was a vulnerable person enduring a difficult mental health problem.

 

I can see perfectly well why John Hemming MP has taken an interest in this case – it involves the Court of Protection, decisions being taken in the “best interests” of a person which seem on the face of it to be directly counter to what the person’s own view of what would be in their best interests would be had she been asked, the whole issue of a person being deprived of the opportunity to challenge and fight the most dramatic and draconian applications purely because she lacks capacity (her vulnerability effectively being counted against her twice)

I’m not going to defend or condemn the actions of the State in this one, because I don’t have the facts. [yet]  It may well be that no matter how dreadful the risks and fears were in this case, no matter how strong the evidence, I would still feel uncomfortable that the State had such power  to do such things.  I’m not sure that they sit terribly comfortably with the duties that we have to people under article 8 – I can think of no greater interference with family life than this, and one has to be sure that the interference is both necessary and proportionate.

I do feel that the Press is a little unfair in not conveying that these actions were all a consequence of a Judge making decisions. Whether a Judge, any Judge, should have that power, whether the requirements and tests are high enough  and whether the safeguards for a mother in this position are adequate is a perfectly valid debate, and the sooner the facts of the case are properly in the public domain the better.

 

*I will declare an interest now, I worked for a time at Essex about five years ago, and I think that they are good people; although in any case like this I would prefer to see the judicially established facts rather than the media spin on things

35 Comments

Posted in adult social care, court of protection and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What it feels like

Posted on November 28, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

I thought that this was a really excellent piece in Community Care and wanted to share it with my readers  (there’s probably some overlap between people who read this and read Community Care, but not total overlap)

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2013/11/27/feels-like-child-social-work-teams-caseload-dies/

It is something that we try not to think about, but the potential is there with every phone call, every email, every decision you make, the question you ask or forget to ask.

I know that some of my readers think that all social workers are heartless nazi-fascists  –  too certain, coy and hard to please, who need to be lined up and shot come the Revolution *, and I don’t expect to ever change their mind. We will continue to Agree to Disagree.

Nor do I happen to think that social workers are all harp-playing bewinged ministering angels who descend when fear and anguish wring the brow. 

Like any profession, there are good ones and bad ones  (teachers, doctors, lawyers, pop stars). Everyone will have and is entitled to have their own view on what proportion of good and bad makes up the profession.  

 It happens to be a profession where a bad one can cause a lot of misery, but it is also a profession where those within it have to carry a lot of fear and disquiet about making wrong decisions  (either way – the Always/Never myth is, as I and others have discussed, a myth.  https://suesspiciousminds.com/2013/09/29/alwaysnever/ 

Nobody can get every decision right, every time).  

If we as a society constantly ramp up the pressure and consequences of getting a decision wrong in only one direction (always) we do run the risk of getting too many wrong the other, less criticised way (never) 

 

 

*I’m reminded of the phone call I used to get at 9.15am every Monday without fail in an early job, from a man who would tell me that “come the Revolution, you and people like you will be first up against the wall and shot… no offence to you mate”

36 Comments

Posted in assessment of risk, serious case review. Bookmark the permalink.

Children of parents who are in the UK unlawfully

Posted on November 28, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

 

  The Supreme Court considered this issue in Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2013,  handing down judgment this week.

 http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0100_Judgment.pdf 

 although it chiefly deals with a judicial review of the Home Office decision that the children could be deported along with their parents to the Republic of Congo, it has some relevance for those advising Local Authorities or parents in care proceedings.

 

It has become less uncommon to be dealing in care proceedings with parents who are apprehensive at the words “Home Office” and often what one is trying to predict is whether the child would be able to remain in the UK once the Home Office have processed the case.  

As relatively few family lawyers are also specialists in immigration law (there’s a limit to how many grey hairs any one human can have at one time), that second-guessing process of the intricacies and innate peculiarity / perverseness of Home Office decision-making is not a very scientific process.

 

I’m afraid that this case does not give a definitive answer – in fact, the Supreme Court were very plain that it was not permissible to have a “hard-edged or bright line rule to be applied to the generality of cases” when considering proportionality under article 8. 

 

What the Supreme Court do say is that

 

“in our view, it is not likely that a court would reach in the context of an immigration decision what Lord Wilson described in H(H) (at para 172) as the “firm if bleak” conclusion in that case, which separated young children from their parents.”

 

 

And that whilst the children’s welfare is not PARAMOUNT, it is a primary factor and no other individual factor outweighs the children’s welfare (so the Home Office would need to stack against it a number of other factors to outweigh a decision which was contrary to the children’s welfare)

 

So, the Home Office is to consider the case, and it will decide either that everyone stays or everyone goes.  [This of course raises curious dilemmas of what happens if say a man comes to England from the Congo, and remains here unlawfully, and marries a woman who has come to England from Angola, and remains here unlawfully; and they then have children together. Where do the children get deported TO?]

 

 

 

Here are the key principles in that consideration :-

 

 

 

(1) The best interests of a child are an integral part of the proportionality assessment under article 8 ECHR;

(2) In making that assessment, the best interests of a child must be a primary consideration, although not always the only primary consideration; and the child’s best interests do not of themselves have the status of the paramount consideration;

(3) Although the best interests of a child can be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations, no other consideration can be treated as inherently more significant;

(4) While different judges might approach the question of the best interests of a child in different ways, it is important to ask oneself the right questions in an orderly manner in order to avoid the risk that the best interests of a child might be undervalued when other important considerations were in play;

 

(5) It is important to have a clear idea of a child’s circumstances and of what is in a child’s best interests before one asks oneself whether those interests are outweighed by the force of other considerations;

(6) To that end there is no substitute for a careful examination of all relevant factors when the interests of a child are involved in an article 8 assessment; and

(7) A child must not be blamed for matters for which he or she is not responsible, such as the conduct of a parent.

 

 

 

One can see, I hope, that predicting what the Home Office decision will be becomes tricky.  The best one can do is guess that the more troubled the country of origin, the less likely a decision to send children to it might be, and that the longer and more settled the children have been in the UK the greater the argument that it is in their best interests to remain in the UK.

 

 

If you are interested, the Supreme Court upheld the original decision of the Home Office, and refused the application for judicial review by the parents.

