Sunday, January 16, 2011
The human misery behind the statistics
The link is to a story in today's Sunday Telegraph.
In recent months, I have reported on many disturbing examples of how our system of “family protection” has gone horribly off the rails, but none is more bizarre than this week’s. As usual, I am legally barred from identifying the mother at the centre of this case or giving many other details, but she is in her mid-thirties, has various academic qualifications and some time back returned to England after 10 years working in America. There, among other things, she had worked as a counsellor in Guantanamo Bay, but what she saw there led her to start a new career as a financial adviser.
In September 2009, after a difficult pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, by an old friend with whom marriage was not possible. Two months later, she was sitting on her mother’s windowsill, dressed in a coat and hat ready to go out, when she fell, snatching at a curtain in a vain attempt to save herself.
She woke up in hospital, paralysed from the neck down. Soon afterwards, a nurse handed her a phone. It was a social worker from the local council, to tell her that her daughter – who was being looked after by her sister – was to be placed in care and put up for adoption within six weeks. “I was so paralysed,” she says, “that I couldn’t wipe the tears from my eyes.”
The link is to this story. This is what "concurrent planning" is about. posted by John Hemming ¶ 9:14 am
In recent months, I have reported on many disturbing examples of how our system of “family protection” has gone horribly off the rails, but none is more bizarre than this week’s. As usual, I am legally barred from identifying the mother at the centre of this case or giving many other details, but she is in her mid-thirties, has various academic qualifications and some time back returned to England after 10 years working in America. There, among other things, she had worked as a counsellor in Guantanamo Bay, but what she saw there led her to start a new career as a financial adviser.
In September 2009, after a difficult pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, by an old friend with whom marriage was not possible. Two months later, she was sitting on her mother’s windowsill, dressed in a coat and hat ready to go out, when she fell, snatching at a curtain in a vain attempt to save herself.
She woke up in hospital, paralysed from the neck down. Soon afterwards, a nurse handed her a phone. It was a social worker from the local council, to tell her that her daughter – who was being looked after by her sister – was to be placed in care and put up for adoption within six weeks. “I was so paralysed,” she says, “that I couldn’t wipe the tears from my eyes.”
The link is to this story. This is what "concurrent planning" is about. posted by John Hemming ¶ 9:14 am
Comments:
<< Home
What is absurd about this particular case is that time and time again the courts allowed the Local Authority to adjourn the numerous hearings without a word being said towards them, How come then when a parent seeks to adjourn proceedings for mush more real reasons the courts refuse because its not with in the child's time scales.
This case is blatantly obvious the Local Authority from the outset did not have the evidence to justify the reasons for their actions so the courts allowed the Local Authority time and really excessive time to come up with the papers and evidence, also this case shows the Mothers legal representative just sat back and did nothing to stop this matter.
This case is blatantly obvious the Local Authority from the outset did not have the evidence to justify the reasons for their actions so the courts allowed the Local Authority time and really excessive time to come up with the papers and evidence, also this case shows the Mothers legal representative just sat back and did nothing to stop this matter.
It is my understanding that the mother refered in this article has since been scheduled for her next hearing....END OF MAY 2011
This is outrageous since the PLO for Allocation and Transfer of proceedings stipulates allocation to another court will not commence if a significant delay will result in the proceedings. An additional 5 months is absolutely unacceptable.
Post a Comment
This is outrageous since the PLO for Allocation and Transfer of proceedings stipulates allocation to another court will not commence if a significant delay will result in the proceedings. An additional 5 months is absolutely unacceptable.
<< Home
