Skip to main content

Do parents have rights in the family court

The link is to a recent judgment in which para 10 says:
I think it important to remember when one is looking either at the independent assessments by social workers or at applications under section 38(6) of the Act that one needs to be child focused. It is not a question of the mother's right to have a further assessment, it is: would the assessment assist the judge in reaching a conclusion or the right conclusion in relation to the child in question? And on this particular issue it does seem to me that the judge was exercising a discretion and doing so appropriately on all the facts available to him. He thus reached a conclusion which I cannot for myself say in any way is plainly wrong, and since he has based himself on the latest authority on the point and considered the matter carefully, I, speaking for myself, cannot say either that he has erred in law and would dismiss the appeal in relation to a further social worker assessment.

This is a decision of the court of appeal which says that the mother has no right to a further independent assessment. This particular mother has only had assessments done by the local authority or its employees since she gave birth to her 10th child. The court of appeal says that she has no right to an independent assessment.

It is Catch 22.

Comments

Jerry said…
This case is one I site in cases, although slightly differnt aspects of the case to the one above it shows the Judges don't practice what they preach.
Re. GW and Ors v Oldham MBC and Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1247
All though this case revolves around NAHI it is further emphasis for second opinions Consideration, on appeal allowed by consent, of court's reliance on single expert in care proceedings. “The purpose of this judgment, therefore, was to consider: (1) the advisability of the court relying on a single expert in care proceedings, when the issue that expert has to address is of central importance to the judge's findings; and (2) the propriety of permitting parents who deny abusing their child a second opinion”.
LJ Thorpe quoted “This judgment was not to be seen as an encouragement to a disappointed party to challenge pre-final hearing case management decisions; however, such decisions could, as in this case, throw up points of fundamental importance and, in such circumstances",

"a party should not hesitate to seek permission to appeal”.

The court also drew attention to the importance of timetabling in care cases, in particular the Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases [2003] 2 FLR 719. Further, it commented on the position of the local authority and the guardian respectively: the former is faced with a difficult position in contested care proceedings involving NAHI, requiring a delicate balance between the need to make out a case and the duty to place all relevant information before the court; and the latter has a proactive role to play in ensuring that a case is ready for hearing, and that all the appropriate evidence has been assembled; accordingly, if a guardian takes the view that a second opinion sought by parents is properly necessary to achieve justice, he or she should not hesitate to say so.
Jerry said…
And another one

Re. B (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 556
The case was from appeal which was allowed in relation to directions made in care proceedings preventing parents from instructing an expert.
Lord Justice Thorpe stated that proceedings where the potentially permanent loss of a child is at stake must be seen to be fair.

“It is very important that parents who are at risk of losing a child forever should have the confidence in the fairness of the proceedings and that inevitably means the even handed nature of the proceedings”.

I use a further 6 case laws in appeals, all saying the same thing. makes no sense John as to why theses Judges don't seem to remeber their previous court rulings and judgments, maybe J Haines should have looked for cases by the same Judges who heard the RJ appeal,it might not have helped with this appeal but it might next time round.
moira said…
My friend was a top family lawyer in his field who worked for families and the local authority.A decent man who always did the best he could for clients

He said he wouldnt choose law again if he had his time again as the courts and justice system are appallingly corrupt.Says it all.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…