 

 

24. There is no irrationality in the conclusion that it was in the children’s best interests to go with their parents to the Republic of Congo. No doubt it would have been possible to have stated that, other things being equal, it was in the best interests of the children that they and their parents stayed in the United Kingdom so that they could obtain such benefits as health care and education which the decision-maker recognised might be of a higher standard than would be available in the Congo. But other things were not equal. They were not British citizens. They had no right to future education and health care in this country. They were part of a close-knit family with highly educated parents and were of an age when their emotional needs could only be fully met within the immediate family unit. Such integration as had occurred into United Kingdom society would have been predominantly in the context of that family unit. Most significantly, the decision-maker concluded that they could be removed to the Republic of Congo in the care of their parents without serious detriment to their well-being. We agree with Lady Dorrian’s succinct summary of the position in para 18 of the Inner House’s opinion.

 

            Finally, we see no substance in the criticism that the assessment of the children’s best interests was flawed because it assumed that their parents would be removed to the Republic of Congo. It must be recalled that the decision-maker began by stating the conclusion and then set out the reasoning. It was legitimate for the decision-maker to ask herself first whether it would have been proportionate to remove the parents if they had no children and then, in considering the best interests of the children in the proportionality exercise, ask whether their well-being altered that provisional balance. When one has regard to the age of the children, the nature and extent of their integration into United Kingdom society, the close family unit in which they lived and their Congolese citizenship, the matters on which Mr Lindsay relied did not create such a strong case for the children that their interest in remaining in the United Kingdom could  have outweighed the considerations on which the decision-maker relied in striking the balance in the proportionality exercise (paras 17 and 18 above). The assessment of the children’s best interests must be read in the context of the decision letter as a whole.

 

If one were of course armed with a Guardian’s report and leave to disclose that, and a judgment and leave to disclose that,  both setting out how settled and happy the children are in the UK, and the likely detrimental impact of moving them back to the Congo or wherever applicable, that couldn’t hurt…

 

Not binding on the Home Office of course, but it really couldn’t hurt.

2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Rearrange these three letters – F, W, T

Posted on November 25, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

This is the private law case of Re C (A child) 2013, and frankly, the Court of Appeal missed a trick in not naming it Re (WTF?) 2013    (which also makes me pang for a Court of Appeal authority involving a child named E, where wind plays a major feature, so they can call it RE-E-Wind  – when the crowd say Bo, Selecta)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1412.html

The case involves a five year old boy, C, who became the subject of residence and contact applications, his parents having separated.

  1. The order complained of was made in the county court on 6 March 2013 in Children Act 1989 proceedings issued by mother in March 2012. The order prohibited father from removing his son from the care of mother or from his primary school and provided for indirect contact between father and son in the form of letters, cards and small gifts. It follows that direct contact was refused. In circumstances which I shall describe the order was the culmination of a series of serious procedural irregularities which caused the decision to be unjust. The order was also wrong given that one of the irregularities gave rise to an assumption of alleged facts against father when the court had not conducted a finding of fact hearing and accordingly the judge’s welfare evaluation was based on what is said to be a false premise. 
  2. It needs to be understood that the allegations made against father are serious. The most serious of the allegations and the assertions of risk were not made by mother but by the Cafcass practitioner who was the family court advisor. The allegations have not been decided and nothing which follows in this judgment should be taken to minimise the risk that might exist if the allegations are true. Equally, if the allegations are not proved or the risk assessment is as a consequence or otherwise wrong, the child who is the subject of these proceedings and his father have been seriously failed.

The case peculiarly seems to have proceeded on the basis that allegations made about father had been proven by the Court, when in fact they had not yet been tested. That failing, which is bad in itself, increases when one realises that the main source of the allegations of risk was not one of the parties, but the CAFCASS officer who had been appointed to be the independent eyes and ears of the Court.

In fact, by the time the case got to a substantive hearing, the CAFCASS officer was refusing to visit the father at home, refusing to meet with him in the officer unless there was another worker present, was unable to complete the section 7 report and had become the complainant in criminal proceedings about father’s behaviour towards her.

The opinions that were being expressed by the Cafcass practitioner were not just in her role as a family court adviser independent of the parties. She was also a complainant in criminal proceedings. This court has come to the very firm conclusion that it was wholly inappropriate for the family court advisor to continue to act as the court’s advisor and the child’s ‘effective access to justice’ at a time when she was the complainant in criminal proceedings against the father. It was submitted to us that it is a regrettable fact that Cafcass practitioners are placed in positions of real conflict by complaints and threats made against them and that their priority must be to try and put that to one side and undertake their duties on behalf of children. We acknowledge that and the extraordinary work that they do in the public interest but there is a dividing line in terms of due process and conflict of interest that was crossed in this case. A criminal complainant cannot advise in a family case where the person accused by that complainant is a party.

 

(I’d suggest that one doesn’t need Basil Rathbone, Robert Downey Junior or Benedict Cumberbatch to help one in reaching that conclusion. How on earth can a CAFCASS officer be independent at that point?  That doesn’t mean that the Court have found that the CAFCASS officer was wrong or right in her complaints, just that by that point, she could no longer be assisting the Court in making recommendations about the child’s future – whatever was happening between her and the father had contaminated the independent nature of the role which is so integral to it)

However, she did continue, and prepared a report which understandably was not very favourable to father and considered that he presented an unmanageable level of risk.

 

 

  1. The report filed on 19 December 2012 was 19 close typed pages in length. It described detailed allegations of fact previously unknown to the court in terms which read as if the allegations were true. The reader is left in no doubt that the family court advisor believed the allegations to be true. At no stage was it highlighted that the facts had not been established by a process of fact finding in a family court. It is entirely unclear what facts father had conceded or might concede, which is not surprising given that he was not involved in the preparation of the report. The author described the risk in the case as being:

     

     

    “father’s lack of understanding of the impact of his offences on his child in relation to his risk taking behaviours, domestic violence, risk of possible child abduction; the father’s mental health and related issues, public disorder and so on.”

  2. A very detailed analysis of risk was conducted by the family court advisor with the benefit of input from professionals contacted by her during the preparation of her report. That included whether father’s mental health issues including suicidal ideation, depression and anger and his own social isolation were relevant (on the assumption they were accurately described). One of those professionals compared father with Raoul Moat (the panel beater, tree surgeon and bouncer with criminal convictions for violence who shot his ex-partner, killed his new partner and seriously injured a policeman in 2010). That was not only a professionally inappropriate comparison, it was presumably quoted in the report for maximum impact. Despite that, the author clearly indicated in her report that father’s “mental health status remains an un-assessed risk factor“. The report recommended the order made by the judge three months later. It did not recommend that a fact finding hearing should take place.

