Skip to main content

Statement re Grandparents and Locked Bedroom Case

I have now reviewed the case paperwork for the above case where I have been asked for further and better particulars of the situation with the final hearing and had a meeting with the grandparents. There is no judgment for the case. I have read the transcript of the hearing. This confirms that the hearing lasted of the order of 10 minutes as what was treated as a consent hearing. The grandmother was in the court building, but not in the hearing. The grandfather was in part of the court hearing, but because of hearing difficulties could not really hear what was going on.

The judge was told that the grandparents consented both to a care order and to the threshold documents. The grandparents are both adamant that they did not consent to the care order or that the facts of the the threshold warranted removing their grandchild. The nub of the case was the agreed fact that the grandfather in order to keep their granddaughter safe and stop her getting up to cook during the night, locked her in her bedroom. They are criticised for the lightbulb being removed, however, they had two separate night lights (one battery powered and one which was plugged in) and they inform me that both were switched on. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the room was dark.

The case raises a number of questions:
  1. There is no judgment on the issue of the care plan. The judge was told by the barristers that the grandparents consented to threshold and the care order, but was not told of any consent on the care plan.
  2. The key question of the night lights and whether the room was dark is not considered. This is a substantial flaw that ran through much of the proceedings.
  3. There clearly was not informed consent. There is no record of what was said between the grandparents and their legal representatives. However, they both are quite clear that they either did not agree to what was proposed to them or did not understand the consequences.
  4. At least one previous hearing was clear in that the legal question of threshold (rather than the factual issues) was in doubt and having a rushed final hearing without the respondents engaged properly does not appear to be in the best interests of the grandchild.
In summary, there is no judgment. It is arguable that with the judge being told that the grandparents consented to the threshold and care order that no judgment for those would be required in law. However, there is no explanation to the grandparents why the facts of the situation required that their grandchild be taken into care. Nor is there a judgment as to the care plan which the judge was not told had the support of the grandparents. The final hearing does not in retrospect appear to be a careful consideration of what the truth of the situation was and what was in the best interests of the child. It really raises issues about situations where parties are not actually in the court when decisions are being made. I accept that sometimes parties will deliberately not attend and that is a different issue.


ccp

Comments

Unknown said…
Hello John,
Here is our response to this post : http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/the-shaggy-dog-that-turned-out-to-be-a-woolly-sheep/
Lucy Reed
The Transparency Project

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…