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

Lucy Reed 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

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…

Service launched to reduce the pain of calling a call centre.

Click here to try the beta test call entre phoning service"John Hemming, who has created an internet Startup called Cirrostratus since he ceased being an MP, is launching a free online service to make life easier for people phoning call centres.   The service is provided by Cirrostratus, but the SIP backbone is provided by the multi-award winning business VoIP solution, Soho66." John said, "Many people find phoning call centres a real pain.  Our service is aiming to make things a lot easier.   One click on alink or the bookmarks list and our server will phone up the call centre and get through all the menus.  This is a lot faster than when people have to phone up and is less irritating." "Additionally the system uses WebRtc and the internet to make the call. This means that people don't find their normal phone system being blocked whilst they hang on the line waiting to speak to a human being." Marketing Manager from Soho66, David McManus, said: &q…

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…