 

Okay, you are probably thinking by now that this case was something of a car crash – there are allegations being reported as though they were facts, the independent CAFCASS officer being the complainant in criminal proceedings about father and lurid comparisons of the father to Raoul Moat being made without much evidence.

Stay with me, it is about to get worse.

The Court of Appeal note that both parents were litigants in person, and though they were doing their best with the thorny process, were not able properly to highlight to the Court exactly how messed up things had become. The Court of Appeal describe the judicial handling of the case as ‘fire-fighting  – it may even have been quality fire-fighting, but it was not Case Management’

  1. On 21 December 2012 the proceedings were adjourned to a contested hearing because father did not accept the Cafcass recommendation. The first available date was on 6 March 2013 before a Recorder. There were no attempts in the intervening period to update any of the information contained in the Cafcass report, in particular about father and the risk that it is said he presented. Although both parents were given permission to file further statements the question of how father could or should respond to the serious allegations in the Cafcass report was not addressed, that is the key issues were not identified to be answered and a direction for a fact finding hearing was not made.

     

     

  2. Appointments of the type I have so far been describing take time, particularly where one or more of the parties are litigants in person as a consequence of the provisions of LASPO 2012. If the dispute is not immediately susceptible of conciliation or out of court mediation it will require a lawyer’s analysis. This is after all a court of law. In the absence of lawyers, the judge has to do that and to do that without assistance and sometimes with quite vocal hindrance. That requires more time than in a circumstance where the lawyers can be required to apply the rules and practice directions, produce the witness statements, summaries, analyses and schedules, obtain instructions and protect their lay client’s interests. Where a court is faced with litigants in person the judge has to do all that while maintaining both the reality and perception of fairness and due process. I do not criticise any of the judges involved in this case. Each was handed a case about which he or she knew nothing and given time only to deal with the most pressing issue or two that had arisen. That was fire fighting, it may even have been quality fire fighting but it was not case management.

 

So, we have a car-wreck with the CAFCASS officer, both parents are in person – looking back earlier the only statement from mum dealing with the allegations against dad was not actually evidence (it had no statement of truth) and the Judges who looked at the case were doing their best, but hadn’t really gripped it.

It still gets worse

On the morning of 6 March 2013, that is immediately before the contested hearing began, the family court advisor filed and served a 22 page document entitled ‘Chronology of Significant Events’. The court had not given a direction to permit such a step and so far as can be ascertained there was no advance notice of the same. The document was a detailed schedule of hearsay evidence that might have been appropriate if it had been directed by a court as a lawyer’s forensic summary of the allegations and materials that had already been filed. It was not a summary of the evidence filed unless it could be argued to be a record of the source materials for the section 7 report that was filed three months earlier. It should not have been admitted without argument and it was clearly highly prejudicial and of questionable probative value. It became the primary evidential document in the case, replacing the mother and almost everyone else who might have had something to say on a question of fact. The document was made available to father on the morning of the contested hearing that gives rise to this appeal.

So in the context of all I’ve previously said, the CAFCASS officer then turned up on the day of the hearing, against litigants in person, and ambushed them with a 22 page document, full of stuff that wasn’t actually evidence.

Does it surprise you that I am about to say – it still gets worse

  1. In that context, father made an application to adjourn the contested hearing. His primary purpose was to adduce up to date evidence about his mental health. He asserted that his treatment was susceptible of successful completion and that he would be able to demonstrate that with materials from the professionals involved. In addition and unknown to the family court advisor, the probation officer she quoted in good faith had been replaced sometime in 2012 and as this court now knows, the risk described by father’s senior probation officer who had detailed knowledge of father’s supervision was fundamentally different. In simple terms, his analysis was that father presented a low risk.

     

     

  2. It is not surprising that the judge who was new to the case was unimpressed by an application to adjourn given the lengthy delay there had been in getting the first contested hearing listed. Had she known that a fact finding hearing had never occurred she might have been able to find a constructive way to use the hearing to good effect and still afford father the opportunity to update the evidence about risk and to fairly deal with the family court advisor’s materials.

So father wasn’t given his adjourment, to deal with the ambush that he’d been hit with. And the Court didn’t properly appreciate that the allegations being thrown at him were untested allegations rather than determined facts.

What do you think? Does the next bit make it better or worse? Place your bets ladies and gentlemen.

  1. The hearing then commenced. The mother did not give evidence to substantiate her allegations and was accordingly not questioned by anyone. As a matter of pure technical form, her document of 12 August 2013 was never admitted into evidence. There was therefore no evidence from mother for father to meet and he was accordingly afforded no opportunity to test the direct evidence of domestic violence. The only evidence came from the family court advisor. As I have remarked, she treated the allegations as fact. She gave evidence based upon her report and her substantial chronology, that is hearsay evidence about the facts in issue as well as reported opinion from other professionals and her own opinion. I do not say that this was entirely inappropriate. It is appropriate for a family court advisor to identify the facts or alleged facts she has relied upon and the opinions of others that she accepts or adopts in coming to her own opinions and recommendations. She is after all a qualified social worker whose skill and expertise are those of an expert in that field. That said, had a fact finding hearing been held, third hand hearsay evidence of facts in issue might not have been given great weight in the absence of the evidence of mother or a concession from father.

     

     

  2. I do not ignore the possibility that an alleged victim of domestic violence from an allegedly over controlling or dangerous perpetrator may need considerable support to give her evidence. At the very least it should be established just what evidence she is able to give and an appropriate opportunity should be given to the alleged perpetrator to challenge that evidence. That could have been done by case management or, as I shall describe, by a more inquisitorial process that protected the interests of all involved. What was not acceptable in my judgment was the presentation of facts that were in dispute as if they were decided. The judge who heard the case (and who would have had no knowledge of it before she walked into court on the morning) was entitled to know that contrary to the impression given this was a fact finding hearing where the facts were in dispute. The hearing that was conducted was accordingly not a fact finding hearing, it was a welfare hearing which heard about the severe risk that it was said father presented to mother based upon facts that had never been tested let alone determined by a family court.

Oh God… and just when you think that I must be finished, and things could not possibly have got any worse

To add to the air of unreality the family court advisor gave her oral evidence from behind a screen. Special measures in a family court are not fixed by primary or secondary legislation as they are in the Crown Court. They can however be used in a similar way and for similar reasons. They are a means of facilitating the evidence of someone who is vulnerable so that the quality of their evidence is not damaged by their vulnerability. Children who give evidence often do so with the assistance of special measures such as a video link. It is not inconceivable that a professional witness might need the same facility but it is much less likely: Re W (Care Proceedings: Witness Anonymity) [2002] EWCA Civ 1626, [2003] 1 FLR 329 at [13]. The mischief in this case is compounded by the fact that the family court advisor gave her evidence as an officer of the state behind a screen rendering her effectively anonymous and unseen and she was afforded that facility without due process. If it was said that such measures were necessary that should have been on application to the court on notice to the father and to the mother and full reasons should have been given. There was no such application and if there was neither this court nor the father were aware of it and there is no record of any determination. There is no order. It should not have happened in the way that it did.

 

Scroll back, read that again  – the CAFCASS officer gave her evidence from behind a screen.

Re WTF 2013

Needless to say, the father won his appeal against the order – he was fortunate that he realised, or got advice, which showed him that (as the Court of Appeal said) he had been denied Natural Justice at almost every stage of the process, and the final decision was fundamentally flawed in almost every regard.

 

The Court of Appeal give some useful guidance  for management of cases involving litigants in person (this can only be aimed at Judges, since there’s no prospect of LIPs being aware of this case, never mind drawing judicial attention to it)

  1. I have intimated that a more inquisitorial process may help those judges who need to deal with very difficult cases involving litigants in person where emotions can run very high. At the hearing at which the section 7 report was first available there was an opportunity for detailed case management. In less fraught cases this is often a real opportunity for dispute resolution in the same way that an Issues Resolution Hearing provides that facility in public law children proceedings. That was the latest of the various hearings at which the key issues of fact and opinion could have been identified and if not resolved, described on the face of an order so that the parties and the court would have been clear about the purpose of the contested hearing. Directions could have included providing short answers to the key issues identified and up to date materials which would have avoided father’s last minute adjournment application and his successful application to this court to adduce additional evidence.

     

     

  2. At the hearing and given that it would have been clear whether the key issues included the need to make findings of fact, the judge can control the process to ensure that it is fair. Having been sworn, each party can be asked to set out their proposals and to confirm their version of the disputed key facts. They can then be asked by the judge what questions they would like to ask of the other party. Where lawyers are not instructed the judge can then assimilate the issues identified into his or her own questions and ask each party the questions that the judge thinks are relevant to the key issues in the case. It may be appropriate to give the parties the opportunity to give a short reply. In that way the issues can be proportionately and fairly considered. 

     

  3. At the conclusion of the hearing before us it became clear that separate proceedings under the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 had been commenced by mother without notice to father. This court has not had the opportunity to scrutinise that process. Yet another judge is involved but directions have been given in those proceedings for the facts in issue to be identified and resolved. Given that this has led to detailed witness statements being filed by the parties, we shall direct that any further directions in those proceedings be listed before the same judge who is allocated to determine the Children Act proceedings. 

     

  4. The problems which have complicated this case are hopefully rare. The solution is to use the processes of the court to better effect. The family court is a court of law not a talking shop. No matter how much its judges will strive to obtain safe agreements between the parties, its rules, practice directions and forensic protections are for a purpose – to do right by all manner of persons, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

10 Comments

Posted in cafcass, case law, private law. Bookmark the permalink.

When parents aren’t parents

Posted on November 23, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

The unusual features of Re BB (A Minor) 2013

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/2747.html

It is not unusual within care proceedings to be arguing whether a child’s parents are good parents, or whether they could be brought to the point of being good parents. It is not THAT unusual to be arguing about whether one of the parents is, in fact, not a birth parent of the child and that paternity lies elsewhere. It is pretty unusual to be arguing that NEITHER person claiming to be the child’s parent is in fact their parent.

That’s what happened here. The parents claimed that the mother had had a child in Ghana in 2006, and then that the father brought that self-same child into this country in 2010.

The immigration officers, however, had concerns that he appeared to be older than his given age. UK Border Agency records produced for these proceedings show that F asserted in the course of interviews with immigration officers that B was then five years old and he had been in the womb of his mother for twelve months and had always been big for his age ever since

When the child went to primary school, professionals became concerned that he was much older than his documented age, a paediatrician who examined him when he was ostensibly aged 5 instead concluded that he was 10.

Care proceedings began, no doubt with a view to getting to the bottom of all of this.  DNA testing showed that neither parent was the biological parent of the child. There was a suggestion that the child might be related to the father in some other way.

 

All of this was problematic, since the child had been brought into this country by deception, and that deception rendered the decision by the UK Border Agency to allow him in null, thus meaning that he was here illegally and could be removed from the country, through no fault of his own.

    1. Pursuant to a further direction of the court, the parties then obtained an opinion from counsel specialising in immigration law to advise on the immigration status of F, C and B in the light of documents produced by the UK Border Agency under the earlier direction. In her report dated 25th February 2013, Ms Catherine Cronin, counsel, advised that the deception perpetrated to bring about B’s admission to this country tainted any immigration applications made by or on behalf of C and B. The deception rendered B’s entry into this country illegal and as such he was liable to be removed from the country. Furthermore, the deception provided the UK Border Agency with grounds for refusing not only the application for further leave to remain but also curtailing any leave which had already been obtained as a result of the deception. In addition, Ms Cronin pointed out that criminal offences may have been committed. If the evidence shows that F had been complicit in the deception, then it was possible, advised Ms Cronin, that his British citizenship granted on 1st May 2012 might be in jeopardy Recent amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981 allow the Secretary of State to deprive a nationalised British citizen of his acquired citizenship if satisfied that “deprivation is conducive to the public good.”

 

    1. On the other hand, Ms Cronin advised that immigration courts recognise that children should not be punished for the actions of their parents or their carers and that their welfare and best interests, whilst not determinative of an immigration application, are regarded as important and primary considerations. In this respect, Ms Cronin drew attention to a number of authorities and in particular the decision in Nimako-Boateng [2012] UK UT 00216 in which the upper tribunal stated inter alia:

 

“The problem facing immigration judges is that, although they must attach weight to the best interests of the child, in many cases they will often not be able to assess what those best interests are without the assistance of a decision of the family court. The family court has, amongst other things, procedural advantages in investigating what the child’s best interests are independent of the interests of the parent as well as the necessary expertise in evaluating them. An informed decision of the family judge on the merits and, in some case at least, the material underlying that position is likely to be of value to the immigration judge.”

    1. Further to that advice from Ms Cronin, the parties, with the court’s permission, obtained a report from an expert in Ghanaian law, Professor Kofi Koufuor, who advised that the practice of not registering births in Ghana was still very common although registration of deaths was now much more a matter of routine.

 

  1. As this hearing approached, a particular concern was identified by the local authority and the guardian about how B was to be informed of the truth as to his paternity and age. This process was delayed unfortunately by reason of the ill-health of the guardian who was in due course advised to stand down and has been replaced by another guardian. Eventually a meeting was arranged to take place on 17th April at which the social worker and the guardian were due to speak to B. According to F and C, however, they were unaware that this meeting was to take place. Prior to the meeting F warned the social worker that B would not believe her if she told him about the DNA test and would only believe it if he told B himself. When the social worker and the guardian spoke to B and told him that F and C were not his parents, but that it was more likely that F was his brother, B indeed replied, “I don’t believe you,” and maintained that position throughout the interview.

 

Findings were sought on the following issues :-

(1) how old is B; (2) to what extent have F and C been deceptive as to his age and paternity; (3) has B suffered any significant harm as a result of this deception or, more generally, as a result of the care provided by F and C; and (4) what is the likelihood of B suffering significant harm in the future as a result of the deception perpetrated by F and C and/or their general care of him?

 

On age, the Court determined that B was 14 years old, having been born in April 1999  (some seven years older than the parents, at the time of the hearing, claimed)

The parents had lied about his age and paternity and blurred such memories as the child did have, causing him significant emotional harm. The Court were scathing about that, whilst accepting that for B, the best thing would be for him to live with F and C under a Residence Order and for them to be honest with him in the future.

    1. I find that the deception perpetrated by F and C has caused B very significant emotional harm. I accept that their physical care of B has been good. I also accept that they may have acted with good motives if it is the case that B’s mother died and they agreed to take on B’s care but, because of their extreme deceitfulness, I cannot make any finding to that effect. Other more sinister explanations for their behaviour are equally tenable. Once again, however, I avoid speculation. I am, however, very clear that by pretending that B was someone he is not, by pretending that he is much younger than he really is, they have caused B significant emotional and psychological harm. On the balance of probabilities I think it more likely than not that to some extent they have involved B actively in that deceit but I cannot make any detailed findings about the extent of his involvement. More may become clear about that in due course. To deny a child his true identity is likely to cause very considerable emotional and psychological damage, particularly when, as here, it is probable that he has a memory as to his true identity. The extent of the psychological damage is unclear because, as yet, there has been no psychological assessment, but I think it is almost inevitable that B will require at least counselling and possibly psychotherapy to help him deal with the difficulties he now faces.

 

    1. It is important to stress in this context that the harm does not end with this judgment. I accept the unanimous recommendation of the professionals that it is in B’s interests to remain in the care of F and C under a residence order. To uproot him from the home where he has received a generally good standard of physical care and where he is settled and where he is settled at school would not be in his best interests but that course brings with it certain acute and persisting difficulties. Unless and until F and C start telling the truth about his background, the true narrative of his past life, which starts with this judgment, will continue to be distorted by the lies they have told. That will merely add to B’s emotional and psychological harm and may in due course promote a crisis.

 

  1. There is a further factor that complicates this picture. The false account that F and C have given concerning B now jeopardises the immigration status of all three individuals as explained by Ms Cronin in her advice to this court cited above. That jeopardy is likely to influence the course that F and C now take. Their position is, frankly, very difficult and as a result B faces the possibility that he will now be deported. I accept Ms Cronin’s advice that there may be ways in which the situation can be salvaged for B but there is no guarantee that that will happen. For all these reasons there is a strong likelihood, in my view, that B will continue to suffer emotional and psychological harm for the foreseeable future.

 

The Court also made a Supervision Order.  Sadly for my inner law geek  (my inner law geek is just millimetres below my outer exterior, to be honest) the Court did not debate this interesting question.

s31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 sets out the threshold criteria – the test that must be crossed if a Court is to be able to make a Care Order or a Supervision Order

A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)the child’s being beyond parental control.

 

The significant harm here is not in doubt, there’s a clear judgment about the emotional harm that lying to a child about his age, background and identity and seeking to conceal that from those around him would cause, and it would not be reasonable to expect a parent to do this.  But this couple were not parents. Is there an implied link in that ‘reasonable to expect a parent to give to him’ which means that the harm or likelihood of harm HAS to flow from a parent.  (Admittedly that can often take the form of the parent exposing the child to, or failing to protect the child from, AN ADULT other than a parent who harms him).  But here, whoever B’s parents were, it wasn’t them who harmed him, but the people who took on a parenting role.

It is very legal nit-picky, but that’s who I am.  In previous cases, I have seen the harm established as a result  the PARENT  exposing the child to or failing to protect from the adult who did harm the child, or in the cases where the injury might have been caused by a child-minder, either exoneration of the parents (if they could not have predicted any risk) or a Lancashire finding (if the parents could not be excluded)

If there IS no implied link between significant harm and it being the parent who caused it, can significant harm (for s31 purposes) be caused by the child being at school and a teacher hitting or molesting the child? My heart says no, that unless there was a failing on the part of the child’s parents, whilst the child has undoubtedly been significantly harmed, the ‘harm being attributable’ limb is not made out.  But a case like this makes me wonder a little.

[I think that the Court could have said, for example, to all extents and purposes, these people behaved as though they were parents, and will be treated as such for the purposes of s31 (2)  – it is their actions in being his primary care-givers that places them in the context of ‘parents’]

5 Comments

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

The leave to oppose Tsunami

Posted on November 23, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

 

As anticipated,  since Re B-S showed practitioners that the historically high (perhaps even insurmountable) test for leave to oppose adoption applications had been too high, and too heavily weighted in relation to the factor of potential disruption to the child in placement, the appeals have started to come in. I understand that Ryder LJ has already spoken of a “tsunami” of appeals which are heading towards the Court of Appeal.

Here are two :-

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1481.html

Re L (Leave to oppose making of adoption order) 2013

The Placement Order had been made in Feb 2012 and the child placed with adopters in March 2012 (so we are getting on for a year and a half in placement). As the Court of Appeal observe, an unusual feature of the case is that the adopters had separated in the course of that placement – somewhat peculiarly they were jointly pursuing the adoption application though had not decided between themselves who the child was to live with. Early on in the court proceedings the prospective adoptive mother dropped out, leaving Mr X as the prospective adoptive father to carry on with the adoption application as a sole carer.

 

The Court of Appeal considered that the trial judge had not properly weighed the ultimate prospects of M succeeding in her application given the backdrop of uncertainty and change in the prospective adopters situation.

 

    1. When a judge considers a parent’s prospects of success for the purposes of section 47(5), he is doing the best he can to forecast what decision the judge hearing the adoption application is going to make, having the child’s welfare throughout his life as his paramount consideration. What is ultimately going to be relevant to the decision whether to grant the adoption order or not must therefore also be material at the leave stage.

 

    1. The judge deciding the adoption application would need to approach the hearing bearing in mind what McFarlane LJ said in Re G (supra) about the dangers of a linear approach to decision making in child care cases. He would have to make “a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child’s future upbringing” (Re G §50) before determining what would serve the child’s welfare throughout his life. In the present case, the strengths and the weaknesses of M’s situation would have to be considered in isolation, as would the strengths and weaknesses of Mr X’s situation, and, as McFarlane LJ said in §54 of Re G, each option would have to be “compared, side by side, against the competing option”. This exercise would have to be carried out remembering that adoption is only to be imposed where that is necessary, as the Supreme Court underlined in Re B [2013] UKSC 33.

 

    1. An option that might appear not to be in a child’s interests in one context might, by this process of global, holistic evaluation, carry the day in another context. Here, M’s case that she would be able to care for S, or alternatively that there should at least be a further assessment of her ability to do so, would not fall for consideration, as is usually the case, alongside a settled and stable adoptive placement which had been going on for some time. The competing option would involve an adoptive household which has been subjected to protracted disruption and uncertainty which is yet to be completely resolved. First, there was the separation of the adopters, then the change from a joint adoption to an adoption by Mr X on his own, with Mrs X withdrawing from S’s life completely. Mr X’s new relationship and the anticipated baby changed things again and there still remains the outstanding dispute over where Y will live. Even once that is resolved, it will no doubt take some time for the X family as a whole to learn to live with the consequences of these extensive changes. That there is uncertainty in both options, not just in M’s situation, may turn out to be a very important feature in determining what will serve S’s welfare throughout his life.

 

    1. It seems to me that where the judge went wrong was in failing to consider whether the uncertainty in the adoptive household might improve M’s prospects of success and to make allowance for that. Putting it another way, what I think was missing was a consideration of M’s present position in the context of the disruption and uncertainty in the X household.

 

    1. Although he went as far as contemplating that the adoptive placement with Mr X would not ultimately succeed, the judge dealt with that possibility by making the assumption that, in those circumstances, S would be moved by the local authority to carers whose parenting abilities were at least good enough and probably better than good enough (§56) and that, although there may be delay whilst they were identified, S would be cared for meanwhile “either by approved foster carers or by potential adopters known to have adequate parenting skills” (§59). Even if not entirely apposite to the legal situation arising here, one question that might at least have generated the right sort of consideration is whether, in the event that Mr X’s adoption application were not ultimately to succeed, as the judge contemplated was possible, it may in fact be appropriate to pursue further the possibility of a placement with M rather than S being placed forthwith by the local authority with an alternative adoptive family as the judge assumed would happen.

 

  1. I do not think the judge can be criticised for being cautious about a return to M on the evidence as it stood. He said that it would be “experimental” and did not think it likely to succeed (§57). However, he appears to have been looking for quite a high degree of present certainty in this regard, speaking for instance of M being unable currently to “satisfy” the court of her abilities (§58). The degree to which a court needs to be confident about a parent’s abilities at the section 47(5) stage is likely to vary, in my view, depending on the other circumstances of the case and I say a little more about this in the final paragraph of this judgment. Where the other option under consideration also has significant uncertainties, a lesser degree of confidence may sometimes justify the granting of leave and it seems to me that that was so here. In such circumstances, it may also be that greater allowance might be appropriate for the fact that there has not been an opportunity for the evidence to be tested (both that in favour of M and that which may undermine her case).

 

NOTE that this case didn’t get sent back by the Court of Appeal for re-hearing (i.e the judgment needed work) but the Court of Appeal instead granted the leave, and the contested adoption hearing will therefore take place. (That’s a step farther than Re W – though that case clearly laid the foundations for the Court of Appeal making such a decision). The Court also emphasise that although the impact on the placement isn’t as heavy a consideration for the second stage (the welfare decision) as previously considered, the stability and duration of the placement could be weighed in the balance when determining the solidity of the mother’s application (an otherwise solid application could flounder on that particular dimension)

    1. Nothing that I have said in this judgment should be taken as any indication of a view of the ultimate strengths and weaknesses of Mr X’s application or (apart from the preliminary determination necessary for section 47) of M’s case. The evidence is not yet complete either in relation to Mr X’s circumstances or M’s, and none of it has yet been tested.

 

  1. I would like to add a final few words of more general application than just this case. I am very conscious of the difficulties inherent in applications under section 47(5). The relationships and hopes of not just one family but two are imperilled and the material upon which the decision has to be taken is, of necessity, often far from complete and not infrequently has not been tested in a hearing with oral evidence. I have not intended in this judgment to be prescriptive as to the way in which such applications are handled by the expert family judges who resolve them with skill and sensitivity. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances of individual cases vary infinitely. Where, for instance, a child has been placed with adopters for a protracted period, is well settled, and remembers nothing else, a court may well take the view that there has to be a degree of confidence about the parent’s ability to provide a suitable home for the child before it can even contemplate assessing the parent’s prospects as solid. And the cases show that the overall circumstances of the case may be such that the court may decide not to grant leave even where there is some confidence in the parent. Re B-S was an example of a mother who had achieved “an astonishing change of circumstances” (Re B-S, §3) but did not get leave to oppose adoption because of the situation of the children (ibid, §102). Re C (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 431 was a case of a father who could have provided for the child’s physical needs but failed to get leave where the child (who was by then 4 ½ years old) had been settled with the adopters for over 2 years and had no relationship at all with him. At the other end of the spectrum, there will be cases in which the evident deficiencies in the parent’s case are such that, notwithstanding the existence of uncertainty or other issues in relation to the adoptive placement, the parent’s case is not solid enough to justify the grant of leave to oppose.

 

[It is interesting of course that two years of placement was considered this year, by the President no less in Re C, to be quite a clear cut-off point beyond which the Court would not possibly tamper with the placement, and six months later an 18 month old placement seems to count for very little : “ C has now been settled for over two years with the adopters. How can we, how could any judge, take the risk of disturbing that?“: )

The next one, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal – so one looks for clues and guidance within it

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1480.html

Re D (Leave to oppose making of an adoption order) 2013

The child had not lived with mother since May 2011, and Placement Order was made on 18th May 2012, placement with adopters Sept 2012  (note, six months LATER than in the appeal above that was granted)

The original court was satisfied that there had been a change of circumstances on mother’s part, thus satisfying the first limb of the two stage test, but decided that the circumstances did not justify reopening the case. Fairly naturally, in the light of the jurisprudence in the latter part of this year, the mother appealed.  In fact, she got silked-up (which suggests that public funding MIGHT have been obtained for her, would be interested to know that)

The appeal was effectively on the Re B-S, Re G and Re W grounds, that the Court had not properly weighed the mother’s prospects of success (which don’t have to be for return, they can be in persuading the Court to NOT make the adoption order), that the positive aspects of an alternative to adoption and the negative aspects of adoption had not been properly weighed.

    1. Although Judge Caddick in the present case did not use the word “solidity” in connection with his assessment of M’s prospects of successfully opposing the adoption, that was clearly what he was looking for, finding it lacking as we can see from his statement that it would be “highly improbable” that the court would say the position was sufficiently different to enable M successfully to oppose the adoption application.

 

    1. Was he wrong to assess M’s chances in this way and/or did he fail to demonstrate in his reasoning how he arrived at this conclusion, as Ms Connolly said?

 

    1. In answering this question, it is important to read the judgment as a whole. As the court observed in Re B-S (see §74(ii)), the question of whether there has been a change in circumstances and whether the parent has solid grounds for seeking leave are almost invariably intertwined and so they were here. The position that the judge reached, as he said expressly in §18, was that there had been a change in circumstances but that there were also features of the period following the making of the placement order which weighed against the progress that M had made, three in particular being identified in §§18 to 26 of the judgment. The judge’s concern about these was that the offence in June 2012 and the incident in February 2013 in particular indicated remaining immaturity on the part of M; in my judgment he was entitled to take that view, even allowing for the difficult circumstances in June 2012. HHe He rightly put these events into the context of M’s previous immaturity and, although he could perhaps have reasoned this stage in his decision making more fully, we can see, I think, from §38 that, quite independently of the question of how L would be affected by delay and/or the disruption of her placement, he concluded that the overall picture was such that M was unlikely to be able to establish that her position was different enough to persuade a court that it was in L’s interests to be placed with her. He had the particular advantage of having heard M’s oral evidence in which the events since the placement order were explored and it seems to me that he was entitled to arrive at this assessment, which deprived the M’s prospects of the necessary solidity.

 

    1. It was entirely appropriate that the judge should consider L’s circumstances and those of the adopters. Re B-S underlines that what is paramount in adoption decisions is the welfare of the child throughout his or her life and that it is important for judges not to attach undue weight to the short term consequences to the child of giving leave. It does not, however, say that even short term consequences for the child are completely irrelevant and they certainly are not. Similarly, Re B-S recognises that in some cases the adverse impact on the prospective adopters, and thus on the child, is something which may have considerable force (§74(ix)) although equally it is important that undue weight should not be given to the argument for the reasons set out in that paragraph.

 

    1. I do not accept the argument that the judge omitted to consider, or to give proper weight to, the benefits to L of being brought up by her own mother. That vitally important factor is recognised in §37 of the judgment, albeit in quite short form and without express reference to the provisions of section 1 of the Act. It was also stressed in the passage which, in directing himself on the law, the judge cited from Re P, which concludes with a statement that the paramount consideration of the court must be the child’s welfare throughout his or her life. As I see it, the core of the judge’s decision was that he just did not consider that the changes in M (for which he properly recognised she should be commended) were going to be sufficient to enable a court to conclude that she could bring up L at the present time.

 

  1. I have not been persuaded by the arguments so cogently advanced on M’s behalf that the judge erred in his approach to this case or failed to set out his reasoning for his decision sufficiently. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

 

As seems to be happening a lot in the latter part of this year, the decision then turns on the precise detail of the judgment, rather than principles which can be extracted. In Re B-S, the Court of Appeal felt that the judgment was robust enough, in Re W, they didn’t. In Re L they felt the judgment was wrong, in Re D, they didn’t.  {Comparing these two cases, in one the change was qualified by later blips  – Re D, the other wasn’t – Re L, and in one the placement was stable and secure – Re D, and in the other it was rather more uncertain Re L – so even without the judgments, one gets some sort of flavour of the task faced by mother}

I am beginning to wonder whether the publication, in anonymised form, of the original judgment ought to be considered with such appeals. Where the appeal turns on the quality and wording of the judgment, and Judges up and down the country need to know what “passes” and what “fails” it might be helpful to see them in full.

 

 

5 Comments

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

“I’m afraid I can’t do that Dave, as a result of subsection 9(b) (iv) (a)”

Posted on November 18, 2013 by suesspiciousminds

 

Another little thought experiment, on Judges this time. Now, clearly Judges at first instance have to very carefully assess the evidence, and the nuances and tone and demeanour of witnesses and attribute weight and balance to a variety of factors. The higher up the Court hierarchy you go, the less important that becomes, to the point where by the time of the Supreme Court, what a witness said or did not say in the box is almost neither here nor there.

 

In fact, what is very often happening in the Supreme Court is drawing together from a variety of sources – the legislation, the guidance and existing principles derived from authority, applying it to the legal dilemma in the case and achieving a decision that ends up being consistent with all of those decisions and perhaps extending the existing principles in a slightly new (yet consistent) direction.

 

Now, it occurs to me that as we reach the point of artificial intelligence, it would be theoretically possible to have all the legislation, all of the guidance, all of the previous authorities, held by a computerised mind, who could then just trace a path through them to reach the decision.  If all that one is doing is looking at the precedent decisions and seeing where they would logically take you in deciding the legal dilemma, a sufficiently wonderful computer can solve that logical problem.

 

Instead of seven law lords, what one would have is a dazzlingly brilliant super computer  S.U.P.R.E.M.E   and the legal dilemma would be inputted and a judgment would come out.

 If you’re like me, then you are probably shifting a little nervously in your seat at this point, and feeling that this is just uncomfortable. There’s more to Supreme Court decisions than just deriving the answer from the principles.

 But that in itself takes us into interesting areas.

 There seems to me to be some sort of qualitative difference between these two questions :-

 

(a)   What is 53,209 divided by 7.33 

 

And

 

(b)   Is a school’s admission policy to give preference to Orthodox Jewish children, looking for evidence that the mother of the child is Jewish by birth or by Orthodox conversion, discriminatory under the Race Relations Act 1976

 

It is not simply a matter of complexity – of course the latter question is more complex, since one can solve the first question in a matter of seconds with a calculator, and the second at the very least is going to involve reading the Race Relations Act and the school’s policy, and any decisions that help clarify how either ought to be interpreted.

 

But there’s still more to it than just complexity, otherwise S.U.P.R.E.M.E could answer both, given the right information (or access to Google to find it for itself)

 

Isn’t one of the differences between the two questions that the answer to (a) exists already – it is out there to be found, and it is utterly replicable. Anyone who does the calculations will arrive at the same answer, regardless of who they are.   (The same would be true if you swapped (a) for “What is the capital of Guina Bissau?”  – it is a factual question, and the answer is out there to be found)

 

The answer to (b) – maybe it doesn’t exist   (well, it does now, because the Supreme Court decided it  in R (on the application of E) v JFS : Governing Body 2009 UKSC 15) and it only exists ONCE the question is asked and answered. The answer is CREATED, not found.

 If question (a) is more like maths, or physics or geography – there’s a factual answer that is true for whoever answers it, then maybe (b) is more like history or english literature – there are certain things within it  “In which Shakespeare play does Ophelia appear?” which are definitive, factual answers (like cases which squarely correspond with precedent) and there are others which the person answering the question creates  “What is the nature of the character Hamlet?”

 

Once we start thinking in those terms though, we inevitably bump into the peculiar wrinkle that the highest legal authorities in the land, which bind future courts and cases and will in turn influence future legal authorities at the highest level are not OBJECTIVE TRUTHS found by the Court, but SUBJECTIVE decisions created by the Court.  And in turn that the Judges who sit on these cases bring something of themselves to that process; that’s why the concept of S.U.P.R.E.M.E deciding it makes us feel a bit edgy.

 

That must intrinsically be right, because all of the Judges in the Supreme Court hear the same arguments, have the same facts, have access to the same precedent authorities. Yet there are dissenting judgments. So what causes that must be that there’s an element, even in the rarefied air of the Supreme Court, of subjectivity to deciding how the legal dilemma should be resolved.  

 

[You may recall my previous blog about the impact of extraneous circumstances, such as proximity to lunchtime on judicial decisions 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2013/09/30/your-honour-may-i-hand-up-my-case-summary-and-a-pastrami-on-rye/   ]

 

This piece derives from another interesting piece of research, which takes as an example the  UK Supreme Court’s decision in the Jewish Free School’s admission policy.

 My attention was recently drawn to this study, which is available in the Journal of Law and Society  (I’m afraid that it is behind a paywall, and as such I can’t let you peep at it, and I have to be limited in how much I can quote out of it)

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2013.00642.x/abstract

 

The study was written by Rachel J Cahill-O’Callaghan of CardiffUniversityLawSchool  (which frankly is becoming a hot-bed of brainy talent, and one day I must try to visit and have my mind blown. Perhaps during the Six Nations…)

 It opens with a lovely quotation from Lord Reid, in which he manages in four lines to say everything I’ve been fumbling in the dark for, and does so beautifully to boot.

 “Those with a taste for fairy tales seem to have thought that in some Aladdin’s cave there is hidden the Common Law in all its splendour and that on a judge’s appointment there descends on him knowledge of the magic words Open Sesame… But we do not believe in fairy tales anymore”

 

 There has been a long debate about the make-up of the Supreme Court and whether it reflects the diversity of our society (hint, no, it doesn’t) but this research goes further than that, and analyses how a person’s position on Values is brought to bear on judgments and decisions.

 

“In reaching a decision, at least one not governed by precedent, a judge will support one or more values above another…. Although the law provides the basis for framing and constraining judicial discretion, in difficult cases at least, it is the personal values of an individual judge that influences how that judicial discretion is exercised and that, in turn, can influence the way in which the law develops”

 

The way that the research tests this is interesting, and involves  firstly identifying a series of values and defining those so that one knows exactly what to look for in relation to each value, then looking at the judgment in the authority, and analysing each line of it, looking at the emphasis that the individual judge places on particular values, which may compete (for example “flexibility in the law” v “Transparency in the law, Corporate responsibility v individual responsibility, freedom v responsibility).  

 

On a case such as this, where the Supreme Court was divided in its opinion, that analysis can then be used to see whether the judges who reached a particular conclusion (there was a breach of Race Relations Act) appeared to place similar emphasis on similar values, and do the same exercise with those who reached the opposite conclusion.

 

On looking at that, there are really stark differences between the values emphasised by the majority judgments and the minority judgments.

 

The author of the report acknowledges that what was not possible was to go back to the individual Supreme Court judges after the judgment, with that analysis, and ask them whether the analysis of the values that each judge “appeared” to prioritise accords with their own view of where their own values sit, but the research uses some clever techniques to try to fill in this gap.

 

 There’s an interesting conclusion that if personal values play a role in judicial decision-making and the framing of the law, then in order for the Supreme Court to represent society one doesn’t merely have to look at the very visible aspects of diversity  (gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background) but also diversity of personal values.

10 Comments

Posted in research. Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →