Mother's baby is snatched by Social Services: Court Transcript

[Shoodie]

This is an urgent follow up to a posting I made last week.

It's taken me a few days but, since I got the hint that the forum
needed the full story, I tracked down the final judgement transcript,
scanned it, OCRed it (it may not be perfect), and formatted it in Word
to make it readable.

I must also point out that during this time the Social Services have
found propective adoption parents and have INFORMED THE MOTHER OF A
GOODBYE DATE BEING 15TH JAN 2010 !! :(

SOMEONE PLEASE READ THIS LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT AND ADVISE IF THERE'S
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO GET A DELAY. THE MOTHER NEEDS TIME TO
PROVE SHE IS SANE AND CAN BE GOOD MOTHER !!!

Here goes.........

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Case No: xxxxxxxxxx
Sitting at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court
29-41 Gee Street London
EC1V 3RE
Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE COX

IN THE MATTER OF
L (a minor)
Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
Clifford’s inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4A ILD
Tel: 020 7269 0370
JUDGMENT
(Approved)

HHJ COX:
This is the final hearing in care proceedings commenced by the Local
Authority on
4th September 2008 when they applied for an emergency protection order
in respect of L
who was born in the autumn of 2007 and is now one-and-three-quarter-
years old. I have been deliberately imprecise as to L’s date of birth
because I intend this judgment to be expressed in terms which cannot
identify L or the mother. The reason for this is apparent from the
facts giving rise to these proceedings to which I shall turn
presently.
2. The Local Authority’s application is for a final care order in
respect of L and for a placement order. L was considered by the Local
Authority’s best interest panel on 10th1 June 2009 when a
recommendation was made that L should be adopted outside L’s natural
birth family.
3. The Local Authority issued its application for a placement order on
the 13th July 2009. The Local Authority’s final care plan is to
proceed to identify a culturally, racially and religiously compatible
adoptive family for L and to place her. The timescale for this is
uncertain, but the statement of Ann Johnson, the family finding social
worker, indicates that already three possible matches have been
identified and in oral evidence the social worker told the Court that
there was available a perfect racial, religious and cultural match for
L. It is the Local Authority’s case therefore that if the Court
decides that it is driven to conclude that adoption is in L’s best
interests and that the mother’s consent to that adoption should be
dispensed with because L’s welfare requires it, that they would
immediately begin to take steps to match L with that family and that
placement might be possible within a period of about three months.
4. The responding parties to those applications are L’s mother and L
by the children’s guardian, Miss Dulap. L’s putative father is not a
respondent because in May 2009, after a two-day hearing, I gave a
judgment in which I gave the Local Authority permission not to give
L’s putative father notice of these proceedings and any placement
order application. I also gave the Local Authority permission not to
notify the mother’s family of L’s existence and/or parentage. I took
this exceptional course for the reasons fully set out in my judgment
dated the 15th May 2009. A transcript is available and that judgment
should be read in conjunction with this one.
5. Throughout these proceedings and up until the commencement of this
final hearing, the
mother has been vehemently opposed to the fact of L’s existence and/or
L’s parentage and birth out of wedlock becoming known to her family
and to the putative father. In mother’s counsel’s skeleton argument
prepared for the May hearing, mother’s case was put in strong terms
and I quote,
‘Mother truly believes that her parents would take the view that she
had damaged their honour and as a result, she should die’. Family
honour is very important to her parents. The mother does not want them
to know about L until she gets married and her husband can claim the
baby as his. Her parents would not be able to comprehend that she
engaged in sexual activity before marriage. They believe she is still
a virgin.
Mother’s concern stems from her cultural background and belief system.
Her family is devoutly Muslim. They are of an old respected line
descended from the Prophet. Her family is imbued with a sense of
honour and responsibility that this brings. The mother is adamant she
does not wish to insult her family’s strict Muslim faith, family name
and heritage. The shame, the disgrace, the aproprium that she would
visit on her family is too awful to contemplate. She fears her father
will be beyond anger. She is frightened of their reaction, as in her
culture it is not at all uncommon for women to be severely physically
punished for crimes of this nature, for it is viewed as a crime to
bear a child out of wedlock. Her family originate from a Middle
Eastern country where the cultural, legal and religious regime in that
state is harsh and not predisposed towards leniency in respect of
women who thwart the cultural laws. In the Arab culture, Western
thinking and the manner in which social service’s work is alien to the
precepts and workings of the Middle East legal system. It is a
profoundly serious matter and disgrace if a child is removed from his
or her mother. The maternal family, it is feared, will view this as a
very serious aggravating feature of the mother’s behaviour. The mother
believes that her family will reject their grandchild and that there
is nothing positive that may be gained from telling them of L’s
existence. Consequently, as part of L’s story, L will become aware of
this rejection. Further, should anything punitive or catastrophic
happen to L’s mother, it is entirely possible L may discover this at
sometime in the future. This may well have a serious consequence for
L’s emotional wellbeing.’

6. The mother also, as I have said, objected to the putative father
being informed of L’s existence or given notice of these proceedings.
She described that she had tried to locate the putative father, but he
has failed to contact her. In May 2008, mother contacted a friend of
the putative father and asked him to pass on the news of L’s birth.
However she still heard nothing from the father. The mother was also
concerned that if the father were informed of L’s existence, he would
be forced by the authorities and by his cultural and religious
precepts to become involved and to divulge the information surrounding
L’s birth out of wedlock to the maternal family. The mother’s position
in relation to the putative father is also that she had virtually no
relationship with him after L was conceived. He knew nothing of the
pregnancy, the mother herself being unaware of it.
7. In my judgment in May 2009, I concluded for the reasons that I have
set out therein, that the putative father did not enjoy family life
with the mother, nor was L’s existence something which he contemplated
or even knew of. Therefore, he did not and has not acquired Article 8
rights in respect of L to family life. He, of course, does not have
parental responsibility for L.
8. These factors are highly relevant to the Local Authority’s
application for a placement order. The Local Authority’s has asked the
Court to dispense with the mother and the putative father’s consent to
such an order because L’s paramount welfare interests require that
their consent should be dispensed with. However, I do not need to
dispense with the putative father’s consent as he has no parental
responsibility for L and for the reasons set out in my judgment of the
15th May 2009, exceptionally and in L’s welfare interests, he has had
and will have no opportunity to acquire such parental responsibility.
9. The Local Authority’s case is set out in their evidence and in
their various threshold documents setting out the facts upon which
they rely in satisfaction of the Section 31 threshold criteria. The
Local Authority asserts that L is likely to suffer significant
physical developmental and emotional harm should she be returned to
the care of her mother, if an order is not made, because the mother’s
parenting of L does not give L the care which it is reasonable to
expect a parent to give to the child. The Local Authority in reaching
that position rely upon the factual background of this case which is
largely, if not entirely, uncontested by the mother because most of
the factual history relating to L, and indeed to the mother herself,
comes from the mother and her own accounts of her life.
10. There are, of course, certain facts that the mother does not
accept, in particular the facts concerning the circumstances in which
L was cared for by her and she refutes the assertion that L is likely
to suffer harm in her care let alone significant harm. She therefore
challenges that the facts of this case are capable of demonstrating
that the Section 31 threshold criteria are satisfied. Of course, her
counsel reminds me that the burden of establishing those facts rests
with the Local Authority and that those facts must be demonstrated
upon the balance of probabilities.
11. Any fact that I am required to find during the course of this
judgment, whether it relates to the history, or whether it relates to
the opinion evidence of experts, must be demonstrated by the Local
Authority to that standard and I have taken into full account the
dicta of the House of Lords in the case of Re: H (‘Minors (Sexual
Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 and the more recent
development of principles expressed by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in
that case, by the House of Lords from the case of Re: B (Children)
(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) neutral citation [2008] UKHL 35 and
in particular the judgments of Lord Hoffman and Baroness Hale of
Richmond in Re B.
12. The Local Authority also relies upon upon three assessments.
Firstly the psychiatric assessment of Dr Anil Kumar, a consultant
adult psychiatrist who is currently the head of the female residential
unit at the Maudsley Hospital. He has prepared two reports, his main
report in January 2009 and a supplemental addendum report dated the 3
August 2009. The Local Authority rely upon his conclusions. The Local
Authority, secondly, relies upon an
assessment made of the mother together with L at a specialist unit at
the Breslaff Centre where the mother’s relationship with L and her
parenting abilities were assessed. Their assessment is a negative one.
Thirdly, the Local Authority relies upon the conclusions of David
Morgan, a clinical chartered psychologist who prepared a report on the
mother in May 2009.
13. The Guardian has reluctantly concluded that L’s paramount welfare
interests demand that she is placed for adoption outside the mother’s
care and outside the extended family.
14. In her final analysis, Miss Dulap concluded the following:
‘This has been an extremely difficult case. L’s mother is a vulnerable
young woman from a strict Muslim family. L was born in stressful
circumstances in a hotel in the Middle East. The mother claims that
she did not know she was pregnant. Somewhat surprising, since by her
own admission, this was not her first pregnancy, but L’s arrival had a
devastating impact on her. She was, she says, engaged to be married to
a man who was present during L’s birth and L has been given his name.
However, he subsequently called off the engagement when he discovered
that L had been taken into care. The mother is estranged from her
family apart from one sister and is terrified that her parents will
find out about L. She has nowhere of her own to live and seems to be
leading a nomadic existence, moving between friends in North London
and her sister’s address in Central London’.
In my opinion, she is a confused and troubled young woman who is
caught up in a situation from which there is no happy outcome as far
as she is concerned. If her family find out about L, there is a
serious risk to her and possibly to the child. If L were to be
returned to her, the mother would be very isolated with nowhere to
live and little in the way of a support network’.
15. The Guardian continues that much has been made of mother’s alleged
lack of commitment to L. The Guardian remarks that,
‘The main reason why the mother has not been consistent in attending
contact which takes place in South London is that she has a long
journey to make of two hours at least each way. Inevitably, she has
been late on many occasions, meaning that contact has had to be
cancelled. On other occasions, she has failed to turn up without
explanation.
The mother was also consistently late for the assessment appointments
at the Breslaff Centre having been told time and again of the
importance of punctuality. This was said to note a lack of commitment
on her part.
However, this has not been the only concern. The Breslaff were able to
observe the mother with L for extended periods and have grave concerns
about her interaction with L which lead them to conclude that she had
a long way to go before she could really understand and be able to
respond to L’s developing needs’.
16. The Guardian continues:
‘There is no doubt in my mind that the mother does love L and wants to
be able to care for L. In many respects, she has been incredibly
committed to L given the difficulties she has had with the
consequences of L’s existence. However, the mother has continued to
make an effort to attend contact and to insist that L should be
returned to her. It would have been much easier just to walk away from
the situation. Understandably, the mother finds it hard to admit the
difficulties she would encounter were L to come back to her. She
cannot understand the concerns expressed by the Breslaff about her
parenting and there is evidence to suggest that she would find it hard
to take advice, believing that her way of doing things is fine’.
17. The Guardian continues, assessing the mother’s position that
everything will be fine if L were returned to her care as being
somewhat naïve, and says, ‘The mother has not been able to produce any
independent evidence to support her plan’. The Guardian points out
that Mr Morgan, the clinical psychologist, described the mother as,
‘Impulsive and emotionally unstable,’ and suggested that without
change, she would find it difficult to put L’s needs first.
18. The Guardian says that, ‘Sadly little has changed for the mother
since the start of these proceedings. The one thing that has been
consistent has been her belief that her family must not know about L’.
It follows therefore that were L to be living with her, they could
both be at serious risk.
19. To summarise, the Guardian concludes,
‘That there are a number of reasons why it would not be in L’s best
interests to place L with her mother. First, there are very real
concerns that L could be at risk of serious harm from the mother’s
family. Secondly, the mother has not been able to put forward any
viable plan as to how and where she and L would live and how she would
meet L’s basic care needs on a day-to-day basis. Thirdly, there are
concerns expressed by the Breslaff about her ability to meet L’s
emotional needs and whether she would be able to accept and act on
advice’.
Dr Morgan’s suggestion that, ‘a culturally sensitive family worker
should provide support that would normally be provided by a family,’
is a plan that the Guardian concluded would be hard to put in place.
The Guardian has been somewhat critical of the way in which the Local
Authority has prosecuted this case. However, in the end, the Guardian
concludes that it is in L’s best long-term welfare interests to be
made the subject of a full care order and a placement order.
20. The mother’s case is, as I have already indicated, that she does
not accept that any of the facts which have been demonstrated by the
evidence are capable of satisfying the Court that the threshold
criteria are made out. She does not accept that L was in any sense at
risk in her care at any time and points out that L was physically
healthy on L’s reception into voluntary accommodation. She does not
accept and cannot understand the concerns expressed by the various
experts who have assessed her. She says that she has just obtained
somewhere to live. She attended court having just signed a short-hold
tenancy agreement for a 12-month period with a six-month break clause
in West Central London. It is a basement flat with one bedroom and
patioed area and is suitable accommodation for L. She has just applied
for housing benefit.
21. Her case in the past had been that she should remarry and pass L
off as her husband’s child by another relationship. However, at this
hearing, her case is that she is prepared, gradually, to tell her
f3imily of L’s existence. Until the commencement of this hearing on
Monday, 3rd August, no-one knew that anyone other than a younger
sister of the mother was aware of
the true circumstances of L’s birth and parentage.
22. However, she now informs the Court that she has told her older
sister (her older sister being a person of influence in the mother’s
family) about the true circumstances of L’s birth and parentage. Her
older sister has agreed to help her and the mother informs the Court
that her older sister suggests that they tell the maternal grandmother
that the mother was married
and divorced according to Islamic religious requirements and that L is
legitimate. This, of course, is the same story that mother told the
authorities in the Middle East.
23. The mother’s older sister has, today, provided a very brief
unsigned statement. I will read it in full.
‘I am the sister of the first respondent herein. I am making this
statement in support of my sister and of her having L returned to her
care. I have not given my address in this statement as I am absolutely
terrified of my husband finding out about this matter.
In my culture, it is of great shame that the mother has had a baby and
that there are care proceedings in relation to that baby. This matter
of shame is to both my culture and my family. However, my sister is my
sister and I love her very much. I wish to support her in any way I
can and I am willing to do so. I am willing to give my sister 100%
support and I will assist her with caring for the baby, financially
and emotionally.
I usually live in Egypt with my children. I have five children. My
husband works and lives in London and my children and I are currently
in London on holiday. However, if my sister needs me to stay in London
for a longer period to help her, then I will. I believe that if L is
returned to my sister’s care, then I will able to speak to my mother
as the oldest daughter and influence my mother to accept both the
mother and L. I believe that my mother will accept both my sister and
L and that as a result of my mother accepting them, the rest of the
family will also. I would advise that when my children were small, my
sister often helped with them and she was very good at looking after
them. I believe that my sister will make a good mother.
I will try to attend court tomorrow at 10.00, but it is very difficult
to try to get
out of the house with my husband around and without telling him what
is going
on. I could not possibly tell my husband about this matter at the
moment whilst
L is still in the care of the Local Authority.
I love my sister very much and I wish to stand up and support her and
therefore,
I am doing what I can in very difficult circumstances. Whilst what the
mother
has done is wrong in my culture, she is still my sister arid my blood
and I want
to do what I can to assist her. It would be devastating for L to be
placed for
adoption.
I make this statement from my own information, knowledge and belief,
believing the same to be true and know that it will be placed before
the court’. It is dated the 5th August 2009. That is yesterday’s date
and as I have said, it is an unsigned statement.
24. The mother, in her evidence, revealed that apparently she had told
her older sister in February of 2009 of L’s existence and the
circumstances surrounding her birth. This is incongruous with the
mother’s vehemently stated case in May 2009.
25. The mother also relies upon evidence which was called unexpectedly
before me at the very moment before the delivery of this judgment. The
mother has many times mentioned a circle of friends that she has and
in particular, a young woman with whom she lived for a period of
months on her return to the United Kingdom from the Middle East when L
was a very young baby. That young woman’s mother came to court
unexpectedly this morning to give evidence. She has been permitted to
give evidence and her evidence is that she will give the mother
whatever support she can. She herself is someone who has employment 16
hours a week and she has family duties and other things to attend to,
but she will be able to see the mother on a daily basis, either for a
period between two and four hours when she has time or half-an-hour if
she does not. She says she has known the mother since the mother was
about 15 years old. She says she is a very close friend of the
mother’s family and that that is how she came to know the mother
herself. She says, of course, what the mother has done is wrong, but
she is still a good friend and will be there to give her support. The
mother relies upon that evidence.
26. The mother’s case has radically changed since May of this year,
some three months ago. Indeed, most of the evidence which is
independent of the mother and positively supportive of her case has
become available in an unsatisfactory form and very late. Nonetheless,
I will give it due weight in reaching my decisions.
27. The mother does not accept Dr Kumar’s current diagnosis of her.
She does not accept that there are any concerns about her ability to
meet L’s emotional needs. She does not recognise any need to change
and she does not recognise that she would be assisted by therapy.
Cognitive behavioural therapy has been suggested by David Morgan.
However, the mother says that she will engage in therapy if that is
what it takes for her to be able to keep her baby. The mother does not
see the need for any assistance with looking after L, but she says she
will accept intervention from the Local Authority in the form of
social work visits. She will accept a family support worker as
suggested by David Morgan, a culturally compatible and sensitive
person to support her in her daily care of the child.
28. The mother also argues that she has, in fact, improved since her
youthful escapades in that she has desisted from alcohol and drug
misuse and she has not for some time now engaged in transient sexual
relations with men. I accept that there is no evidence before the
court that within the course of these proceedings the mother has
either abused alcohol, or drugs, or that she has engaged in any
relationship with another man. She also says that since the Breslaff
assessed her, she has improved and that despite Dr Kurnar’s concerns
that if she continued without counseling to be under considerable
stress, which of course she has been, that she would have a
deterioration in her mental health and there was a risk that she would
suffer a depressive episode. She points out that, in fact,
notwithstanding the stress of these proceedings and of having to find
herself somewhere to live, she has not succumbed to a depressive
episode. Further, she says that her relationship has continued to
develop with L and that there are contact notes which demonstrate that
she has a good understanding of L’s emotional needs and that she has a
good relationship with L.
29. She, therefore, asks the Court not to make any order, but to
return L to her care. She does not suggest any particular structure to
that return such as a gradual increase in contact. Nor does she
suggest that a Court might make a supervision order. Nor does she
suggest the need for any further professional assessment. Her case is
that she is a perfectly good mother and L should return to her care
now.
30. In carrying out the balancing exercise that I must when
considering the evidence in this case and in reaching my decisions, I
must, first of all, consider the applicable law. Firstly, I must at
all times place L’s welfare as my paramount consideration in all the
decisions I make concerning her welfare and future upbringing and of
course, the decisions that I am asked to make are such decisions. I am
guided by Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and Section 1(4) of
the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I have already reminded myself of
the need to find any facts proved on the balance of probabilities in
accordance with H and Re: B.
31. I also remind myself of the dicta of Lord Templeman in the very
well known case of Re:
KD [1988] AC 806, a case concerning the competing rights,
responsibilities and human rights of parents and children. In that
case, which has been approved so many times by the Court of Appeal
subsequently and most recently affirmed again by Lord Justice Wall in
the case of L & H, a decision taken in March 2007 concerning
assessment when Lord Justice Wall repeated the well-known passage from
Lord Templeman’s judgment again in full. I have to remind myself
that,
‘Wise or foolish, rich or poor, literate or illiterate, the best
person to bring up a child is that child’s parent and that that right
is the right of the child and will only be displaced, if it is
proportionately necessary for it to be displaced in order to protect
the child’s wellbeing’.
32. Therefore, it is not a question of what would be more appropriate
for L or what might give her a better standard of living. L’s absolute
right (not the mother’s absolute right but L’s absolute right) to be
brought up her mother will only be displaced if this Court is driven
by evidence to conclude that her welfare demands it and that she
cannot be properly protected by any less draconian order than those
sought by the Local Authority.
33. I remind myself that the orders sought by the Local Authority are
a very significant interference with L’s right to family life with her
mother and a very significant interference with the mother’s rights to
family life with L. These are orders which, effectively, are one step
away from negating the mother as a parent. I bear all that in mind in
reaching my decisions.
34. I turn to consider the evidence. For the sake of brevity, I am not
going to rehearse the evidence that I have read and/or the evidence
that I heard orally from the witness box. I will consider the evidence
that is relevant and pertinent to my decisions as I narrate the
history of the case and as I come to consider the factors I must to
consider which are set out in the Section 1(3) and Section 1(4)
welfare checklists.
35. I have, of course, read two lever arch files of evidence,
including two statements from Glenys McLaughlin who was the first
social worker assigned to L’s case and three statements, I believe,
from Alicia Fowler, the social worker who was subsequently allocated.
I have read all the mother’s statements and the Guardian’s reports. By
way of expert evidence, I have read the two reports from Dr Anil
Kumar, the report from David Morgan, the report of Dr Sarah Al Tamini,
a general practitioner who examined L when she was with her mother in
May 2008. I have read the placement and/or Family Finding social
worker’s statement from Lisa Ann Johnson. I have read the assessments
from the Breslaff and the paper assessment exercise carried out by One
Step at a Time in April 2009. I have read all the contact notes to
which I have been referred by counsel and I have read the documents
from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning the mother’s
circumstances in the Middle East after L’s birth. I have heard oral
evidence from Alicia Fowler, the social worker, from the mother, from
Dr Anil Kumar and from the Guardian.
36. I now turn, first of all, to consider the mother’s history and her
lifestyle. As is abundantly clear by now, L came into the world very
unexpectedly. She was a surprise to her mother who had not recognised
that she was pregnant until the day preceding L’s birth. L was
delivered in the bathroom of a hotel room in a Middle Eastern country
where the mother had gone for a holiday. L was delivered with the
assistance of a male friend of the mother who had been known to the
mother as a family friend for some years. L had a very difficult
birth. It may be that she suffered some minor head injury as a result
of the force of the delivery and she was 4 weeks premature. She was
admitted on the day of her birth to a hospital in a Middle Eastern
country where she remained for two months.
37. The mother was in very dire circumstances in the Middle East. It
is clear from the documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
that the mother was considered a candidate for prosecution by the
authorities for adultery and for attempting to procure an abortion,
both very serious, and both likely to result in mother’s imprisonment
and/or flogging. Additionally the mother was by reason of L’s pre-
mature birth, obliged to overstay her permission to remain in the
Middle Eastern country concerned because her visa, which was a holiday
visa, expired during the currency of L’s admission to hospital.
Furthermore, hospital treatment in the Middle East is, of course,
expensive and the mother had no money. She also had no accommodation
and was staying in very difficult and stressful circumstances in a
hotel for which she could not afford to pay. It was in those
circumstances she turned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for
assistance and it is from their documentation that the majority of
those facts are established.
38. How did that extraordinary set of events come about? The mother,
throughout her conduct of this case and certainly in this hearing has,
from my memory, pretty much throughout the proceedings, presented
herself as a victim of circumstance, as a person to whom things
happen. She even told me this in her oral evidence concerning her
pathological lateness, for which I am not overly critical and does not
have a massive impact upon my decision making, but it is nonetheless
illustrative of her attitude. She said, ‘I set off to get off to where
I am going, but things happen to me’. The mother has, I find from my
observation of her and in tune with the evidence that I have heard
from all the professionals, whether it is the social work
professionals or mental health professionals, a complete inability to
understand the consequences of her actions. She does not understand
cause and effect.
39. The reason that the mother found herself in the circumstances she
did in a Middle Eastern country where L was born was because she had
become pregnant. Although she did not know that (and I am disposed to
accept that she was in denial about the pregnancy because I do not
believe if the mother had known she was pregnant and advanced in her
pregnancy, she would have gone on holiday to a Middle Eastern country
where to be in such a condition without being married would expose her
to the grave risk of being prosecuted and severely punished), it is,
however, and I agree with Miss Dulap, extraordinary that the mother
did not recognise that she was pregnant because she has had, I think,
a number of previous pregnancies.
40. The mother gave a description of her life to Dr Anil Kumar and it
is with her own words that I will now describe the background history
prior to L’s birth. I am looking at Section 5 page 23 of the trial
bundle. (That is for the assistance of counsel and/or any person who
is privy to this judgment.) Under the heading ‘Background
information,’ Dr Anil Kumar notes this: ‘The mother is a 28-year-old
lady living on her own. She has been living in the United Kingdom
since 1993 and is a United Kingdom citizen’. He then gives a history
of her employment. ‘She came to the United Kingdom with her parents in
1993 and her parents lived in London. Grandmother lives in Edmonton’.
41. The mother told Dr Anil Kumar that she had lied to various people,
including social services about her background history and she was
worried about the serious consequences if her parents and the family
knew that she got pregnant before marriage and had premarital sex.
‘She was very worried about the consequences and wondered what her
father and brothers would do if they knew that she has destroyed the
family honour by having a baby before marriage’. The mother went on to
say that she lied also because she did not think that the Local
Authority would understand if she told her real story. The mother has
accepted completely that what she told the Court in her first
statement was, by and large, untrue.
42. In passing, I note that the mother felt obliged to fabricate a
distinguished academic career for herself including a degree from
Cambridge University. I do not see how that particular untruth was
anything designed to protect her and L from the wrath of her family.
It seems to me to be a piece of aggrandisement congruent with several
personality traits that have been noted in the mother by both Mr
Morgan and Dr Anil Kumar.
43. Dr Anil Kumar notes that the mother was extremely anxious about
disclosing information about herself.
‘She wanted all the information about herself to be kept very
confidential and does not want her family to be contacted. She does
not want any of this information to be disclosed to the family. She is
worried that if her mother knew about the baby, she would have a
terrible shock and die of a heart attack. She is also worried that her
father and brothers will be very upset and does not know what they
will do. She told me that, “honour killing,” is not uncommon in
Islam’.
There is, in passing I note, corroboration for that proposition,
firstly in a statement from a social worker employed by the Local
Authority who verified that indeed there was an objective and a
serious risk of that kind of retribution, and secondly in the form of
a conversation between the Guardian and the mother’s younger sister
who confirmed that in particular, the mother’s family would regard the
mother’s situation as being absolutely reprehensible and a complete
disgrace to the family honour. This, of course, has been affirmed very
recently by the statement of the mother’s older sister in which she
expresses being absolutely terrified of the idea of her husband
finding out that L is in the care of the Local Authority and/or L is
illegitimate.
44. Therefore, I find as a fact on all that evidence that it is highly
probable that the mother and/or L would be at significant risk of
physical harm and emotional harm from the mother’s family. I am not
persuaded by the wishful and nebulous evidence produced by the mother
and her older sister to try to persuade me that there will be a way of
convincing the maternal grandmother, as the matriarch of the family,
that L will be accepted. Even if the subterfuge of the marriage and
divorce were used, it would be very difficult, I find, for the mother
to explain why it was in those circumstances that for two years L’s
existence had been kept from the maternal grandmother if there was
nothing of shame in L’s existence. The mother, to this day, is still
lying to her own mother about her circumstances and telling her that
she is living and working in Kent. Now I find that the mother has done
that because she, of course, cannot bring herself to go to her mother
and explain her circumstances and it would be unthinkable for her
mother to know, for example, of L being in the care of the Local
Authority. The maternal grandmother is also someone who, the mother
asserts, has a significant health problem in that she at 59 has
already had a heart attack and bypass surgery in 2006. She is someone
therefore who is vulnerable to stress. I find that it is highly
probable that the grandmother would find the circumstances, even the
fabricated circumstances surrounding L’s existence, to be very
stressful.
45. The mother gave a fairly full history about her own family’s
origins with which I need to be concerned. However, I do note that the
mother moved from the Middle East to the United Kingdom in about 1993
at a time when she would have been at a critical stage of her
development. It is clear that that move was one which caused her
considerable disruption. She had been a bright student in the Middle
East, excelling in mathematics and other subjects. She had real
trouble in mastering English and yet had to contend with being
educated in an English school in London. She found the cultural
adjustment quite difficult too.
46. Her other sisters managed to remain within the fold of the family
and faithful to their Islamic background in that they employed a
subterfuge of being able to conceal loving relationships that they
developed with culturally and religiously appropriate partners and
then to induce or construct traditionally arranged marriages. That may
mean that they were able to maintain a balance between their cultural
and religious heritage and their more Western desire to pursue a
relationship of emotion before marriage.
47. The mother reacted very strongly during her adolescence and
fundamentally rebelled against her family, her culture and her
religion. She observed a much more Western way of life in London and
as a young student did not pay attention to her studies but enjoyed
the freedom of coffee bars and friendships. She found it more and more
irksome to be restricted in her social behaviour by her family and in
particular, her mother.
48. In the fullness of time, the mother’s father attempted to arrange
marriages for her. Now she told Dr Anil Kumar that she was engaged six
times. On each occasion, she would persuade the young man concerned
not to go ahead with the marriage. However, on the last occasion in
2004, the man concerned was not persuaded to withdraw and the mother’s
father gave her away in Nikah. In other words, she was formally
married. That was the last straw for the mother in terms of her
relationship with her family. She ran away from home and requested a
divorce. This was procured. She never met the man to whom she was
briefly married.
49. The mother then says to Dr Anil Kumar that she started lying about
herself and her family from that stage on to protect her and her
family’s identity and not to bring shame on her family. Therefore, the
mother has developed a habit of life in which she sees it necessary to
fabricate about herself and her history in order to protect her
family’s honour. I find it probable that fabrication has become
something of a habit of life for the mother and that she will lie in
order to achieve a beneficial outcome for herself and to achieve her
aims and goals. This is clearly demonstrated by the forged marriage
certificate which she managed to procure to persuade the Middle
Eastern authorities that she was a married woman who had divorced to
extricate her herself from the real and severe threat of prosecution
in the autumn and winter of 2008.
50. The mother has engaged in a number of extramarital sexual
relationships. This is something which is sometimes unremarkable in a
Western culture. However, given the mother’s background and very
strict religious upbringing, this was an absolute rejection of her
core heritage and something which was clearly in high opposition to
her parents’ values. She has had, apparently, two abortions and one
miscarriage, therefore three pregnancies. She has had, I accept, a
very irregular menstrual cycle and her evidence is that she had not
menstruated since after the last miscarriage when she had a Depo
injection for contraception until L was born.
51. She has had a very disturbed lifestyle since she ran away from her
home in 2004, really up to the time when L was born without any break.
She had a relationship with a young man called Kamal and she stayed
with him in a studio flat. They had a sexual relationship by which she
became pregnant three times. She found that Kamal was in fact much
younger than her and therefore, any plans they had for a permanent
union did not proceed.
52. I note that the mother’s reason for not pursuing a more serious
relationship with L’s father was that he was a much younger man than
herself. She seems to be searching for a older partner in life.
53. The mother not only had a number of unwanted pregnancies, but also
she, on one occasion, took an overdose. That was when she was trying
to persuade her family that they should not force her into an arranged
marriage. She took an overdose of tablets in 2004 and she then lied to
her family telling them that she had taken a second overdose when
marriage was threatened again.
54. There are other instances of self-harm in the mother’s history.
She, allegedly, tried to throw herself out of the window when she was
with Kamal. This was in 2005. She was upset after an argument with her
boyfriend and she had a great deal to drink. She told Dr Anil Kumar
that she had haifa bottle of vodka and a number of shots of spirit at
the time that she did this. The mother said that she lied to Kamal,
saying that she was trying to throw herself out of the window when in
fact she had only opened the window to get some fresh air being
intoxicated.
55. In any event, she was taken to hospital and she was given
psychiatric treatment. She does not appear to have had any other
psychiatric treatment in this country, but she had some psychiatric
treatment in Dubai.
56. She has a history of sleep disturbance. Throughout Dr Anil Kumar
‘s reports, it is revealed
that she is habitually a bad sleeper. Clearly, she suffers
sleeplessness when she is stressed; I
find numerous references to disturbed sleep patterns stretching back
to the period when she
received psychiatric treatment in 2005.
57. The mother met the putative father of L in July 2006. He was a
wealthy Middle Eastern student. Mother says that they were serious
about their relationship though they never cohabited; they would meet
and engage in sexual relations in other places, hotels, rented flats
and so on. They ended their relationship at the end of March 2007.
This was perhaps right at the beginning of the time when the mother
was pregnant with L. I have substantially covered the history of the
relationship between the mother and the putative father in my judgment
dated 15th May 2007 and I do not intend to repeat it. However it
appears to have been, whether the mother entertained serious emotional
commitment to the putative father, a transient relationship which
ended in yet another unwanted pregnancy, the fourth.
58. The mother does not appear to have had sufficient responsibility
to ensure that she did not become pregnant by regularly taking
contraception. There is reference to the Depo injection at the time
when she terminated her third unwanted pregnancy, or I beg her pardon,
it may have been a miscarriage. However thereafter, clearly, she, as I
say, is not aware of consequences.
59. Her lifestyle, on her own admission at the time when she was
indulging in the sort of life that she had between 2004 and 2007 was
very unsettled. She was frequently out clubbing. She drank to excess
on a regular basis and she occasionally misused cannabis. I have
already and accept that after L’s birth, there is no evidence that the
mother has repeated these very extreme forms of destructive behaviour.
Indeed, I)r Anil Kumar, in January 2009, acknowledged that the mother
had good insight into the destructive effect of things like excessive
alcohol consumption on a regular basis and the misuse of prohibited
drugs and a tendency to form transient relationships.
60. As a result of all those difficulties, the mother, of course, as I
have described, found herself pregnant in a Middle Eastern country
with a very strict Sharia regime and as a consequence, she and L were
in a very precarious position indeed during the three-month period of
their sojourn. I have already briefly described the difficulties: the
mother was teetering on the brink of disaster almost from the moment
of L’s birth onwards until she managed to extricate herself With
typical eloquence, the mother’s counsel Mr Cregan has described the
mother as, ‘resourceful and ingenious,’ in the way in which she
addressed her problems in the Middle Eastern country. She was
certainly persuasive.
61. There was a quality of naivety, I find, about some of the mother’s
suggestions to the consular officer at the embassy in the Middle
Eastern country. At one point, for example, she suggested that the
ruler of the Middle Eastern country concerned would pay the baby’s
hospital bills because he was a generous man. Whereas I, of course, am
sensitive to cultural difference, I still find that that was naïve and
fanciful. The mother virtually laid siege to the embassy in her
efforts to persuade them to finance her hotel bills and to support her
generally in extricating herself. I find that they did give her a very
great deal of assistance in negotiating with the police about the
impending prosecution of the mother.
62. The mother was, however, successful in her deception of the
authorities and she was successful in producing a forged marriage
certificate which persuaded them that she was not an adulteress and
that she should not be prosecuted. That, therefore, was something from
which the mother might have been able to profit later when she
returned to this country.
63. The mother has only lived with L for a period of something like
four or five months. L was premature and in hospital, as I have said,
for two-and-a-half to three-months immediately following her birth. I
find that that is likely to have hindered the mother in forming a
close bond with L in those early months. That is ‘something that the
mother herself has acknowledged both in her oral evidence to me and to
Dr Anil Kumar in her narrative. She said in her oral evidence to me,
however, that she formed a stronger bond with L after L was discharged
from hospital on the 2nd January 2008.
64. She cared for L, as I have said, in a hotel room, sometimes under
threat of immediate eviction; sometimes not being permitted to occupy
a room but having to sleep in the hotel lobby in an attempt to
dislodge her because she had not paid her hotel bill. She appears not
to have been able to take precaution such as holiday insurance before
she left to go to the Middle East, nor does she seem able to have
acquired cheaper accommodation than a suite in a hotel. The mother’s
evidence on that was that it was impossible to secure cheap
accommodation because the location concerned had been inundated with a
Middle Eastern football fans, but football matches and their
associated celebrations do not continue over a period of three
months.
65. The mother is somebody who does not consider herself, I find, to
be a person who should be living in constrained circumstances. Her
family history, as reported by herself, is of a very prosperous and
respectable family which fell on hard times when the grandfather lost
his money. I find that the mother has acquired feeling that she is
entitled to a good standard of living. This is why she, when she
returned to this country from the Middle East in the spring of 2008,
would not go into temporary bed and breakfast accommodation.
66. She had to return to this country from the Middle East because she
had been evicted by her landlord and her property had been disposed
of. She therefore came to the UK from the Middle East to sort that
situation out, leaving the young man with whom she had begun an
engagement in the Middle East. That young man had, I find, been
supportive of the mother in the Middle East. He had assisted her with
L’s birth and he had given L his own name which was something very
honourable to do given the taboo about L’s illegitimacy.
67. The mother’s evidence was that this young man was infatuated with
her and was keen to marry her. Certainly, that was something which
preoccupied the mother greatly during the period of time that L was in
her care. When she returned to this country therefore, she did not
pursue temporary Local Authority accommodation. Instead she lived a
nomadic life billeting herself on various friends; some friends in
North London, very close in fact to where her mother and other family
members live; something which would have exposed her and L to risk of
discovery and retribution, and another friend in Kensington and a
younger sister in Central West London.
68. Because she had no address, she was unable to register L with a
general practitioner. L was a premature baby, very petite and at
considerable risk of infection. She was not irnmunised because the
mother could not register L with a GP. The doctor to whom the mother
took L in an attempt to secure proper immunisation for L in May 2008
said this,
‘Dr Smythe and myself feel L is at considerable risk as she was born
prematurely and is not on an immunisation schedule. She will need
immunisation and eventually a referral to the paed-team for
developmental delay and possible Social Services support as you see
appropriate. I understand there is the problem of the family not being
registered at an address at present. They are staying at a very good
friend’s home whilst they set themselves up with a more permanent
accommodation in the interim. Please could you consider registering L
as a temporary patient, or to be seen as an immediate and necessary
patient, so she can at least have her first imrnunisations’.
The mother does not accept that there was a likelihood at that stage
that L could suffer significant harm. I find that fact of itself
establishes that at that stage there was that likelihood and that of
course was at a time just before L was accommodated.
69. In the end, the mother employed a subterfuge in order to register
L with a general practitioner, but she did this after L was received
into the care of the Local Authority. I find that the relevant date
for the threshold criteria to be considered is 28th May 2008 when
protective measures were put in place. In other words, L’s
accommodation in the care of the Local Authority.
70. The reason why L was accommodated was that the mother had left her
with a friend of hers in this Local Authority’s area. The arrangement
had been that she was to go and seek assistance from a housing
solicitor about whether she could challenge her eviction from her
previous property and had left L with her friend for a day. The mother
who had not been sleeping well, yet another reference to her sleep
disturbance, was unable to sleep at her sisters where she had gone to
stay without L. However she then managed to sleep in the day when she
should have gone to retrieve her child. She was not answering her
mobile telephone and her friend became alarmed and in the end
contacted Social Services. The mother, finally, was contacted by the
Local Authority who told her that she should come to their offices to
collect L by 5.30. Unfortunately, of course, the mother was too far
away from the Local Authority’s offices to be able to arrive in time
and therefore L was accommodated and placed in Foster Care.
71. L had been the subject of discussion between the mother and her
friend and it seems to me that it is common ground that there was a
plan devised by the mother for her to leave L, then aged six-months,
in the care of her friend who can have been no more than a very bare
acquaintance of the baby’s for a period of between one and two-months
while she returned to the Middle East in order to marry the gentleman
who had given the baby his name. In so doing, the mother argued she
would then be able to present L to her family as a legitimate child of
her marriage. Her evidence as to the impact that such a parting would
have had upon her and on L was of deep concern to me and I find that
it demonstrates a complete lack of a true relationship between the
mother and L at the time when that separation occurred.
72. 1 do not rely on a person’s general knowledge of child
developmental to know that a baby of six-months-old to be separated
from his or her primary carer would suffer significant emotional harm.
I rely on the obvious truth that any mother with any degree of empathy
or relationship with her baby would know immediately that the child
was attached to her. A child’s cry is something which physically
prompts lactation in women because nature has so designed it to
promote the child’s need for protection and to engender the sort of
attachment that is necessary to nurture a young human being. The fact
that the mother could sit in the witness box and tell me that it would
have had no effect on her baby to be left by her mother because the
baby would have no memory was something which demonstrated to me that
the mother has serious difficulties with empathy and with perceiving
the child’s needs.
73. Furthermore, she said to me in the witness box that although it
was difficult for her to leave L, she was behaving proportionately
because she was trying to secure L’s long-term future. She argued that
L should have a family, a father as well as a mother. Dr Anil Kumar
generously said the mother may have been thinking about financial
support in securing a husband. Furthermore, I find that it was
unnecessary for the mother to consider leaving L for a period of
months because the mother had a stratagem that had already been
successful. In other words, her pretence of having been married and
divorced, which stratagem could have been presented to her extended
family as an explanation for L’s birth and existence which would have
been entirely culturally acceptable. That would immediately have given
the mother recourse to the support of her respectable family, her
mother, her sisters, their husbands and so on.
74. The mother did not take that course. As it happened, the mother
did not go to the Middle East because L was received into the care of
the Local Authority and that was such a disgrace that the young man
concerned withdrew his interest in the mother. I accept that as being
entirely culturally likely.
75. The mother was then in a terrible situation; isolated, unable to
tell her family of her dilemma, no longer with any prospect of
marrying, separated from her daughter and homeless. She has remained
in that situation throughout these proceedings and has taken no step
until literally the eleventh hour of the eleventh day to do anything
about regularising her situation. She has, of course, produced at the
beginning of the hearing evidence of a tenancy. I do not have a great
deal of faith in that evidence I am afraid because firstly, looking at
the assured short-hold tenancy document, the signatures to it have not
been witnessed and therefore, I am not at all sure whether it is
legally binding document. However even if it were capable of being so,
I remind myself of the mother’s ability to procure forged documents.
Therefore, I can have no faith that this is a genuine tenancy. I also
note that the rent is, as Counsel for the Local Authority properly
pointed out, a very high rent, a rent of £360 per week. I am not at
all sure, and I have no evidence to demonstrate that it will be so,
that the housing benefit that the mother has applied for will cover
the whole amount of the rent. I think it probable there will be a
shortfall. There is nothing in the evidence to demonstrate how the
mother is going to make good that shortfall. Further, there is mention
in the document of a deposit of 2,l60 being held. The mother’s oral
evidence was that somehow she had only had to hand over a matter of
hundreds of pounds. Altogether, that evidence is most unsatisfactory
and it is not the sort of evidence which is cogent enough to persuade
this Court it could be confident in L’s security in terms of
accommodation.
76. The mother has had grave difficulties with contact. The Guardian
has very generously said that in some ways, it is obvious that the
mother is very committed to L because against all the considerable
difficulties that she faces and I accept that they are considerable
difficulties, the mother has continued to take part in the legal
process and has continued to insist that she wishes L to be returned
to her care and to come to some contacts. However, she has been
consistently unreliable, consistent in her inconsistency about her
commitment to contact. There were altogether between October 2008 and
July 2009 69 offered opportunities of contact. The mother has attended
29 of those, meaning that 40 visits were missed.
77. The non-attendance on six occasions was for reasons completely
outside the mother’s control, things like train strikes or a
cancellation of transport, or on two occasions the foster mother
becoming frustrated with the mother’s lateness and refusing to bring
the child or being unavailable to be contacted in order to make the
child available. Those sort of reasons. On three occasions, the mother
was so late that contact had to be cancelled and on three occasions,
the mother had other appointments which I think are entirely
reasonable. One was a job interview, once her grandmother died and
once the mother had to see a housing officer. Had those been the only
opportunities missed, then they would have been insignificant.
However, by far the largest category of missed visits are occasions
when the mother has been unwell nr occasions when the mother has
provided no reason at all that is recorded for failing to turn up to
contact. -
78. 1 am very concerned about the mother’s physical vulnerability. I
note in his report, Mr Morgan talks about her personality traits
evincing, a tendency to physical vulnerability, aches, pains and the
like and that chimes exactly with the sort of reasons that the mother
has given when she is unwell for not coming to contact. These are not
obvious recognisable, contagious illnesses like influenza, or a heavy
cold, or gastroenteritis. These are occasions when the mother, by and
large, has either had bad headaches, or been ‘feeling dead,’ was one
description she gave, having been unable to sleep, or are related to
very heavy menstrual periods which the mother describes in her oral
evidence as being so debilitating that they meant she could not walk.
79. In particular, one such occasion fell upon L’s first birthday, a
birthday which, although I accept perhaps not terribly significant for
L at the time because she would have had no cognitive memory and
probably would not know it was her birthday, was nonetheless, a highly
significant date for any loving parent and a day on which a
photographic record could have been made for L in the future. The
mother, on the day of what had been arranged as an extended contact
through the Local Authority, cancelled that birthday contact . The
reason she gave was that her sister’s child had been in hospital and
that she had attended the hospital and had been there until the early
hours of the morning and that she had a very heavy period and was in
pain. She demanded instead that L should be brought to Central London.
That, I find, demonstrates a lack of attachment on the mother’s part,
a lack empathy and a lack of consistent commitment to L. There were 11
other such occasions when the mother was unwell and 16 occasions as I
have said when no explanation was offered at all.
80. I take fully into account the stress experienced by any parent
going through legal proceedings and having one’s child removed, and I
take into account that the mother is particularly sensitive to that
because of her culture, although having one’s child removed and in the
care of the Local Authority is perceived as a disgrace for any
family.
81. I take all that into account, and I am familiar with all the
stresses which are brought to bear on parents in care proceedings.
However frequently such parents are able nonetheless to make every
single contact visit and will travel long and inconvenient journeys in
order to be able to see their children. The fact that this mother has
not done so is very surprising. It is surprising and bewildering
because of the mother’s repeated vehement protestations that she loves
her child and that she needs the child back, and because of the
evidence that she did make some substantial changes to her life after
L’s birth, for example desisting from the destructive patterns of
behaviour that she had pursued beforehand. This strange dichotomy is
illuminated by the opinion of Dr Anil Kumar in his final analysis. Dr
Anil Kumar wonders (and I accept Mr Cregan’s submission that it is not
my business to speculate, but I do not consider that Dr Anil Kumar was
speculating but offering a possible diagnosis for the mother’s
ambivalence) whether the mother is subconsciously not able to cope
with the idea of caring for L in the future. That is why her behaviour
is so self-defeating in terms of her efforts to secure the child’s
return to her care.
82. She has not assisted herself in any way during these proceedings.
She has, as Mr Cregan says, been prepared to be assessed by three
experts, but she has not engaged. She has merely gone along. She has
not demonstrated, as Dr Anil Kumar pointed out in his oral evidence,
an ability to gain insight into the concerns that everybody has about
her ability to look after L and her unstable and isolated
circumstances, but instead has become very defensive.
83. The Local Authority were very slow to get off the mark and do
anything about the situation once L was received into their voluntary
care. I am now convinced that the mother was offered contact with L
three times a week though that too was not taken up fully by the
mother. However, the Local Authority raised an issue about the
parentage of L and required the mother to demonstrate by way of DNA
testing that she was indeed L’s mother. That meant that until that was
established, no assessment process could be undertaken and that, of
course, as usual, took an enormous amount of time. In the end, Dr Anil
Kumar was identified as a doctor who had the requisite expertise to
give an opinion on the mother’s mental state which the Local Authority
required before they could identify how best to assess the mother’s
ability to offer care for L in the future. It was in that way that Dr
Anil Kumar came to be instructed and to write his long first report
which was submitted in January 2009.
84. At the end of his report, Dr Anil Kumar had by no means reached
adverse conclusions about the mother. He had, by and large, been
sympathetic and he was, although worried about the real possibility
that the mother could suffer a depressive episode and identified
several traits in her personality which might indicate that she had an
unstable personality disorder, he tended towards a diagnosis of
adjustment disorder at that initial stage, though with the caveat that
almost all the information upon which he based his report had been
sourced from the mother and no other Source and advised that
corroboration of her account was necessary and that he would wish to
see her medical records, which I do not think were ever made available
to him.
85. Dr Anil Kumar preferred a provisional diagnosis of adjustment
disorder. In other words, that because of the circumstances that the
mother found herself in and the terrible social isolation and disgrace
that L’s existence had brought upon her and her dire circumstances in
the Middle Eastern country where L was born and her then returning to
homelessness in this country, she was suffering from a disorder
brought about by failing to adjust, or adjusting badly to external
pressures which because of her vulnerable personality, disposed her to
such disorder. He also noted underlying depressive traits given her
history. He, at that stage as I have already said, acknowledged that
the mother had insight into her past behaviour in that she was clear
that her misuse of substances and her lifestyle had a negative impact
on her and L. However, at that stage he did not identify other things
which later have become apparent to him.
86. As a result of Dr Anil Kumar’s opinion, it was decided that the
best way to see whether L could be safely returned to her mother’s
care was by an assessment with the Breslaff. The Guardian, in
particular, identified that unit as being one sympathetic to parents
and usually persistent in giving every opportunity for the
rehabilitative process to work. The Breslaff assessment was pretty
much disastrous. Firstly, the mother was destructively late; on some
occasions, not turning up at all through illness and/or being so late
that work could not properly be done. A preliminary and very cursory
report which I did not find satisfactory in March 2009 indicated that
the Breslaff were unconvinced that the mother had sufficient
commitment to engage in an assessment and they were not prepared to
continue. I was not happy with it. The mother felt that she bud not
been given a fair opportunity. I agreed with the mother and the
Guardian agreed too and Miss Fowler, the social worker, and the
Guardian both spoke to the Breslaff from the court at that particular
hearing. As a result, the Breslaff was prepared to give the mother
another chance.
87. That happened and the result is the report dated 31 St March 2009
from the Breslaff which is negative in its conclusions. The mother was
once again destructively late. I use that word ‘destructive’ because
it was her own interests that she was confounding in her repeated
lateness because it did not enable the assessors to have sufficient
time with her, properly to observe her, nor for her to show and
demonstrate properly her parenting abilities. For example on one
occasion she arrived late, so that her arrival coincided with the
baby’s arrival. This was the baby’s first visit to a new place and the
baby was going to have to separate from her foster carer to whom she
was primarily attached. That meant that the beginning of the contact,
rather than being set up by the mother as calm and planned was instead
chaotic and anxious for the baby and that, of course, had a negative
impact upon the way in which the contact developed for the mother
too.
88. Other episodes of lateness involved the assessors being unable
fully to feed back to the mother some of their concerns so that she
might have been able to address them and move on. However, I am quite
satisfied that, brief as the assessment was, it did provide
illumination not just in terms of the lateness and the lack of
commitment in that way, but in real concerns about the mother’s
ability to empathise with L.
89. In particular, the Guardian has picked up the fact that the mother
finds it very difficult to adjust to L’s current state of development.
She still frequently treats her like a babe in arms which, of course,
was the way she was when she left her care. She cannot recognise L’s
need to travel out and explore her environment, rather picks her up,
cuddles her too close even when this is really quite uncomfortable for
L. There are also circumstances in which the mother does not recognise
that when she leaves the room suddenly, for example, this is going to
worry and distress L who does look for her mother, who does have an
attachment, but the mother is not in tune with that. This leaves me
with serious concerns about the mother’s attachment and ability to
read L’s emotional cues in quite a major way.
90. 1 am not going to read the Breslaff’s report into this judgment,
but I have, in particular, taken into account the descriptions that
they have made of the observed contact between the mother and L. These
are described at pages three. four and five of their report. In
conclusion, they say:
‘Unfortunately, the mother has not demonstrated the desired level of
commitment to either the contact with her daughter or the assessment
process. She found it difficult to discuss issues pertaining to her
parenting of the child, particularly around the issues of empathy
towards L and child development. The contact observed showed no signs
of positive improvement. As a consequence, the centre is unable to
recommend a rehabilitation of L with her mother’.
91. I pause to remark in passing that that conclusion has been
challenged on behalf of the mother by contrasting the conclusion with
some of the contact notes where the contact supervisor has noted that
the mother has on occasion been able to follow a piece of advice and
there are some very nice contacts where the mother has clearly been
loving to L and attentive to her and involved with her in playing.
There are, however, other contacts where the mother has been unaware
of L being in an unsafe place. For example, at one contact L was
repeatedly going behind a television set where, in the end, a contact
supervisor was obliged to intervene to retrieve L and/or to tell the
mother to do so because she was physically not safe. The mother was
preoccupied with trying to get a DVD or video player working so that L
could watch her favourite DVD.
92. In her oral evidence to me Miss Fowler pointed out that whereas
those at the Breslaff were there to assess and to observe and to
evaluate, those at contact were there mainly to support and to ensure
L’s safety. They are not trained assessors, but those who support
contact.
93. 1 find that the concerns which were thrown up by the Breslaff
report are well borne out by the analysis carried out of the mother by
Mr Morgan, the chartered psychologist instructed by the mother to
assess her cognitive functioning and her personality.
94. 1 am particularly assisted by Mr Morgan’s analysis of the mother’s
personality traits. He says this,
‘The mother’s score suggested a personality style characterised by a
confident and explosive personality. She assumes that she is special
and superior to most people. She tends to exaggerate her own abilities
and positive attributes, constructs rationalisations to inflate her
own worth and belittles others who refuse to accept or enhance her
self-image.
Despite that, she is insecure and painfully aware of her limitations.
This conflict may surface through mood changes and cause her at times
to become resentful and angry and on still other occasions to be
contrite, apologetic and overly cooperative.
She wants to appear intelligent, outgoing, charming and sophisticated
and has a need to be conspicuous, evoking affection and attention from
others. She is likely to make good first impressions because she can
be friendly and helpful in interpersonal relationships. However, she
is unlikely to accept criticism and tends to project whatever feelings
of inadequacy she has, attempting to dismiss her failures as resulting
from the irresponsibility or incompetence of others’.
In particular, I take account of the sentence in paragraph nine of the
report of the psychologist, Mr Morgan, which highlights the inability
of the mother to, ‘Accept criticism because she tends to project
whatever feelings of inadequacy she has, attempting to dismiss her
failures as resulting from the irresponsibility, or incompetence of
others’. I find that there was a striking congruity between that
observation and the way in which the mother has expressed herself to
others in the written evidence and in the way that she gave her oral
evidence before me. She tends to fixate on tiny details of irrelevance
which she then insists are the explanation for things which really are
better explained by her own mistakes.
95. Mr Morgan continues at paragraph 10:
‘She indicated a pessimistic outlook, a melancholic mood, a chronic
sense of loss, a failure to experience much pleasure in life and
feelings of hopelessness about the prospect of experiencing much
pleasure in the future. She believes that she needs the help of others
to make ends meet and her self-image appears to be so poor that she is
uncomfortable when she is treated nicely and may seek out situations
in which she will be hurt or rejected. It is as if she has come to
expect mistreatment and routinely has, almost by design, the type of
interpersonal interactions that would be expected to bring about the
abuse. The resentment that she encounters will play a role in bringing
about negative interpersonal interactions. Even though she is inclined
to put herself down, she is likely also to devalue others and
demonstrate resentment in an insulting or hostile way and derive some
pleasure from humiliating others’.
He recognised,
‘-a pervasive pattern of instability in terms of her moods,
interpersonal relationships and self-image. She may have significant
problems with authority and resent any control placed on her. She may
be aggressive, angry or even cruel and could be plagued by destructive
ideas which may be directed at herself or others.
She also reported a high degree of anxiety related to apprehension and
phobic reactions, indecisiveness, tension, restlessness and physical
discomforts associated with tension. An apathetic and dejected mood,
feelings of discouragement, guilt or hopelessness and a lack of
personal initiative, fatigue, weakness, tension, jumpiness, inordinate
sweating. aches, pains and physical discomforts and a depressed mood
of such magnitude that it would prevent her from functioning’.
As I have already remarked, that particular passage chimes in very
clearly as consistent with the mother’s repeated ailments which were
the reasons why she was unable to attend contact.
96. Mr Morgan concludes that the mother would benefit from cognitive
behavioural therapy. He says,
‘If she is willing to participate, evidence of progress would be
likely to be seen within six sessions. Her commitment to persevering
in treatment could provide an indicator of her ability to put L’s
needs before her own. In order to cope with the demands of a baby with
low levels of support, it would be better if the therapy suggested
above was completed before L’s return’.
97. Dr Morgan also suggested that, ‘A culturally sensitive and non-
judgmental family worker could provide advice and guidance that would
otherwise be provided by the mother’s family’. He also notes,
‘Her impulsiveness and emotional instability suggest that without
change, she would find it difficult to put her daughter’s needs first.
Her stated willingness to leave L at the age of less than seven-months
can be interpreted as suggesting impulsiveness and a weak attachment
to her daughter, but it could also be interpreted as indicative of the
desperation of a woman who felt that she had no option but to marry as
soon as possible to protect her from the most serious charge in her
culture’.
98. That balanced observation lead Dr Morgan to make the suggestions
he made. None of those suggestions has been acted upon. The Local
Authority has not set up, or suggested that the mother should engage
in cognitive behavioural therapy of which I am critical of the Local
Authority. Perhaps they should have made an offer. Nonetheless, the
mother has not once asked for such therapy and indeed, she has on a
number of occasions, including in her oral evidence, stated that she
does not need it.
99. She has said that she will, of course, participate in that
therapy, but only if it is a way to secure the return of L. The
therapy would, of course, have no effect at all were the mother merely
to go along with it in order to placate this Court, or the Local
Authority. The whole purpose of the therapy, as I understand it, is to
effect change, the sort of change without which Mr Morgan felt that
the mother would find it difficult to put L’s needs above her own.
100. Finally, I consider the addendum report of Dr Anil Kumar and his
oral evidence which he gave to me yesterday. Dr Anil Kumar’s
impressions at the end of a lengthy interview with the mother (which
was once again nearly disastrously frustrated by the mother forgetting
her appointment with Dr Anil Kumar) were these:
‘The mother seems to have a rather emotionally immature personality. I
have mentioned in my previous report that she has features of an
unstable personality disorder, impulsive type. She continues to have
features of an emotionally unstable personality disorder and this
could be considered as an immature personality disorder. What has
become more evident is her emotional immaturity and her inability to
take any responsibility for her actions. She continues to project all
her bad feelings on others and hold them responsible for things which
have happened to her. She thinks that her turning up late for the
appointments is due to the traffic or other problems which are not
under her control. She fails to understand that the thing which is
very much in her control is to leave early and to be there early for
the appointment, but she does not do that and instead blames the
traffic delays and other delays and the distance from her home to the
contact centre for her turning up late to the appointments.
She continues to be very stressed, has very disturbing dreams and
extremely disturbed sleep patterns whereby she does not sleep at all
for a few days. She has not sought any help for these and she thinks
it is because she is stressed because her baby was taken away from her
by the Social Services and that the solution to her problem is to
return the child to her.
She has explanations as to why her parenting assessment did not go
well. She says this was because people were observing her and she felt
very nervous. She felt very nervous about public speaking and she said
that this is similar to that. She could not perform when people were
watching her.
The mother is continuing to externalise her problems. She does not
accept her emotional vulnerability and the need for her to have
professional help. She feels extremely guilty about not being a good
mother and this is also reflected in the dreams that she has.
Despite her guilt and the feelings associated with that, she has not
made any effort to improve her chances of getting back the child by
keeping appointments and turning up on time and cooperating fully with
Social Services. She has been made aware that she would need to do
this to have a good chance of getting her baby back and despite that,
she did not do it, or has been unable to do it.
It is difficult to explain why there are these contradictions in her
behaviour. It is possible that she has a degree of extreme ambivalence
about having the child back. She might not be consciously aware of it,
but at conscious level, it is the guilt and the feelings that she did
not do enough to care for the child which are paramount. At an
unconscious level, possibly her ambivalence, i.e. her split views,
could have an impact on her behaviour. I think the ambivalence about
having the child back might also play in a role in the seemingly
contradictory behaviour she has displayed’.
101. His conclusion was,
‘The mother continues to have emotional instability, emotional
immaturity both giving rise to stress and a tendency to project
unhappy feelings onto others when stressed. This also plays a
significant role in her inability to cope fully with any assessments
and also understand the need for her to change. She is also extremely
reluctant to seek professional help for her emotional problems and
there has not been any improvement in her mental state since the last
time I saw her. All this could have a negative impact on her ability
to care for the child longer-term and to cooperate fully with
different professional services involved’.
102. He illuminated and developed his written report in his oral
evidence. In particular, he confirmed that he had changed his
diagnosis and that he was of the view that an unstable impulsive type
personality disorder was the more likely diagnosis. That, of course,
meant a more pessimistic prognosis because whereas an adjustment
disorder is a condition that is impacted upon by external factors such
as a person’s external circumstances and would therefore improve with
time, counseling and the alleviation of stress, a personality disorder
resulted from inherent characteristics within a person produced by
negative experiences in childhood and adolescence. The negative
features of a personality disorder were capable of change, but only
with therapy and the timescale in which such change might be effected
even if mother were prepared to recognise the need for change would be
outside L’s timeframe.
103. Dr Anil Kumar was very pessimistic about whether the mother would
be able to effect change at all given her lack of insight into the
need for change and the concerns which have been highlighted by all
three assessments. In the end:, he could not recommend that it would
be advisable to return L to the mother’s care, identifying that L
would be likely to suffer significant emotional harm from inconsistent
parenting by the mother should she have L’s care.
104. I heard the evidence of the Guardian. She very largely reiterated
the opinions that she had expressed in her report. I was impressed
with her neutrality, her fairness and her compassion towards the
mother. 1-lowever, she was very clear that no matter how heartbreaking
and frustrating it was that the mother had had ample opportunity to
demonstrate that she could care for L and that she had missed
opportunity after opportunity to do so, nonetheless the opportunities
were now lost. She also had considerable worries which I share about
the real dangers posed to the mother and L by the attitude of the
extended maternal family to the circumstances of L’s birth and
parentage. These are borne out by what the younger sister of the
mother had to say to the Guardian in the spring of this year where she
confirmed the real risks of retribution and physical reprisal against
the mother. The Guardian pointed out that this was further
demonstrated by the obvious fear that the older sister expresses in
coming to court signing a statement, doing anything actively to
support the mother because she feared her husband’s reaction. ‘I am
terrified that my husband will discover that the child is in the care
of the Local Authority,’ she says. ‘1 am terrified that he will
discover about the circumstances of L’s birth’. The support she offers
is support, the Guardian felt, which was more in word than in deed and
was totally unpredictable. When asked, Dr Anil Kumar too said that it
would be quite impossible to predict how the family would react, even
to being told of L’s existence in the stratagem of a marriage and
divorce. It was impossible to tell whether the grandmother would ever
accept L.
105. 1 have to remind myself, as I did right at the beginning of this
judgment, of the vehemence with which the mother asserted her physical
and emotional danger and L’s should her family discover anything about
the circumstances of her illegitimate birth. I was persuaded to take
an exceptional course to exclude the family and the father from any
notice of these proceedings or any participation in the placement
application on account of those genuinely held and believed fears
which were corroborated by the mother’s sister and by the social
worker. I still maintain that view. Therefore I do find that L would
be at risk of significant physical and emotional harm from the
maternal family should she be returned to her mother’s care.
106. I have considered very carefully and wanted to construe the
mother’s case positively. However, it is much, much too little, much
too late to be anything other than a nebulous web of possibilities. It
has absolutely no probability about it. I have, as I have already
indicated, no confidence in the tenancy agreement. I have no
confidence that the older sister can really effect a reconciliation
between the mother and the maternal grandmother or L’s acceptance into
the family. I have no confidence that the friend who came along to
give evidence today can do more than she has been doing for the last
year or so being a supportive friend to the mother. However her
support thus far, which as far as I could gather from her evidence,
will not be any different tomorrow than it was yesterday, has not
produced any significant improvement in the mother’s circumstances
over the last 12 months and I do not have any confidence that it will
in the future.
107. The mother has had all the friends about her which she has spoken
of before. Indeed, some of them have been met by the social worker and
the Guardian on one occasion and none of them has really come forward
in a positive way to be able to offer more than the support of
friendship to the mother. Each of the women concerned has other
preoccupations. The witness who came today has a job, has a family,
has other commitments, is a grandmother. Her daughter, somebody with
whom the mother stayed when she returned from the Middle East, also
has her own children to care for as do the other friends of the
mother. I am not convinced that any of them would be able to offer the
sort of intensive help that this mother with her vulnerability and her
long-standing problems would need in order to be able to offer to
offer L even the basic nurturing care that she needs.
108. I find L is likely to suffer significant harm if she were
returned to her mother, not only emotional harm from the mother’s
inconsistent parenting style and a lack of empathy, but also in
everyday practical things. The mother’s life has been structureless
and erratic. I do not find any evidence that gives me confidence that
the mother is able to think and plan ahead; indeed, her conduct in
these proceedings has demonstrated that she is not. I have no
confidence that the mother would not experience considerable stress
looking after L given her fear of her family discovering the truth
about L and consequently given her isolation and given her weak and
vulnerable personality.
109. All the evidence drives me to conclude that L’s protection
requires that she is not returned to her mother’s care. I, therefore,
having striven throughout these proceedings (of which I have had
conduct for some time) and throughout this hearing to achieve a
reunification for L with her mother, if at all possible, I am
absolutely driven to conclude by the unanimity of the evidence before
me that this is not in L’s long-term interests.
110. I am satisfied, first of all, that the threshold criteria are
satisfied by all the facts. I have rehearsed them at length because
there is a composite agreed threshold document, but I did not consider
the facts set out in that document to be sufficiently robust to
reflect the actual factual situation in this case. Therefore, I have
jurisdiction to make a care or supervision order. Having fully
considered the welfare issues set out in section 1(3) of the Children
Act 1989 and placing L’s interests as my paramount consideration, I
find that the only proportionate response to the likelihood of
significant harm to L were she to be returned to her mother’s care is
to make a final care order in favour of the Applicant Local
Authority.
ill. I now go on to consider the welfare issues set out in section 1
(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and in particular the
additional welfare issues considered in section 1(4)(f).
112. I must also, of course, apply all these considerations to L
throughout her life. Subsection 4(f) primarily deals with family and
relationships, the significance of family relationships and
attachments. In this case, I have already eliminated the possibility
of these factors having any significant and positive impact upon L’s
future. On the contrary, in May, I found that I would have to
sacrifice any possibility of family life for L with any member of
either side of her birth family as a result of the high level of
concerns the evidence have demonstrated and I have already taken that
exceptional step.
113. I must also consider, of course, L’s relationship with her mother
and I accept that there is a bond between L and her mother and L
enjoys seeing her mother and that L recognises when her mother comes
and goes from the room. L will have an emotional memory of some of the
positive experiences she has had in contact with her mother. However,
she will not have a cognitive memory of her mother, as a child under
three years of age. However, the mother’s contact has had the effect
of establishing a good relationship between herself and L. Sadly, it
is not a relationship which can be sustained because of the risk of
the discovery of the circumstances of L’s birth and because it is not
in L’s welfare interests to order face-to-face contact between L and
her mother in this particular case. Further I have no confidence,
given the mother’s sporadic and unreliable commitment to contact
during the course of these proceedings, that she would have the
stamina, to remain committed in the long-term, to direct contact with
L.
114. Therefore, as I must under Section 26, I have to consider whether
I should make a contact order and I do not consider to make such an
order would be in L’s welfare interests. I have already noted two
things during the course of proceedings. The Local Authority’s care
plan mentions L being given a different name, but it is quite apparent
that that will not happen while she remains in her current placement
with the foster carer and that when she is advertised, in order to
find a future family, she will be given a pseudonym for the purposes
of preserving her anonymity in that advertising process. As she makes
the transition between her current foster carer and her new carers, it
will be a question for them with guidance from their Link Social
Worker to decide when and whether L should acquire a different name.
115. As far as contact is concerned, the Local Authority intends to
reduce contact over a relatively short period between the mother and L
to a baseline of once a month and that will be achieved in about a
month or so. The Local Authority has agreed that until such time as a
proper match for L can be found and introductions to her new family
are made, the mother will be offered monthly contact which will
preserve L’s stability and allow her to continue to enjoy her mother’s
company for as long as possible.
116. I agree with the recommendation of the Local Authority’s best
interest panel. I accept that adoption for L is in her best interests
and I am driven by the evidence to dispense with the consent of the
mother which she has withheld because everything in this case
demonstrates that L’s best interests require that I should dispense
with the mother’s consent and I do so.
117. I make a placement order in favour of this particular Local
Authority in respect of this child. That concludes my judgment. The
parties are free if they wish to request a transcript and the cost of
transcription should be shared by the parties requiring it. Do you all
want a transcript?
MS WEEKS: Your Honour, yes.
JUDGE COX: And that is-.
MS WEEKS: And that was agreed.
JUDGE COX: There will be a transcript of this judgment prepared and it
will be paid for in equal shares by all three parties.
MS WEEKS: Your Honour, we would also request that we have leave to
disclose the Guardian’s report and your two judgments to potential
family’s doctors and I spoke with Mr Cregan before coming into court
and whilst it may not happen, we would ask for leave for the
respondent mother to disclose Dr Kumar’s report and Mr Morgan’s report
to any therapist if she was willing to do that.
JUDGE COX: Of course and of course, the mother. Those documents should
not be disclosed to any prospective families.
MS WEEKS: No. Those are for the mother to disclose to the-
JUDGE COX: They are [inaudible] Social Services.
MS WEEKS: Yes, yes.
JUDGE COX: Yes.
MS WEEKS: The only thing we would disclose-
JUDGE COX: I will make a disclosure order exactly as the Guardian’s
reports-
MS WEEKS: And-
JUDGE COX: -or, yes, the final conclusion and recommendation report,
yes.
MS WEEKS: Yes.
JUDGE COX: Or all of them. Which do you want please?
MS WEEKS: Well, the Guardian’s report and also, we did want-
JUDGE COX: Well, there are three of them so it would have been the
last one.
MS WEEKS: No, they are final, yes sorry. I lost you.
JUDGE COX: Yes.
MS WEEKS: The final recommendations, yes.
JUDGE COX: And you want both my judgments?
MS WEEKS: Yes.
JUDGE COX: Yes.
MS WEEKS: Yes, yes.
JUDGE COX: Mr Cregan, is that it?
MR CREGAN: Your Honour, may I just clarify-
JUDGE COX: Yes.
MR CREGAN: -with my client?
Pause
MR CREGAN: Your Honour, I had some difficulty in-
JUDGE COX: I am not surprised really.
MR CREGAN: -in taking instructions. The mother, of course, is very
much of the view that adoption should not happen in this case and so
to move beyond that and solicit instructions as to disclosure matters
is proving difficult.
JUDGE COX: I agree. I am going to make the order anyway, Mr Cregan,
yes. It is reasonable and not an undue compromise of your client’s
privacy. Right. Does anybody want me to sign something else? I expect
you do, Mr Cregan and Ms Weeks?
MS WEEKS: Yes.
Pause
JUDGE COX: Oh thank you. Can I just try and sort out what goes where?
MR CREGAN: Your Honour, I rise to remind Your Honour of the tenancy
agreement. I take it to know that-
JUDGE COX: Yes.
MR CREGAN: -Your Honour has a copy?
JUDGE COX: I have it here.
MR CREGAN: Thank you.
JUDGE COX: Right. Can this go into the court file and the bundles back
to the Local Authority? Thank you. Yes.
End of judgment.

[Adrian]

Shoodie <masud...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> I must also point out that during this time the Social Services have
> found propective adoption parents and have INFORMED THE MOTHER OF A
> GOODBYE DATE BEING 15TH JAN 2010 !! :(
>
> SOMEONE PLEASE READ THIS LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT AND ADVISE IF THERE'S
> ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO GET A DELAY. THE MOTHER NEEDS TIME TO
> PROVE SHE IS SANE AND CAN BE GOOD MOTHER !!!

> This is the final hearing in care proceedings commenced by the Local

> Authority on 4th September 2008 when they applied for an emergency
> protection order in respect of L who was born in the autumn of 2007

> L was considered by the Local Authority’s best interest panel on 10th

> June 2009 when a recommendation was made that L should be adopted
> outside L’s natural birth family.

> 3. The Local Authority issued its application for a placement order on
> the 13th July 2009.

> L’s putative father is not a respondent because in May 2009, after a
> two-day hearing

Facts of the case aside, exactly how much more time does she need?

Far from the sudden bolt-from-the-blue you tried initially to present
this as, this has all been going on for most of the poor brat's life. The
kid is now a bit past her second birthday, from the deliberately
obfuscated transcript - yet has spent only four to five months living
with the mother. This process has been ongoing for closing on 15 months -
and now, with three weeks to go, the mother is looking for a delay and
claiming this is all news?

Because of this...

> I took this exceptional course for the reasons fully set out in my
> judgment dated the 15th May 2009. A transcript is available and that
> judgment should be read in conjunction with this one.

...I don't think anybody can really comment on the facts, as they're
presented, but what IS there doesn't exactly help her case.

[Shoodie]

On 22 Dec, 15:26, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shoodie <masudah...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they

> presented, but what IS there doesn't exactly help her case.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Both mother and child are healthy normal regular people. The mother
hadn't committed any crime under uk law regarding looking after her
baby.

But yes she didn't get on with social services afterwards and didn't
understand their interference.........
This was further exacerbated by an Arab's cultural temperament towards
disproportionate third-party interference into personal family life.
She lost the case because she had been, in the eyes of an average
person brought up in the UK, far too defensive.

I'm a 'samaritan' and met her in despair way after the court hearing
date in August 09. This poor person needs helpful legal advice to
bring her baby back to her, where both were quite happy.

[Robbie]

Shoodie wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 15:26, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shoodie <masudah...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I must also point out that during this time the Social Services have
>>> found propective adoption parents and have INFORMED THE MOTHER OF A
>>> GOODBYE DATE BEING 15TH JAN 2010 !! :(
>>> SOMEONE PLEASE READ THIS LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT AND ADVISE IF THERE'S
>>> ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO GET A DELAY. THE MOTHER NEEDS TIME TO
>>> PROVE SHE IS SANE AND CAN BE GOOD MOTHER !!!
>>> This is the final hearing in care proceedings commenced by the Local
>>> Authority on 4th September 2008 when they applied for an emergency
>>> protection order in respect of L who was born in the autumn of 2007

>>> L was considered by the Local Authority�s best interest panel on 10th

>>> June 2009 when a recommendation was made that L should be adopted

>>> outside L�s natural birth family.

>>> 3. The Local Authority issued its application for a placement order on
>>> the 13th July 2009.

>>> L�s putative father is not a respondent because in May 2009, after a

She needs to see a solicitor. You won't be able to get anything more
than guidance here. Without trying to sound harsh, what exactly do you
expect to get from posting to an anonymous newsgroup? You'll certainly
not get any practical help. That can only be given with someone sitting
next to her and talking to her and helping her through the whole process.

[Mrcheerful]

Shoodie wrote:
> This is an urgent follow up to a posting I made last week.
>
> It's taken me a few days but, since I got the hint that the forum
> needed the full story, I tracked down the final judgement transcript,
> scanned it, OCRed it (it may not be perfect), and formatted it in Word
> to make it readable.

best all round is to give the kid to a family that will love it.

[Ste]

I'm afraid I don't understand your position at all. The judgment, as I
read it, is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you think there has
been injustice here?

[Richard Miller]

In message
<544afabe-1040-4cd2...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ste
<ste_...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>I'm afraid I don't understand your position at all. The judgment, as I
>read it, is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you think there has
>been injustice here?

I don't have any trouble understanding.

When you are unconnected with the parties, it is not difficult to read a
judgment objectively and see why it was reasonable for the Court to
decide as it did.

When you are a friend of one of the parties, particularly in a case as
emotional as care proceedings, it is very easy to let human empathy blur
any rational assessment of the situation.

I think the OP is being a good friend to the mother. But I think she
needs to help her through this, not try and stop it happening.
--
Richard Miller

[Ste]

On 23 Dec, 07:08, Richard Miller <rich...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In message
> <544afabe-1040-4cd2-ae66-962b4bda7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Ste
> <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>
>
> >I'm afraid I don't understand your position at all. The judgment, as I
> >read it, is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you think there has
> >been injustice here?
>
> I don't have any trouble understanding.
>
> When you are unconnected with the parties, it is not difficult to read a
> judgment objectively and see why it was reasonable for the Court to
> decide as it did.
>
> When you are a friend of one of the parties, particularly in a case as
> emotional as care proceedings, it is very easy to let human empathy blur
> any rational assessment of the situation.

Indeed. It's strange that the empathy never seems to extend to the
children in these cases.

> I think the OP is being a good friend to the mother. But I think she
> needs to help her through this, not try and stop it happening.

Agreed.

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5907428f-d213-4a36...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Just my two penn'orth:-

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations
in November 1989, spells out the basic human rights to which children
everywhere are entitled. It has since been ratified by all governments
except the richest, the United States of America, and one of the poorest,
Somalia.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for
signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25
of 20 November 1989. It entered into force 2 September 1990, in accordance
with article 49.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the
right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far
as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

From what I have read of this case I would question whether the Social
Workers and the Judge involved are in breach of Article 7(1) of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child ''as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.''

Perhaps a kick-up-the-arse might breach their Human Rights or perhaps not in
this case?

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"nux vomica" <nux vom...@nowhere.con> wrote in message
news:hgsqh8$rdq$1...@aioe.org...

Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?

Perhaps Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green might like to have a look at the
Court papers and give his opinion? [Let's hope he's wearing his hiking-boots
when he does]

Children's Commissioner for England (Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green)
http://www.11million.org.uk

11 Million
1 London Bridge
SE1 9BG

Tel: + 44 (0)844 800 9113
Email: info.r...@11million.org.uk

[Steve Walker]

nux vomica wrote:

> The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for
>> signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution
>> 44/25 of 20 November 1989. It entered into force 2 September 1990, in
>> accordance with article 49.
>>
>> Article 7
>>
>> 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have
>> the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and.
>> as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her
>> parents. From what I have read of this case I would question whether the
>> Social
>> Workers and the Judge involved are in breach of Article 7(1) of the UN
>> Convention on the Rights of the Child ''as far as possible, the right to
>> know and be cared for by his or her parents.''
>>
>> Perhaps a kick-up-the-arse might breach their Human Rights or perhaps
>> not in this case?
>>
>> <nux vomica>
>
> Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
> Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?
>
> Perhaps Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green might like to have a look at
> the Court papers and give his opinion? [Let's hope he's wearing his
> hiking-boots when he does]

I think you're missing the point, nux.

A court has decided, after hearing lengthy & expert testimony, that the
interests of the child are best met by removal from a parent who is
unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for that child. That's
entirely consistent with ECHR & UNCRC, and with national and international
law.

This isn't about the mother's right to own that child and treat it as she
wishes. It's about the child's right to be safe and well cared for. If
mother had shown she was capable of providing safe, reliable care then the
case would've immediately collapsed.

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:7peio1...@mid.individual.net...

Indeed I may well be missing the point, but my point is this, specifically
concerning the rights of the child:-

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have
the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality

*and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her
parents.*

It would appear that the Court has not considered the child's inalienable
rights in this regard, have they - otherwise this would surely have been
made specific mention of in the proceedings, would it not?

<nux vomica>

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:08:35 +0000, Richard Miller
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>I'm afraid I don't understand your position at all. The judgment, as I
>>read it, is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you think there has
>>been injustice here?

>I don't have any trouble understanding.

>When you are unconnected with the parties, it is not difficult to read a
>judgment objectively and see why it was reasonable for the Court to
>decide as it did.

>When you are a friend of one of the parties, particularly in a case as
>emotional as care proceedings, it is very easy to let human empathy blur
>any rational assessment of the situation.

>I think the OP is being a good friend to the mother. But I think she
>needs to help her through this, not try and stop it happening.

Whilst that may be true in some cases, there is certainly another
possible angle.

IME social services are far from objective and unbiased, and the
reports presented to the court can and very often do present an
extremely skewed picture of the situation. Other professionals
involved in the case tend to club together and conspire to show a
consistent but far from accurate assessment.

The judge can only go by the evidence before her, and so the judgement
appears completely reasonable - but even there you will find that a
judge, having decided on an outcome, will tend to a degree to
cherry-pick the evidence she mentions in her summary, and bend it a
little to fit the Order she intends to make. That is a purely natural
human trait, and has nothing to do with any deliberate intent to
mislead. We are all guilty of doing something similar when justifying
a decision we have made, and training cannot completely eliminate the
effect.

For the above reasons there are many cases where a family has suffered
completely unjust actions being taken against them, yet the judgement
sounds perfectly reasonable to a 3rd party observer who knows nothing
other than the situation as described in that judgement.

If you doubt that professional social workers and other experts could
possibly conspire together in such a fashion, and accuse me of
postulating a bizzarre conspiriacy theory, take a look at any of the
cases where exactly that situation has occured and been exposed. The
Lily-Reed case is a very good example where many respected experts
deliberately twisted the facts, ignored evidence and invented things
for the sole purpose of justifying conclusions that agreed with the
existing general consensus of other experts and officials.

All it takes is for a single social worker to reach an erroneous
conclusion - possibly due to personal animosity toward the target, and
to persuade one other person in the department that s/he is correct.
It is then common for a domino effect to take place, with each new
person who looks at the case being influenced by the opinions of the
others, which colours everything they see. Any people with dissenting
opinions are simply quietly dropped from further involvement in the
case, so their opinions never appear in official reports.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:02:19 -0000, "nux vomica" <nux
vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:

>Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
>Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?

Yes, I think you did. IIRC it was specifically mentioned in some
detail near the start of the judgement summary.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:37 GMT, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>> It's taken me a few days but, since I got the hint that the forum
>> needed the full story, I tracked down the final judgement transcript,
>> scanned it, OCRed it (it may not be perfect), and formatted it in Word
>> to make it readable.
>
>best all round is to give the kid to a family that will love it.

The same is true for every child. Note that in this case there is
agreement by everyone involved that the mother loves her child very
much. Love is necessary, but is insufficient by itself.

--
Cynic

[Shoodie]

Okay, so judging by some of the feedback, is there hope? 15th Jan is
when she has to say goodbye. Is there anyway to put a block on this
date, even a stay of execution??

Time has run out for the mother to gather evidence to show she is not
the same person as presented by the facts. I have drummed it into her
head that she had been too defensive towards Social Services to her
own detriment.

I have also advised her that accepting that she has weaknesses and
being open to therapy could also have helped her in her case, if only
to prove she is capable.

Can she do anything now to show she has made progress, to show she has
attended every one of her contacts on time and even sometimes early,
to show that she has had a permanent place to live for over a year
now ??

She is prepared too jump through hoops of fire. Can anything be done
to get an injunction or repeal? Even an extension to allow her time
to build up her case ??

[totallyconfused]

> to build up her case ??- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I would strongly suggest that this mother do two things: 1) Get onto
Bill Bache Solicitors IMMEDIATELY and 2) Join Justice for Families
http://justiceforfamilies.freeforums.org/index.php

And yes, social services constantly make false reports- they are
really pissed with me because I have an audio recording of one of them
admitting there were no concerns about our child or our parenting but
he was ordered to make up false information to justify putting my
child on the at risk register and remove him. The Ombudsman is
investigating this at present. As stated on other threads, they still
can't produce a threshold criteria- except 'the family has a negative
view of social services and other child protection services' (they
used as an example my son stating at school 'my mother did a freedom
of information enquiry to the NSPCC- only 7% of their income actually
is spent on children- so she refuses to give them money')

TC

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:18:12 -0800 (PST), Shoodie
<masud...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Okay, so judging by some of the feedback, is there hope? 15th Jan is
>when she has to say goodbye. Is there anyway to put a block on this
>date, even a stay of execution??

I doubt it very much. She is considered to be a liar. Therefore
nothing she says, and no evidence she produces in the short time
available is likely to be considered credible.

>Time has run out for the mother to gather evidence to show she is not
>the same person as presented by the facts. I have drummed it into her
>head that she had been too defensive towards Social Services to her
>own detriment.

It is not defensiveness that was her downfall. That would have been
forgivable. It was the fact that she was *dismissive* of the social
that was the main thing that did for her. Her attitude was that she
knew better than the social what was best for her child. No
professional is prepared to tolerate a lay-person who claims to know
their profession better than they do. It amounts to a personal
insult.

>Can she do anything now to show she has made progress, to show she has
>attended every one of her contacts on time and even sometimes early,
>to show that she has had a permanent place to live for over a year
>now ??

It will be too little too late.

About the only last-ditch effort I might see having a remote chance of
success is for her to grovel to the guardian ad-litem. The guardian
is the person with the most influence over the court. She would have
to say that she has seen the error of her ways, and has had an almost
religious experience, realising now that the social worker has indeed
shown her the One True Way.

>She is prepared too jump through hoops of fire.

That would be counter-productive. It would be seen as reckless and an
attempt at self-harm, making her unsuitable to be a parent :-)

Perhaps you should consider whether it is indeed best for a child to
be raised in a place where there is a significant probability of
relatives seeking out and murdering the mother and quite possibly the
bastard child as well.

The woman has not had a great deal of contact with her child. She
will get over the loss fairly quickly once she accepts its
inevitability. If you wish to help her, ISTM that the most important
thing will be to try to get her to accept what has happened, and
prevent her slipping back onto the booze and drugs.

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pil4j59u87tqekhnb...@4ax.com...

> The woman has not had a great deal of contact with her child. She
> will get over the loss fairly quickly once she accepts its
> inevitability. If you wish to help her, ISTM that the most important
> thing will be to try to get her to accept what has happened, and
> prevent her slipping back onto the booze and drugs.
>

Don't you think these were the reasons for the order rather than her
attitude to the social services? I personally think that a poor engagement
with SS is an indication of someone who is not interested in the child. If
you cared for it why would you not engage with them and make use of their
support in keeping your child?

May I ask whether your hatred of SS is connected to a personal experience?
Were you prohibited from contact with your children after conviction? If so
I can understand your hostility.

[Richard Miller]

In message <pil4j59u87tqekhnb...@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:18:12 -0800 (PST), Shoodie
><masud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay, so judging by some of the feedback, is there hope? 15th Jan is
>>when she has to say goodbye. Is there anyway to put a block on this
>>date, even a stay of execution??
>
>I doubt it very much. She is considered to be a liar. Therefore
>nothing she says, and no evidence she produces in the short time
>available is likely to be considered credible.

Agreed.

>
>>Time has run out for the mother to gather evidence to show she is not
>>the same person as presented by the facts. I have drummed it into her
>>head that she had been too defensive towards Social Services to her
>>own detriment.
>
>It is not defensiveness that was her downfall. That would have been
>forgivable. It was the fact that she was *dismissive* of the social
>that was the main thing that did for her. Her attitude was that she
>knew better than the social what was best for her child. No
>professional is prepared to tolerate a lay-person who claims to know
>their profession better than they do. It amounts to a personal
>insult.

I think the thing that really did for her was her failure to attend 40
out of 69 contact sessions.

Lawyers for a parent can argue around pretty much anything, but when the
parent does that, there is nothing left for the lawyer to work with.

And that is for me the "killer fact" that says that this is not just
about social workers resenting her attitude, it is about serious
failings on the mother's part.

>
>>Can she do anything now to show she has made progress, to show she has
>>attended every one of her contacts on time and even sometimes early,
>>to show that she has had a permanent place to live for over a year
>>now ??
>
>It will be too little too late.
>
>About the only last-ditch effort I might see having a remote chance of
>success is for her to grovel to the guardian ad-litem. The guardian
>is the person with the most influence over the court. She would have
>to say that she has seen the error of her ways, and has had an almost
>religious experience, realising now that the social worker has indeed
>shown her the One True Way.
>
>>She is prepared too jump through hoops of fire.
>
>That would be counter-productive. It would be seen as reckless and an
>attempt at self-harm, making her unsuitable to be a parent :-)
>
>Perhaps you should consider whether it is indeed best for a child to
>be raised in a place where there is a significant probability of
>relatives seeking out and murdering the mother and quite possibly the
>bastard child as well.
>
>The woman has not had a great deal of contact with her child. She
>will get over the loss fairly quickly once she accepts its
>inevitability. If you wish to help her, ISTM that the most important
>thing will be to try to get her to accept what has happened, and
>prevent her slipping back onto the booze and drugs.
>

Again agreed.
--
Richard Miller

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:34:31 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>> The woman has not had a great deal of contact with her child. She
>> will get over the loss fairly quickly once she accepts its
>> inevitability. If you wish to help her, ISTM that the most important
>> thing will be to try to get her to accept what has happened, and
>> prevent her slipping back onto the booze and drugs.

>Don't you think these were the reasons for the order rather than her
>attitude to the social services?

No, I don't. It appears to have been a transitory phase and was not
even cited as being a present concern.

> I personally think that a poor engagement
>with SS is an indication of someone who is not interested in the child.

Yes, that's a common SS attitude as well. "If you do not agree with
us and do exactly what we tell you, you must be an unsuitable parent".

>If
>you cared for it why would you not engage with them and make use of their
>support in keeping your child?

Mainly because you do not agree with their views and don't trust their
motives. Ask most people with dealings with the SS about the
"support" they gave, and you will receive a hollow laugh.

>May I ask whether your hatred of SS is connected to a personal experience?
>Were you prohibited from contact with your children after conviction? If so
>I can understand your hostility.

I have seen first-hand the way social workers and associated
"professionals" twist and distort things and use unsupported
supposition and conjecture (dressed up as "professional opinion") in
order to present a far more damning case to a judge than is anywhere
near close to reality. So I am far less succeptible to accepting
reports such as the one posted as being a complete and objective
description of the situation.

--
Cynic

[Ste]

On 23 Dec, 18:04, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> prevent her slipping back onto the booze and drugs.

The "Scottish breakfast", according to last night's Have I Got News....

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:32:31 +0000, Richard Miller
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I think the thing that really did for her was her failure to attend 40
>out of 69 contact sessions.

>Lawyers for a parent can argue around pretty much anything, but when the
>parent does that, there is nothing left for the lawyer to work with.

I'd want to know a few more details. Such as what was the duration
and quality of the contact, and how difficult was it for the woman to
get to the contact center.

If it was a question of taking a free number 17 bus on a 15 minute
ride to spend several hours in 1:1 free interaction with her baby,
then it was indeed pretty inexcusable.

But if she had to find �20 a time to take a gruelling 2 hour journey
on public transport in order to have strictly supervised and
controlled access to her baby for 30 minutes, then I would not see her
failure as being that significant.

We also do not know what commitments she may have had that she did not
necessarily want the court to know about.

--
Cynic

[Alex Heney]

While she did not mention the actual convention by name, I think these
paragraphs show that she took the provisions into account

>31. I also remind myself of the dicta of Lord Templeman in the very
>well known case of Re:
>KD [1988] AC 806, a case concerning the competing rights,
>responsibilities and human rights of parents and children. In that
>case, which has been approved so many times by the Court of Appeal
>subsequently and most recently affirmed again by Lord Justice Wall in
>the case of L & H, a decision taken in March 2007 concerning
>assessment when Lord Justice Wall repeated the well-known passage from
>Lord Templeman’s judgment again in full. I have to remind myself
>that,
>‘Wise or foolish, rich or poor, literate or illiterate, the best
>person to bring up a child is that child’s parent and that that right
>is the right of the child and will only be displaced, if it is
>proportionately necessary for it to be displaced in order to protect
>the child’s wellbeing’.
>32. Therefore, it is not a question of what would be more appropriate
>for L or what might give her a better standard of living. L’s absolute
>right (not the mother’s absolute right but L’s absolute right) to be
>brought up her mother will only be displaced if this Court is driven
>by evidence to conclude that her welfare demands it and that she
>cannot be properly protected by any less draconian order than those
>sought by the Local Authority.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Real men write self-modifying code.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

[Steve Walker]

nux vomica wrote:
> "Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message

>> A court has decided, after hearing lengthy & expert testimony, that the
>> interests of the child are best met by removal from a parent who is
>> unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for that child. That's
>> entirely consistent with ECHR & UNCRC, and with national and
>> international law.
>>
>> This isn't about the mother's right to own that child and treat it as
>> she wishes. It's about the child's right to be safe and well cared
>> for. If mother had shown she was capable of providing safe, reliable
>> care then the case would've immediately collapsed.
> Indeed I may well be missing the point, but my point is this,
> specifically concerning the rights of the child:-
>
> Article 7
>
> 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have
> the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality
> *and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or
> her parents.*
>
> It would appear that the Court has not considered the child's inalienable
> rights in this regard, have they - otherwise this would surely have been
> made specific mention of in the proceedings, would it not?

I don't think that there's any duty upon a court to list every law which is
applicable and confirm that each one has been considered, so the absence of
a specific mention doesn't really signify anything here. If the mother's
lawyer, or the child's guardian ad litem, had raised that specific Article
during their advocacy then it probably would've been mentioned. I assume
therefore that they didn't think it was relevant - Article 9 is more
significant to this case, don't you think?

[Steve Walker]

Cynic wrote:

> If you doubt that professional social workers and other experts could
> possibly conspire together in such a fashion, and accuse me of
> postulating a bizzarre conspiriacy theory, take a look at any of the
> cases where exactly that situation has occured and been exposed. The
> Lily-Reed case is a very good example where many respected experts
> deliberately twisted the facts, ignored evidence and invented things
> for the sole purpose of justifying conclusions that agreed with the
> existing general consensus of other experts and officials.

Up to a point, Lord Copper....

Remember that the Shieldfield case was quickly discredited once it reached a
formal legal tribunal. Biased or unfounded views formed by professionals
will not generally stand up when subjected to expert scrutiny &
cross-examination.

For anyone who's unfamiliar with the appalling ordeal of Chris Lillie & Dawn
Reed, this is an excellent summary -
http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html

[Steve Walker]

I agree - it's a very painful & distressing situation, but mother doesn't
seem to have the temperament or insight which is necessary to provide safe,
effective parental care to a vulnerable infant.

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:4v84j5pva20jd9abj...@4ax.com...

Can you provide the link to this information and any evidence as to it's
veracity and truth?

Not trying to avoid this question are you?:-

''It would appear that the Court has not considered the child's inalienable

rights in this regard, have they - otherwise this would surely have been

made specific mention of in the proceedings, would it not?''

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:u775j5d0d7v71skp8...@4ax.com...

Hi Alex, merry Christmas to you and yours.

Well, to my mind and I suggest, any 'right-minded person' the following
applies, you may of course disagree if you wish?

You state:
''While she did not mention the actual convention by name, I think these
paragraphs show that she took the provisions into account''

I would simply question why 'she' [to whom you refer] as you claim made no
mention of the actual convention by name, this may lead any person reading
the Court Transcripts or any other report of the proceedings to conclude
that 'she' had not in fact possibly considered this at all, certainly not in
my view and my previous query:-

''Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?

Article 7(1) of the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child

If it's not mentioned in the Court record then cannot have been considered -
can it?

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:rj74j5lc4f2jovl3c...@4ax.com...

Sadly Cynic, this does in many respects seem to be the case. What is the
reason for this though? Does anyone have their own opinion from their own
personal observation of 'group/herd-dynamics'?

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message

news:7pfr2a...@mid.individual.net...

I thought we have already proved and agreed that the Court documents and
proceedings were flawed?

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:b194j5p5so0l1vn8v...@4ax.com...

WHAT! ... you mean the Social Workers are in the main, absolutely
next-to-useless... God Lord!

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:pil4j59u87tqekhnb...@4ax.com...

Is it true that booze/alcohol and drugs are claimed to be: 'Props that blur
reality'

It's an interesting point that you raise though concerning the health of the
mother, who you claim to be recovering from booze and drugs.

Aren't Social Services supposed to implement and co-ordinate Care Plans for
those who are suffering ill-health in the community, don't they have any
duties or responsibiities under the Community Care Act?

Why has 'Community Care' as provided by and administered by Social Services
seemingly failed so dismally and appallingly in this case, was/is this
another example of a deliberate policy on the part of the Social
Services/Community Care Team to effectively destroy this family bond between
a mother and her baby daughter - a deliberate 'set-up-to-fail' compulsory
community care program perhaps?

<nux vomica>

[vomica@nowhere.con nux vomica]

"nux vomica" <nux vom...@nowhere.con> wrote in message

news:hgunq8$b76$1...@aioe.org...

Now I, would ask for an injunction against the Social Workers involved to
prevent their further obviously destructive meddling and seeking their
suspension pending a full and searching inquiry in to this [and other such
even remotely similar matters], but nobody would listen to me:(

<nux vomica>

[totallyconfused]

On Dec 24, 3:53 am, "nux vomica" <nux vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:
> "nux vomica" <nux vom...@nowhere.con> wrote in messagenews:hgunq8$b76$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Cynic" <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

> <nux vomica>- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This statement was not created by me, but I agree with it.....'Social
Worker...job creation for the chronically unemployable and stupid'
Sums them up, in my humble experience. My little boy Hates his SW
with a passion. He actually calls her 'Hell-IG- Nore' to her face.
She has also openly admitted she hates boys- 'I like dealing with the
baby's more- preferrably girls'. She can not cope with anything
complex- we have to speak to her like a 5 year old. Even my 8 year
old thinks she is thick- and says it to her face. Now I have always
raised my children to be respectful and recognise adult authority, but
in this case, I just let the kid say what he thinks of her. If an 8
year old can make her look incompetent and foolish, just imagine the
fun we have with her.....we heard a rumour that she is having alot of
time off sick (we have a history of breaking social workers and
getting GaL's sacked)
TC

[Shoodie]

On 23 Dec, 19:32, Richard Miller <rich...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> In message <pil4j59u87tqekhnbe90scnebmvjl6t...@4ax.com>, Cynic
> <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

> Richard Miller- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The judgement states: 'There were altogether between October 2008 and
July 2009 69 offered opportunities of contact. The mother has
attended
29 of those, meaning that 40 visits were missed. '

In paragraph 77 we read the reasons the mother failed to attend the
contact. What it doesn't state is HOW MANY TIMES the contact was
cancelled because of SOCIAL SERVICES or the FOSTER CARER.

Evidence is lying around in their department about their need to
cancel appointments. The mother failed to make written notes of these
dates and the reasons they gave.

[Steve Walker]

proceedings had no obvious flaws?

[Steve Walker]

nux vomica wrote:

>> Why has 'Community Care' as provided by and administered by Social
>> Services seemingly failed so dismally and appallingly in this case,
>> was/is this another example of a deliberate policy on the part of the
>> Social Services/Community Care Team to effectively destroy this family
>> bond between a mother and her baby daughter - a deliberate
>> 'set-up-to-fail' compulsory community care program perhaps?

Mmmmm - a program controlled from their secret baby-stealing headquarters in
the masonic lizard spaceship, you mean?

> Now I, would ask for an injunction against the Social Workers involved to
> prevent their further obviously destructive meddling and seeking their
> suspension pending a full and searching inquiry in to this [and other
> such even remotely similar matters], but nobody would listen to me:(

It would be wholly pointless in this case, unless the same injunction sought
to exclude a whole range of other professionals. The mother would be
delighted with your suggestion however, as it supports her view that she is
superior and all the fault belongs to others (as eloquently described by
*her own expert psych* in para 94-95).

[Richard Miller]

In message <t455j550i4g6dpt5l...@4ax.com>, Cynic
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:32:31 +0000, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think the thing that really did for her was her failure to attend 40
>>out of 69 contact sessions.
>
>>Lawyers for a parent can argue around pretty much anything, but when the
>>parent does that, there is nothing left for the lawyer to work with.
>
>I'd want to know a few more details.

I would if it was only a few examples. But the judge actually identified
half a dozen examples where he said that her failure to attend was
perfectly reasonable - train strike, weather problems, a job interview.
And he then made the perfectly reasonable point that 40 failures out of
69 just cannot be excused.

> Such as what was the duration
>and quality of the contact, and how difficult was it for the woman to
>get to the contact center.
>
>If it was a question of taking a free number 17 bus on a 15 minute
>ride to spend several hours in 1:1 free interaction with her baby,
>then it was indeed pretty inexcusable.
>
>But if she had to find �20 a time to take a gruelling 2 hour journey
>on public transport in order to have strictly supervised and
>controlled access to her baby for 30 minutes, then I would not see her
>failure as being that significant.

I don't agree. If the child was important enough to her, she should have
been willing to give attending the contact sessions a much higher
priority.

>
>We also do not know what commitments she may have had that she did not
>necessarily want the court to know about.
>

If there were any such commitments, that just adds to the case against
her as far as I am concerned.
--
Richard Miller

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nux vomica" <nux
vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:

<snip>

>
>I would simply question why 'she' [to whom you refer] as you claim made no
>mention of the actual convention by name, this may lead any person reading
>the Court Transcripts or any other report of the proceedings to conclude
>that 'she' had not in fact possibly considered this at all, certainly not in
>my view and my previous query:-

Only if it is somebody determined to find that.

>
>''Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
>Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?
>
>Article 7(1) of the UN
>Convention on the Rights of the Child
>
>If it's not mentioned in the Court record then cannot have been considered -
>can it?

The things it requires were very clearly considered, and explicitly
stated in the judgment.

Whether the court record actually mentions the specific named
legislation is utterly irrelevant.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.

[Alex Heney]

No, for proof there has to be something more than a statement by one
person, and for agreement there also has to be more than one person
saying the same thing, and nobody disagreeing.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Help Wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.

[Alex Heney]

Which s a very good thing, given that you are calling for those things
with ZERO evidence that there is any fault AT ALL, never mind fault
sufficient to call for any of those extreme measures.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Laughing stock: cattle with a sense of humour.

[nux vomica]

On 24 Dec, 12:22, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
> nuxvomicawrote:
> > "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote in message

oxierm

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 00:04, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux

Hah! irrelevent until somebody challenges it eh and claims the terms
of vitally important legislation were not listed it seems summarily
dismissed without due and proper consideration, this being contrary to
the best interests of the child and seemingly denying the child's
rights as should be protected by the law, not dismissed or diregarded
in any way, specifically no mention is made in any of the 'Legal/Court
documentation' [veracity/genuineness - uncertain/unknown?]
of .........guess what?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 24 Dec, 12:32, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
> nuxvomicawrote:

Does it in any way support or maintain the child's rights,
partucularly regarding,,, err,,, what was that phrase or section of
the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child - could you
reference it in the 'Court Records', can you point out the relevant
sections in the transcripts/records?

This information would need to be obtained in the event of an appeal,

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 00:04, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24Dec2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux

And did any of the matters to which you refer have or require and
legal citation or reference,,,,, now what was that law about the
apparent legal right of the child,,,, and I think the phrase was ''as
far as possible' to be raised by the child's natural parents, was it
that,,, what <stumbles and staggers about room looking for 'lost
documents' which detail this 'forgotten' legislation>

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 04:16, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24Dec, 12:22, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > nuxvomicawrote:
> > > "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote in message
> > >news:7pfr2a...@mid.individual.net...
> > >> Ste wrote:

> > >>> On 22Dec, 16:09, Shoodie <masudah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I'm a 'samaritan' and met her in despair way after the court hearing
> > >>>> date in August 09. This poor person needs helpful legal advice to
> > >>>> bring her baby back to her, where both were quite happy.
>
> > >>> I'm afraid I don't understand your position at all. The judgment, as I
> > >>> read it, is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you think there has
> > >>> been injustice here?
>
> > >> I agree - it's a very painful & distressing situation, but mother
> > >> doesn't seem to have the temperament or insight which is necessary to
> > >> provide safe, effective parental care to a vulnerable infant.
>
> > > I thought we have already proved and agreed that the Court documents and
> > > proceedings were flawed?
>
> > > <nuxvomica>
>
> > I thought we have already proved and agreed that the Court documents and
> > proceedings had no obvious flaws?
>
> oxierm

Except that I could not find any citation or reference as any of the
child's rights and whether or not these were being affected in any
adverse way or otherwise, what do you reckon - does the child actually
have any right in respects of the seemingly clear and unequivocable
right *as far as is possible* to be raised by it's natural parent[s]?

Haven't Social Services, thus far, acted in complete contravention of
the law,they obviously cannot show that they have acted *as far as
possible* to ensure that this child is raised by her *natural* mother,
have they?

If you think they have then could you, or anyone else, produce a
detailed list of any and all such *as far as possible* efforts in this
regard?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 05:56, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Could it be, could it possibly be....?

A terrifying new 'super-bug' or virus rapidly reducing the infected
person to a 'zombie' like state of psychosis charactised by an almost
complete loss of contact with reality, mainly affecting groups of
people working within 'Hierarchical Organisations' particularly Social
Services departments etc?

In a hierarchical organisation employees are ranked at various levels
within the organisation, each level is one above the other. At each
stage in the chain, one person has a number of workers directly under
them, within their span of control. A tall hierarchical organisation
has many levels and a flat hierarchical organisation will only have a
few.

The chain of command (ie the way authority is organized) is a typical
pyramid shape.

<thinks... A pyramidal-shaped virus
perhaps>.............<thinks, ....ponders, ...wonders...> .....<Is
perplexed:>?

<nux vomica>

[Ophelia]

"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XuSAUrFR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...

I have been following this thread with interest and the points here say it
all for me. I would have gone through the proverbial hell and high water to
get to and to keep my children. <Nothing> could have had higher priority.

[Alex Heney]

Of course not.

Why on earth would they?

>,,,,, now what was that law about the
>apparent legal right of the child,,,, and I think the phrase was ''as
>far as possible' to be raised by the child's natural parents, was it
>that,,, what <stumbles and staggers about room looking for 'lost
>documents' which detail this 'forgotten' legislation>

Let us know when you join planet earth.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Microsoft - We put the "backwards" into backwards compatibility.

[Alex Heney]

No.

Utterly irrelevant FULL STOP.

>somebody challenges it eh and claims the terms
>of vitally important legislation were not listed it seems summarily
>dismissed without due and proper consideration, this being contrary to
>the best interests of the child and seemingly denying the child's
>rights as should be protected by the law, not dismissed or diregarded
>in any way, specifically no mention is made in any of the 'Legal/Court
>documentation' [veracity/genuineness - uncertain/unknown?]
>of .........guess what?
>

If you think there is the slightest chance that a judgment such as
this would be overturned because a specific piece of legislation was
not mentioned (even though its' requirements were specified), then you
know very little of the workings of UK civil law courts.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.

[Alex Heney]

So in spite of having the paragraph explicitly quoted to you, it seems
you still "could not find" it.

> what do you reckon - does the child actually
>have any right in respects of the seemingly clear and unequivocable
>right *as far as is possible* to be raised by it's natural parent[s]?
>

I expect he reckons the same as the rest of us.

Which is different from what you reckon because you are determined to
believe that these rights were not taken into account in spite of
explicit statements in the judgment showing they were.

>Haven't Social Services, thus far, acted in complete contravention of
>the law,they obviously cannot show that they have acted *as far as
>possible* to ensure that this child is raised by her *natural* mother,
>have they?
>

Yes, they certainly have.

>If you think they have then could you, or anyone else, produce a
>detailed list of any and all such *as far as possible* efforts in this
>regard?
>

If they can, then they are breaking the law.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Gargle twice daily - see if your neck leaks.

[Alex Heney]

What "information" are you talking about?

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Everyone is gifted. Some open the package sooner.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:55:52 -0000, "nux vomica" <nux
vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:

>>>Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
>>>Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?

>> Yes, I think you did. IIRC it was specifically mentioned in some
>> detail near the start of the judgement summary.

>Can you provide the link to this information and any evidence as to it's
>veracity and truth?

There are a couple of sections. Read from section 30 for example.
Here's one quote:

31. I also remind myself of the dicta of Lord Templeman in the very
well known case of Re: KD [1988] AC 806, a case concerning the
competing rights, responsibilities and human rights of parents and
children. In that case, which has been approved so many times by the
Court of Appeal subsequently and most recently affirmed again by Lord
Justice Wall in the case of L & H, a decision taken in March 2007
concerning assessment when Lord Justice Wall repeated the well-known
passage from Lord Templeman�s judgment again in full. I have to remind
myself that, �Wise or foolish, rich or poor, literate or illiterate,
the best person to bring up a child is that child�s parent and that
that right is the right of the child and will only be displaced, if it
is proportionately necessary for it to be displaced in order to
protect the child�s wellbeing�.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:34:01 -0000, "Steve Walker"
<spam...@beeb.net> wrote:

>> If you doubt that professional social workers and other experts could
>> possibly conspire together in such a fashion, and accuse me of
>> postulating a bizzarre conspiriacy theory, take a look at any of the
>> cases where exactly that situation has occured and been exposed. The
>> Lily-Reed case is a very good example where many respected experts
>> deliberately twisted the facts, ignored evidence and invented things
>> for the sole purpose of justifying conclusions that agreed with the
>> existing general consensus of other experts and officials.

>Up to a point, Lord Copper....

>Remember that the Shieldfield case was quickly discredited once it reached a
>formal legal tribunal. Biased or unfounded views formed by professionals
>will not generally stand up when subjected to expert scrutiny &
>cross-examination.

The most you can possibly say is that *some* such cases fall over when
examined by a court. When a court upholds the professional opinions,
you cannot say whether it is because the opinion is correct or that
the level of bias and/or dishonesty has not been exposed.

>For anyone who's unfamiliar with the appalling ordeal of Chris Lillie & Dawn
>Reed, this is an excellent summary -
>http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html

Thanks for the spelling correction and link, which anyone who has
unwavering trust in social workers, child psychologists and other
child protection experts should read.

The cases that are exposed tend to be only the very high-profile cases
that have attracted huge publicity. Due to their high profile, they
perhaps get subjected to a far closer scrutiny than the thousands of
other, run-of-the-mill cases. They also get heard in open courts
rather than the secret Family Courts.

My main point is that social workers and other professionals have on
quite a few occasions been shown to have distorted the truth and lied
in order to lead others into making judgements that they have decided
they want. Thus you cannot dismiss such a possibility from being the
case in *any* specific judgement that you might read or hear about on
the grounds that it is too implausible to warrant serious
consideration.

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:f72cj5lv0n5s5b63b...@4ax.com...

> The most you can possibly say is that *some* such cases fall over when
> examined by a court. When a court upholds the professional opinions,
> you cannot say whether it is because the opinion is correct or that
> the level of bias and/or dishonesty has not been exposed.
>

So you're saying that a court can never be relied upon.
Therefore anyone convicted of a crime may be innocent and anyone found
innocent may in fact be guilty! What a stupid state of affairs.
IMO, you should only distrust the court if you have evidence that the
evidence presented to it or the workings of the court were in some way
defective.

>>For anyone who's unfamiliar with the appalling ordeal of Chris Lillie &
>>Dawn
>>Reed, this is an excellent summary -
>>http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html
>
> Thanks for the spelling correction and link, which anyone who has
> unwavering trust in social workers, child psychologists and other
> child protection experts should read.
>

But the defence can present its own expert evidence.

> The cases that are exposed tend to be only the very high-profile cases
> that have attracted huge publicity. Due to their high profile, they
> perhaps get subjected to a far closer scrutiny than the thousands of
> other, run-of-the-mill cases. They also get heard in open courts
> rather than the secret Family Courts.
>

You don't know how many orders are refused in the lower family courts as
they are closed. What you're doing is akin to saying that all people in
crown court are found guilty on false evidence as you only hear of high
profile appeals cases!

> My main point is that social workers and other professionals have on
> quite a few occasions been shown to have distorted the truth and lied
> in order to lead others into making judgements that they have decided
> they want. Thus you cannot dismiss such a possibility from being the
> case in *any* specific judgement that you might read or hear about on
> the grounds that it is too implausible to warrant serious
> consideration.
>

It should be dismissed unless there is evidence for it.
Surgeons have, on occasion, removed the wrong organ during an operation. If
my surgeon tells me he's removed my appendix should I distrust him as
surgeons have claimed to have done so in the past but have, in fact, removed
something else?

[Ophelia]

"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message

news:7pfnnb...@mid.individual.net...

> Up to a point, Lord Copper....
>
> Remember that the Shieldfield case was quickly discredited once it reached
> a formal legal tribunal. Biased or unfounded views formed by
> professionals will not generally stand up when subjected to expert
> scrutiny & cross-examination.
>

> For anyone who's unfamiliar with the appalling ordeal of Chris Lillie &
> Dawn Reed, this is an excellent summary -
> http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html

This is truly terrifying!

[Ophelia]

This is truly terrifying! I have never liked Social Workers but I would
never have believed this of them:(

[Cynic]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:47:04 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>> The most you can possibly say is that *some* such cases fall over when
>> examined by a court. When a court upholds the professional opinions,
>> you cannot say whether it is because the opinion is correct or that
>> the level of bias and/or dishonesty has not been exposed.

>So you're saying that a court can never be relied upon.

I believe that in cases brought by Social Servicest they are far less
reliable than in most other types of cases.

>Therefore anyone convicted of a crime may be innocent and anyone found
>innocent may in fact be guilty! What a stupid state of affairs.
>IMO, you should only distrust the court if you have evidence that the
>evidence presented to it or the workings of the court were in some way
>defective.

>>>For anyone who's unfamiliar with the appalling ordeal of Chris Lillie &
>>>Dawn
>>>Reed, this is an excellent summary -
>>>http://www.richardwebster.net/cleared.html

>> Thanks for the spelling correction and link, which anyone who has
>> unwavering trust in social workers, child psychologists and other
>> child protection experts should read.

>But the defence can present its own expert evidence.

No, the nature of the evidence in many cases is such that they
*cannot* provide any countering expert evidence. A one-off session
with a defence expert does not trump a score of reports from a social
worker who has engaged in many home visits, for example. In addition,
a typical family case brought by the local authority will usually have
for the "prosecution" *only* a succession of expert witnesses, whereas
the "defendent" is unlikely to be able to have more than a single
expert, if that.

And experts tend to shy away from saying anything against another
expert who is alleging child-abuse, because it tends to be
professional suicide.

>> The cases that are exposed tend to be only the very high-profile cases
>> that have attracted huge publicity. Due to their high profile, they
>> perhaps get subjected to a far closer scrutiny than the thousands of
>> other, run-of-the-mill cases. They also get heard in open courts
>> rather than the secret Family Courts.

>You don't know how many orders are refused in the lower family courts as
>they are closed. What you're doing is akin to saying that all people in
>crown court are found guilty on false evidence as you only hear of high
>profile appeals cases!

I am saying that the high-profile cases are most unlikely to be the
only examples that occur.

>> My main point is that social workers and other professionals have on
>> quite a few occasions been shown to have distorted the truth and lied
>> in order to lead others into making judgements that they have decided
>> they want. Thus you cannot dismiss such a possibility from being the
>> case in *any* specific judgement that you might read or hear about on
>> the grounds that it is too implausible to warrant serious
>> consideration.

>It should be dismissed unless there is evidence for it.

And therein is a problem. Family courts can take evidence that would
not be admissible in a criminal court. Heresay evidence, for example,
and mere opinions from a plethora of experts

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:g8fcj597pr3dvcl0g...@4ax.com...

> And therein is a problem. Family courts can take evidence that would
> not be admissible in a criminal court. Heresay evidence, for example,
> and mere opinions from a plethora of experts
>

All expert evidence in any trail is opinion. Do you distrust all expert
witnesses?

[Ste]

On 26 Dec, 14:47, "Mr X" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Cynic" <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>
> > My main point is that social workers and other professionals have on
> > quite a few occasions been shown to have distorted the truth and lied
> > in order to lead others into making judgements that they have decided
> > they want.  Thus you cannot dismiss such a possibility from being the
> > case in *any* specific judgement that you might read or hear about on
> > the grounds that it is too implausible to warrant serious
> > consideration.
>
> It should be dismissed unless there is evidence for it.
> Surgeons have, on occasion, removed the wrong organ during an operation.  If
> my surgeon tells me he's removed my appendix should I distrust him as
> surgeons have claimed to have done so in the past but have, in fact, removed
> something else?

The difference is that surgeons mistakes can (generally) be easily
identified, and secondly they have little interest in doing anything
but that which they have agreed to do.

With social workers, achieving a successful outcome is far less
forumlaic than surgery, and bad blood between social workers and
subject can subtly bias decisions in the wrong direction. If the
social workers *say* that the subject was uncooperative, and basically
a real piece of work, then that is probably cause for a prudent
decisionmaker to assume that everything else the social workers say is
subtly biased against the subject. Of course, by the same token, a
prudent decisionmaker will recognise the need to punish the non-
cooperation of subjects (mainly because it deprives them of the
information needed to make the objective judgment), and so the
decision swings back to where it was: against the subject.

The fact is, you should only refuse to cooperate with authority if you
think it's right that their authority should be broken, and if you're
willing to bear the consequences of doing so. By that logic, almost
anyone who wants to keep their kids, but who knows they can't/won't
behave as a socially acceptable parent, is going to refuse to
cooperate with social workers.

The only question really for outside observers is whether they support
the aims of, and parenting standards held by, the enforcing authority.

[Ste]

On 26 Dec, 16:53, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:47:04 -0000, "Mr X" <inva...@invalid.com>

Cynic, I wonder what is your hypothesis for why such apparent
injustices occur in the legal system?

Is it because you think the practice of the justice system is actually
at odds with its fundamental aims, or would you be willing to believe
that its practice is actually very consistent with its fundamental
aims, and that the discrepancy is actually between what its
fundamental aims are, and what people (especially lawyers) *say* its
fundamental aims are?

I ask because I actually take the latter view.

[Mr X]

"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3a8476a-efd2-43c9...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[Cynic, I wonder what is your hypothesis for why such apparent

injustices occur in the legal system?

Is it because you think the practice of the justice system is actually
at odds with its fundamental aims, or would you be willing to believe
that its practice is actually very consistent with its fundamental
aims, and that the discrepancy is actually between what its
fundamental aims are, and what people (especially lawyers) *say* its
fundamental aims are?

I ask because I actually take the latter view.]
My own view is that they occur because humans can make mistakes.
I do not hold this view of social workers that they are so bitter and
twisted that they will go all out to take away children. I certainly
believe that people refusing in engage with them are to be followed up and
ultimately it could be found that they are unfit parents. I cannot see how
anyone who cares for their child will not engage with social services.
I expect Cynic told his wife to turn away the Health Visitor when his kids
were babies as well.

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 08:53, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
> "Richard Miller" <rich...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:XuSAUrFR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > In message <t455j550i4g6dpt5lu9qv9c6234agit...@4ax.com>, Cynic
> > <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

I am still trying to fathom exactly how the mothers non-attendance at
any meetings arranged by the Social Works could be used in this manner
in a Court case as evidence to support Social Services application for
the removal of the child from the care of it's natural mother. I
wonder if any of the Social Workers tried to contact the mother by any
means eg the telephone or they obtained any information from any other
source and if they did, whether they verified any such information to
be true and acccurate?

Now of course, all of those Social Workers involved would surely have
been aware of their duties and legal responsibilities especially in
consideration of Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child, would they not? One problem for me seems to be that there
is no evidence to shown this was of any consideration, was anyone of
these people ever asked to show how they had made their best efforts
to safeguard the child's rights, to make their *best efforts to ensure
that the child was raised by it's natural parents* - Oh hold-on a
moment, have I got this right,,, please do remind me exactly what it
is that Social Services have gone to Court for - anyone?

I did wonder about possibly adopting a new life-strategy, if anyone
disagrees with me in future about anything, I will invite them to
numerous meetings at my office. If anyone fails to attend any of these
meetings which I arrange for them, then I will make a great-big issue
of this in the proceedings I bring eg..... 'Eh mate, as I've said to
you before that's a nice car you got there - However, I've invited you
to several meetings which you have failed to attend, you will
appreciate that in the circumstances this will count very, very, very
heavily against you in Court, ......hand-over the keys - I'm taking
possession now?!

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 23:03, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:37:11 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
>
>
>
> <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Dec, 00:04, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24Dec2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux
>
> >> vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >I would simply question why 'she' [to whom you refer] as you claim made no
> >> >mention of the actual convention by name, this may lead any person reading
> >> >the Court Transcripts or any other report of the proceedings to conclude
> >> >that 'she' had not in fact possibly considered this at all, certainly not in
> >> >my view and my previous query:-
>
> >> Only if it is somebody determined to find that.
>
> >> >''Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
> >> >Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?
>
> >> >Article 7(1) of the UN
> >> >Convention on the Rights of the Child
>
> >> >If it's not mentioned in the Court record then cannot have been considered -
> >> >can it?
>
> >> The things it requires were very clearly considered, and explicitly
> >> stated in the judgment.

Clearly without reference to Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, yes?

>
> >> Whether the court record actually mentions the specific named
> >> legislation is utterly irrelevant.

Why hasn't the Court recorded any of the Social Workers answers
detailing how they 'did their best' in respect of Article 7(1) of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child then, is this/that
irrelevant?

[nux vomica]

On 27 Dec, 05:51, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 25Dec, 08:53, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Richard Miller" <rich...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:XuSAUrFR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>
> > > In message <t455j550i4g6dpt5lu9qv9c6234agit...@4ax.com>, Cynic
> > > <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

> > >>On Wed, 23Dec2009 19:32:31 +0000, Richard Miller

> you before that's a nice car you got there but you aren't looking after it properly - I've invited you

[nux vomica]

On 26 Dec, 12:58, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 24Dec2009 02:55:52 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux

Do you know for absolute certainty that Lord Templeman or Lord Justice
Wall or anyone else in this interesting case, has read or even heard
of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child? I suggest they have not:

‘Wise or foolish, rich or poor, literate or illiterate,

the best person to bring up a child is that child’s parent and that
that right is the right of the child and will only be displaced, if it
is proportionately necessary for it to be displaced in order to
protect the child’s wellbeing’.

At the risk of repeating myself,,,,

It would seem that this child's legal right to be brought up by his
natural mother has been 'displaced' with no legal argument or
discussion as to the virtue or necessity for this seemingly arbitrary
'set-aside' of one of the child's rights, do you see what I mean, have
you seen any 'legal arguments' in this legal procceding concerning the
child's rights and perhaps any duty of care owed by others eg Social
Workers and other such 'Professionals' in these respects?

Now of course, perhaps not all of those Social Workers involved would

surely have been aware of their duties and legal responsibilities

especially in consideration of Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on
the Rights of
the Child, would they?

One problem for me seems to be that there is no evidence to show this
was of any consideration at all, was anyone of these people ever asked

to show how they had made their best efforts
to safeguard the child's rights, to make their *best efforts to ensure
that the child was raised by it's natural parents* - Oh hold-on a
moment, have I got this right,,, please do remind me exactly what it
is that Social Services have gone to Court for - anyone?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 26 Dec, 13:13, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23Dec2009 23:34:01 -0000, "Steve Walker"

>
> <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >> If you doubt that professional social workers and other experts could
> >> possibly conspire together in such a fashion, and accuse me of
> >> postulating a bizzarre conspiriacy theory, take a look at any of the
> >> cases where exactly that situation has occured and been exposed.  

>>>>snip

WHAT! <splutters> are you saying that this woman's legal opponents
[the one's that want to take her child away] will try to present the
very best and most persuasive of cases to the Court so that they will
win the case and keep their jobs? ..... GOOD-LORD ...whatever next!

>>>>snip
> --
> Cynic

[nux vomica]

On 27 Dec, 07:01, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Look Cynic, it's obvious that the whole thing is too difficult for the
likes of us to fully understand - never mind explain,,,, it's quite
obviously a case for 'Special Care' isn't it, he'll know what's-what,
eh!?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 23:10, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24Dec2009 21:56:20 -0800 (PST),nuxvomica
>
>
>
> <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Sorry Alex, did you say that the Social Workers would be breaking the
law if they produced detailed evidence of their efforts in support of
the child's rights, what about the mother's rights as well, who
considered all these rights and where does it state in any of the
proceedings that these were in any way actually properly considered,
you don't just give your rights away do you - even if you are unable
to safeguard your rights then the Court has to still uphold and
consider them don't they?

Do you think they always do?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 23:10, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24Dec2009 21:56:20 -0800 (PST),nuxvomica
>
>
>
> <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Then you agree that they have totally and utterly failed?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 27 Dec, 07:17, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I reckon he'll soon get to the bottom of it all............

[nux vomica]

On 27 Dec, 07:17, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Ophelia]

"nux vomica" <nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:de312a63-467f-45e7...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> On 27 Dec, 05:51, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 25Dec, 08:53, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:

>> > I have been following this thread with interest and the points here say
>> > it
>> > all for me. I would have gone through the proverbial hell and high
>> > water to
>> > get to and to keep my children. <Nothing> could have had higher
>> > priority.
>>
>> I am still trying to fathom exactly how the mothers non-attendance at
>> any meetings arranged by the Social Works could be used in this manner
>> in a Court case as evidence to support Social Services application for
>> the removal of the child from the care of it's natural mother. I
>> wonder if any of the Social Workers tried to contact the mother by any
>> means eg the telephone or they obtained any information from any other
>> source and if they did, whether they verified any such information to
>> be true and acccurate?

My point is, that I would not dare take the risk of losing my children and
would be available for any and every meeting concerning them, whatever I
thought about them.

[nux vomica]

On 23 Dec, 23:18, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:

> nux vomica wrote:
> > "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote in message

> >> A court has decided, after hearing lengthy & expert testimony, that the
> >> interests of the child are best met by removal from a parent who is
> >> unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for that child.    That's
> >> entirely consistent with ECHR & UNCRC, and with national and
> >> international law.
>
> >> This isn't about the mother's right to own that child and treat it as
> >> she wishes.  It's about the child's right to be safe and well cared
> >> for.   If mother had shown she was capable of providing safe, reliable
> >> care then the case would've immediately collapsed.
> > Indeed I may well be missing the point, but my point is this,
> > specifically concerning the rights of the child:-
>
> > Article 7
>
> > 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have
> > the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality
> > *and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or
> > her parents.*
>
> > It would appear that the Court has not considered the child's inalienable
> > rights in this regard, have they - otherwise this would surely have been
> > made specific mention of in the proceedings, would it not?
>
> I don't think that there's any duty upon a court to list every law which is
> applicable and confirm that each one has been considered, so the absence of
> a specific mention doesn't really signify anything here.   If the mother's
> lawyer, or the child's guardian ad litem, had raised that specific Article
> during their advocacy then it probably would've been mentioned.  I assume
> therefore that they didn't think it was relevant - Article 9 is more
> significant to this case, don't you think?

No duty upon a court to consider the rights of a child then, where is
there any evidence of this,,,, justice 'done and seen to be done' is
it?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On 25 Dec, 23:03, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:37:11 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
>
>
>
> <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Dec, 00:04, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24Dec2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux

>
> >> vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >I would simply question why 'she' [to whom you refer] as you claim made no
> >> >mention of the actual convention by name, this may lead any person reading
> >> >the Court Transcripts or any other report of the proceedings to conclude
> >> >that 'she' had not in fact possibly considered this at all, certainly not in
> >> >my view and my previous query:-
>
> >> Only if it is somebody determined to find that.
>

> >> >''Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the

> >> >Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?
>

> >> >Article 7(1) of the UN

> >> >Convention on the Rights of the Child
>
> >> >If it's not mentioned in the Court record then cannot have been considered -
> >> >can it?
>
> >> The things it requires were very clearly considered, and explicitly
> >> stated in the judgment.
>

> >> Whether the court record actually mentions the specific named
> >> legislation is utterly irrelevant.

> >> --
> >> Alex Heney, Global Villager

> >> I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.

> >> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
>

> >And did any of the matters to which you refer have or require and
> >legal citation or reference
>
> Of course not.
>
> Why on earth would they?
>
> >,,,,, now what was that law about the
> >apparent legal right of the child,,,, and I think the phrase was ''as
> >far as possible' to be raised by the child's natural parents, was it
> >that,,, what <stumbles and staggers about room looking for 'lost
> >documents' which detail this 'forgotten' legislation>
>
> Let us know when you join planet earth.

> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager

> Microsoft - We put the "backwards" into backwards compatibility.

> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Do you earthlings have anything similar to earthling-rights, are these
enshrined in any law - do you have anything called laws?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

Information for inclusion in any further proceedings perhaps ... I
don't know, can you think of anything relevant as you seem to have
greater knowledgable and bexperience in such matters than I?

<nux vomica>

[Shoodie]

thanks for these encouraging responses.

ok so it seems there 'could' be a miscarriage of justice here based on
the Social Services not having proved to have made every effort that
the baby be cared for by the mother.

but what i need to know is can the judgement be overturned? if so by
who? solicitors? barristers?

the mother's on legal aid? will she get better help if she goes
private? she will if she has to.

[Cynic]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:48:44 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> 31. I also remind myself of the dicta of Lord Templeman in the very
>> well known case of Re: KD [1988] AC 806, a case concerning the
>> competing rights, responsibilities and human rights of parents and
>> children. In that case, which has been approved so many times by the
>> Court of Appeal subsequently and most recently affirmed again by Lord
>> Justice Wall in the case of L & H, a decision taken in March 2007
>> concerning assessment when Lord Justice Wall repeated the well-known
>> passage from Lord Templeman�s judgment again in full. I have to remind
>> myself that, �Wise or foolish, rich or poor, literate or illiterate,
>> the best person to bring up a child is that child�s parent and that
>> that right is the right of the child and will only be displaced, if it
>> is proportionately necessary for it to be displaced in order to
>> protect the child�s wellbeing�.

>One problem for me seems to be that there is no evidence to show this

>was of any consideration at all, was anyone of these people ever asked
>to show how they had made their best efforts

The evidence that it was considered is posted above. You may not
agree withy the conclusion, but it is dishonest of you to say that
there is no evidence that the rights of the child were not considered.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:16:49 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>> And therein is a problem. Family courts can take evidence that would

>> not be admissible in a criminal court. Heresay evidence, for example,
>> and mere opinions from a plethora of experts

>All expert evidence in any trail is opinion. Do you distrust all expert
>witnesses?

You are incorrect. The bulk of expert evidence is in explaining
scientific facts to the court, and the *objective* relevance of the
evidence.

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ftvej5t61v32k970k...@4ax.com...

What about psychiatric reports? They are the result of one person's
assessment of the accused's mental state.

[Cynic]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:41:13 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>I ask because I actually take the latter view.]

>My own view is that they occur because humans can make mistakes.
>I do not hold this view of social workers that they are so bitter and
>twisted that they will go all out to take away children.

Nor do I. It is a form of "noble cause corruption". The social
worker convinces her/himself that the child is at risk, and then sets
out to fit the evidence to that conclusion - a task that they are
quite good at.

> I certainly
>believe that people refusing in engage with them are to be followed up and
>ultimately it could be found that they are unfit parents.

Or simply people who don't want to be told what to do by an arrogant
youngster with a degree who thinks they know all there is to know
about raising children despite having had no practical experience in
doing so.

> I cannot see how
>anyone who cares for their child will not engage with social services.
>I expect Cynic told his wife to turn away the Health Visitor when his kids
>were babies as well.

There is a big difference between turning to someone for advice, and
having someone who you have never asked tell you what you should be
doing with draconian threats if you fail to follow their "advice".

Whether I will look for help to any particular organisation depends
upon how much I trust their motives, and how much I trust their
ability to give good advice. I turn to my accountant to help with my
business tax returns because I trust that he will try his best to save
me the most tax, and has the relevant practical expertise.

You will no doubt call the tax office and seek the advice of a tax
inspector.

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:v20fj5tkev2mor9b5...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:41:13 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I ask because I actually take the latter view.]
>>My own view is that they occur because humans can make mistakes.
>>I do not hold this view of social workers that they are so bitter and
>>twisted that they will go all out to take away children.
>
> Nor do I. It is a form of "noble cause corruption". The social
> worker convinces her/himself that the child is at risk, and then sets
> out to fit the evidence to that conclusion - a task that they are
> quite good at.
>

So you say. You have provided no more than a handful of cases to back up
your claims.

>> I certainly
>>believe that people refusing in engage with them are to be followed up and
>>ultimately it could be found that they are unfit parents.
>
> Or simply people who don't want to be told what to do by an arrogant
> youngster with a degree who thinks they know all there is to know
> about raising children despite having had no practical experience in
> doing so.
>

Why should people be allowed to endanger children just beacuse they are
arrogant?

>> I cannot see how
>>anyone who cares for their child will not engage with social services.
>>I expect Cynic told his wife to turn away the Health Visitor when his kids
>>were babies as well.
>
> There is a big difference between turning to someone for advice, and
> having someone who you have never asked tell you what you should be
> doing with draconian threats if you fail to follow their "advice".
>

Strawman.
You know full well that social services only become involved when there is a
concern. Did they go anywhere near you before your conviction? Can you see
why they became involved with your family after it? Do you think that, for
example, Nigel Oldfield should have access to children unmonitored by SS?

> Whether I will look for help to any particular organisation depends
> upon how much I trust their motives, and how much I trust their
> ability to give good advice. I turn to my accountant to help with my
> business tax returns because I trust that he will try his best to save
> me the most tax, and has the relevant practical expertise.
>
> You will no doubt call the tax office and seek the advice of a tax
> inspector.
>

I have certainly done so in the past. Who else would know more about tax?

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:gchfj5hqanekrtjoe...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:46:15 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>All expert evidence in any trail is opinion. Do you distrust all expert
>>>>witnesses?
>>>
>>> You are incorrect. The bulk of expert evidence is in explaining
>>> scientific facts to the court, and the *objective* relevance of the
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>What about psychiatric reports? They are the result of one person's
>>assessment of the accused's mental state.
>

> Yes, psychiatric and psychological experts are the exception. You
> will rarely find them giving evidence in a criminal court (or any
> other court apart from a family court).
>
Poppycock. They regularly give evidence in criminal trials when a question
about the accused's mental state has arrisen.
If you don't know this you are either very ill-informed or being trollish.

> Their evidence is frequently copmpletely subjective, and often highly
> coloured by personal and sociological bias. You have only to consider
> that homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder when it was
> illegal, but suddenly became a valid sexual orientation as soon as it
> became legal. If the question of whether someone has or does not have
> a mental disorder was objective, it would not depend on legislation.
>
It didn't.
Are you saying that a mental disorder can never be revised?

[Cynic]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:02:20 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>> Nor do I. It is a form of "noble cause corruption". The social

>> worker convinces her/himself that the child is at risk, and then sets
>> out to fit the evidence to that conclusion - a task that they are
>> quite good at.
>>
>So you say. You have provided no more than a handful of cases to back up
>your claims.

I know of many such cases. On what else do you think I should base my
opinion other than experience?

>>> I certainly
>>>believe that people refusing in engage with them are to be followed up and
>>>ultimately it could be found that they are unfit parents.

>> Or simply people who don't want to be told what to do by an arrogant
>> youngster with a degree who thinks they know all there is to know
>> about raising children despite having had no practical experience in
>> doing so.

>Why should people be allowed to endanger children just beacuse they are
>arrogant?

I don't know, but social workers have done so frequently.

>> There is a big difference between turning to someone for advice, and
>> having someone who you have never asked tell you what you should be
>> doing with draconian threats if you fail to follow their "advice".

>Strawman.
>You know full well that social services only become involved when there is a
>concern.

There is concern simply because someone claims that there is concern.

>> Whether I will look for help to any particular organisation depends
>> upon how much I trust their motives, and how much I trust their
>> ability to give good advice. I turn to my accountant to help with my
>> business tax returns because I trust that he will try his best to save
>> me the most tax, and has the relevant practical expertise.

>> You will no doubt call the tax office and seek the advice of a tax
>> inspector.

>I have certainly done so in the past.

If it was about anything worth a serious amount of tax, you are a mug.

> Who else would know more about tax?

They may know a lot about tax, but are they motivated by a desire to
save you as much tax as possible?

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:46:15 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>>>All expert evidence in any trail is opinion. Do you distrust all expert

>>>witnesses?
>>
>> You are incorrect. The bulk of expert evidence is in explaining
>> scientific facts to the court, and the *objective* relevance of the
>> evidence.
>>
>What about psychiatric reports? They are the result of one person's
>assessment of the accused's mental state.

Yes, psychiatric and psychological experts are the exception. You

will rarely find them giving evidence in a criminal court (or any
other court apart from a family court).

Their evidence is frequently copmpletely subjective, and often highly

coloured by personal and sociological bias. You have only to consider
that homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder when it was
illegal, but suddenly became a valid sexual orientation as soon as it
became legal. If the question of whether someone has or does not have
a mental disorder was objective, it would not depend on legislation.

--
Cynic

[Mr X]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:lqhfj5h0nk0nuqb6u...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:02:20 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Nor do I. It is a form of "noble cause corruption". The social
>>> worker convinces her/himself that the child is at risk, and then sets
>>> out to fit the evidence to that conclusion - a task that they are
>>> quite good at.
>>>
>>So you say. You have provided no more than a handful of cases to back up
>>your claims.
>
> I know of many such cases. On what else do you think I should base my
> opinion other than experience?
>

Your predjudice and hatred of them.

>>>> I certainly
>>>>believe that people refusing in engage with them are to be followed up
>>>>and
>>>>ultimately it could be found that they are unfit parents.
>
>>> Or simply people who don't want to be told what to do by an arrogant
>>> youngster with a degree who thinks they know all there is to know
>>> about raising children despite having had no practical experience in
>>> doing so.
>
>>Why should people be allowed to endanger children just beacuse they are
>>arrogant?
>
> I don't know, but social workers have done so frequently.
>

If you say so.

>>> There is a big difference between turning to someone for advice, and
>>> having someone who you have never asked tell you what you should be
>>> doing with draconian threats if you fail to follow their "advice".
>
>>Strawman.
>>You know full well that social services only become involved when there is
>>a
>>concern.
>
> There is concern simply because someone claims that there is concern.
>

And where else would it come from?
You snipped my point. Would like Nigel Oldfield to live with your kids?
What about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley?
Do you not want there to be an agency to protect children? What are your
motives in wanting to make the vulnerable even more so?

[Alex Heney]

Why on earth duo say that?

Nobody else has suggested for one moment it might be the case.

But nobody else agrees with your apparent suggestion that said duty
means that specific laws or conventions must be cited by name in order
for those rights to be considered.

> where is
>there any evidence of this,,,, justice 'done and seen to be done' is
>it?
>

You have had the evidence posted several times already.

The fact you don't want to believe it does not make it any less
evidence.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

When in doubt, think.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:28:45 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 25 Dec, 23:10, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24Dec2009 21:56:20 -0800 (PST),nuxvomica
>>

<snip>

>>
>> >Haven't Social Services, thus far, acted in complete contravention of
>> >the law,they obviously cannot show that they have acted *as far as
>> >possible* to ensure that this child is raised by her *natural* mother,
>> >have they?
>>
>> Yes, they certainly have.
>>
>> >If you think they have then could you, or anyone else, produce a
>> >detailed list of any and all such *as far as possible* efforts in this
>> >regard?
>>
>> If they can, then they are breaking the law.
>

>Sorry Alex, did you say that the Social Workers would be breaking the
>law if they produced detailed evidence of their efforts in support of
>the child's rights,

Yes, I did.

It would undoubtedly be against the law to produce such details to
anybody not specified in the judgment.

It would be against the DPA for starters, plus other laws including
contempt of court.

>what about the mother's rights as well, who
>considered all these rights and where does it state in any of the
>proceedings that these were in any way actually properly considered,

Please consider the possibility of actually *reading* the proceedings,
rather than just asking those who have to provide you with snippets.

Which, based on elsewhere in this tread, you just ignore anyhow.

>you don't just give your rights away do you - even if you are unable
>to safeguard your rights then the Court has to still uphold and
>consider them don't they?
>

Yes.

>Do you think they always do?
>

Probably not.

But I see no evidence in this judgment to suggest that they might not
have done this time.

And quite a lot of evidence that they did.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:32:12 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 25 Dec, 23:10, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24Dec2009 21:56:20 -0800 (PST),nuxvomica
>>

<snip>

>> >Haven't Social Services, thus far, acted in complete contravention of
>> >the law,they obviously cannot show that they have acted *as far as
>> >possible* to ensure that this child is raised by her *natural* mother,
>> >have they?
>>
>> Yes, they certainly have.
>
>Then you agree that they have totally and utterly failed?
>

Of course I don't.

And given that there is absolutely NOTHING I have posted which could
conceivably lead anybody to believe I might possibly think that, your
"question" was utterly pointless.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Bad breath is better than no breath.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:59:14 -0800 (PST), nux vomica
<nuxand...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 25 Dec, 23:03, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:37:11 -0800 (PST), nux vomica

>>
>>
>>
>> <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >On 25 Dec, 00:04, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24Dec2009 03:15:04 -0000, "nuxvomica" <nux
>>
>> >> vom...@nowhere.con> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >I would simply question why 'she' [to whom you refer] as you claim made no
>> >> >mention of the actual convention by name, this may lead any person reading
>> >> >the Court Transcripts or any other report of the proceedings to conclude
>> >> >that 'she' had not in fact possibly considered this at all, certainly not in
>> >> >my view and my previous query:-
>>
>> >> Only if it is somebody determined to find that.
>>
>> >> >''Strange, but I saw no reference to or mention of the Convention on the
>> >> >Rights of the Child in the case as outlined - did I miss it?
>>
>> >> >Article 7(1) of the UN

>> >> >Convention on the Rights of the Child
>>

>> >> >If it's not mentioned in the Court record then cannot have been considered -
>> >> >can it?
>>
>> >> The things it requires were very clearly considered, and explicitly
>> >> stated in the judgment.
>

>Clearly without reference to Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the
>Rights of the Child, yes?

No.

Not even remotely clearly, or even slightly likely.

>>
>> >> Whether the court record actually mentions the specific named
>> >> legislation is utterly irrelevant.
>

>Why hasn't the Court recorded any of the Social Workers answers
>detailing how they 'did their best' in respect of Article 7(1) of the
>UN Convention on the Rights of the Child then, is this/that
>irrelevant?

Because there was no reason for them to do so, and the more detail
published, the greater the chance of inadvertently identifying the
mother and/or child.

Which is always important, and in is case very much more so, since it
seems there is a realistic chance of murder if they are identified.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Reality is always more conservative than ideology.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:18:05 -0800 (PST), Shoodie
<masud...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 27 Dec, 11:44, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Dec, 23:11, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>
>> > >Does it in any way support or maintain the child's rights,
>> > >partucularly regarding,,, err,,, what was that phrase or section of
>> > >the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child - could you
>> > >reference it in the 'Court Records', can you point out the relevant
>> > >sections in the transcripts/records?
>>
>> > >This information would need to be obtained in the event of an appeal,
>> > >would it not?
>>
>> > What "information" are you talking about?

>>

>> Information for inclusion in any further proceedings perhaps ... I
>> don't know, can you think of anything relevant as you seem to have
>> greater knowledgable and bexperience in such matters than I?
>>
>> <nux vomica>
>
>thanks for these encouraging responses.

Unfortunately for you, while these responses may be "encouraging",they
are a waste of space - "nux vomica" has not really made any valid
points in this discussion.

>
>ok so it seems there 'could' be a miscarriage of justice here based on
>the Social Services not having proved to have made every effort that
>the baby be cared for by the mother.

No chance.

>
>but what i need to know is can the judgement be overturned? if so by
>who? solicitors? barristers?
>

Almost certainly not.

>the mother's on legal aid? will she get better help if she goes
>private? she will if she has to.

She really has no real chance of doing anything to stop the process
now.

The time to stop it, if it were ever going to be possible for her,
would have been at or before previous hearings to this.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

If nobody measures up, check your yardstick.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:08:09 -0000, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk>
wrote:

And if it was just the occasional meeting that had been missed, I'm
sure it would not have been raised as an issue.

But it was well over half of 69 meetings.

And it wasn't a main determining factor in itself, but was used as one
indicator of the difficulty the mother has in foresight, planning and
reliability.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Jealousy is all the fun you think they have.

[Mr X]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:svrfj51tn5cc64uja...@4ax.com...

> But it was well over half of 69 meetings.
>
> And it wasn't a main determining factor in itself, but was used as one
> indicator of the difficulty the mother has in foresight, planning and
> reliability.

Seems an ideal parent in Cynic's view. I wonder why he doesn't want his own
children given up to this woman?

[Shoodie]

On 27 Dec, 22:54, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:18:05 -0800 (PST), Shoodie
>

> <masudah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 27 Dec, 11:44, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 Dec, 23:11, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > >Does it in any way support or maintain the child's rights,
> >> > >partucularly regarding,,, err,,, what was that phrase or section of
> >> > >the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child - could you

> >> > >reference it in the 'CourtRecords', can you point out the relevant

> >> > >sections in the transcripts/records?
>
> >> > >This information would need to be obtained in the event of an appeal,
> >> > >would it not?
>
> >> > What "information" are you talking about?
>
> >> Information for inclusion in any further proceedings perhaps ... I
> >> don't know, can you think of anything relevant as you seem to have
> >> greater knowledgable and bexperience in such matters than I?
>
> >> <nux vomica>
>
> >thanks for these encouraging responses.
>
> Unfortunately for you, while these responses may be "encouraging",they
> are a waste of space - "nux vomica" has not really made any valid
> points in this discussion.
>
>
>
> >ok so it seems there 'could' be a miscarriage of justice here based on

> >theSocialServicesnot having proved to have made every effort that

> >thebabybe cared for by themother.
>
> No chance.
>
>
>
> >but what i need to know is can the judgement be overturned? if so by
> >who? solicitors? barristers?
>
> Almost certainly not.
>

> >themother'son legal aid? will she get better help if she goes

> >private? she will if she has to.
>
> She really has no real chance of doing anything to stop the process
> now.
>
> The time to stop it, if it were ever going to be possible for her,
> would have been at or before previous hearings to this.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> If nobody measures up, check your yardstick.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Okay let's say that the mother can now prove she's mentally stable,
has a fixed, spacious, and clean abode, has no contact with her family
living abroad, hasn't touched drugs or alcohol for the passed 2 years,
hasn't had any rogue flings during that time either, in fact she can
prove that she's changed her situation to the extent that she's fit to
be a mother, and a loving mother at that. Let's say she can prove
that.

I'm not saying that she ever was a bad mother, but as she has been
portrayed that way, let's say she can now prove otherwise....

Why can't she now have the chance to fight for her baby? Isn't she
allowed to recover from her problems? Whilst her daughter has not
been adopted, doesn't she now have the right to be cared for by her
natural mother who has now recovered?

What I'm screaming about here is AT THIS PRESENT TIME the baby is
sitting waiting to be handed over to adoption parents whilst her real
mother, who is begging for her baby back, is PERFECTLY FIT and can
prove it.

[nux vomica]

On Dec 27, 10:08 am, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
> "nux vomica" <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote in message

Of course you would, but would this also apply if you found yourself
facing this situation in a foreign country such Iran or Zimbabwe etc
for example?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

Ok Alex, where is the 'evidence' to suggest that any of this Law was
tested or aired at any of the referenced Court hearings?
Where are all of the Social Workers affidavits which specifically
reference their numerous efforts in ensuring that the child's rights
were being properly considered?
Is there anything else that we are not being told the full story
about?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

On Dec 28, 12:10 am, Shoodie <masudah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Dec, 22:54, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:18:05 -0800 (PST), Shoodie
>
> > <masudah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 27 Dec, 11:44, nux vomica <nuxandvom...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 25 Dec, 23:11, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> > >Does it in any way support or maintain the child's rights,
> > >> > >partucularly regarding,,, err,,, what was that phrase or section of
> > >> > >the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child - could you
> > >> > >reference it in the 'CourtRecords', can you point out the relevant
> > >> > >sections in the transcripts/records?
>
> > >> > >This information would need to be obtained in the event of an appeal,
> > >> > >would it not?
>
> > >> > What "information" are you talking about?
>
> > >> Information for inclusion in any further proceedings perhaps ... I
> > >> don't know, can you think of anything relevant as you seem to have
> > >> greater knowledgable and bexperience in such matters than I?
>
> > >> <nux vomica>
>
> > >thanks for these encouraging responses.
>
> > Unfortunately for you, while these responses may be "encouraging",they
> > are a waste of space - "nux vomica" has not really made any valid
> > points in this discussion.

Quite so, but.... itsays this here:

http://www.lbcma.org.uk/WhatisRM.asp

''Currently childminding is the most popular form of childcare. There
are over 100,000 registered childminders, caring for more then 300,000
children under five as well as school age children. Registered
childminders offer a flexible service in a family environment. All
childminders are required by law to register with Ofsted. Police and
Social Service record checks are carried out on the childminder and
all persons over 16 living in the house. The childminders home is also
checked for hygiene and safety. Bedfordshire childminders are required
to attend training courses before registration. Registration is
renewed annually, which involves an inspection of the childminders
home by Ofsted to check that standards are maintained. Registered
childminders must also have public Liability insurance.

Childminders can be registered to care for up to six children, the
number they are registered for includes their own children. Of these
children only three can be under the age of five. It will say on the
registration certificate how many children and of what ages the
childminder is registered for.''

and this on their 'Becomming a child-minder' page at:-
http://www.lbcma.org.uk/BAminder.asp

''Registration

All people looking after children under eight years of age that are
not the parents or a close relative, for a reward must register with
Ofsted.

The penalties for illegal childminding are a substantial fine,
imprisonment or both.

When you apply for registration a Childcare Inspector will discuss
with you how you intend to provide a childcare service, the
suitability of people who care for the children will be checked and
the premises where the children will be cared for. You will have to
complete a medical record form, and the Health Authority must satisfy
itself that you are physically and mentally fit to be registered as a
childminder. All members of the household over the age of 16 must have
a police check, and convictions and there relevance will be
considered. The names and addresses of two referees will be required,
they can not be family members or parents proposing to place children
in your care.

If you do not own your own home you may need to get permission from,
the owner of the property, e.g, your landlord or local authority
housing department.

You can be registered for up to six children under eight, though not
more then three of these should be under five, these numbers include
your own children. The number of children you are registered for will
be written on your certificate. Having more children in your care then
you are registered for, could result in a cancellation of your
certificate.''

It seems to have been easy enough for ''...over 100,000 registered
childminders, caring for more then 300,000 children under five as well
as school age children'', I wonder what barrier or obstacle there
would be to prevent this lady from becoming a registered childminder?

A pointless question in many respects perhaps, but one that I hope is
not above being subjected to reason, question or comment by any of our
readers?

<nux vomica>

[nux vomica]

> and this on their 'Becomming a child-minder' page at:-http://www.lbcma.org.uk/BAminder.asp

Yes, very good - bad advice here from you Alex, you seemingly believe
that the Courts cannot overturn or amend judgements in the event of
discovery or to prevent a miscarriage of justice, is this true?

May I enquire as to whether you have any legal qualifications and how
much you might charge for any legal or otherwise rombropeadvice, good
- or bad?

Of course, concerning your advice, you would naturally keep accurate
and true records and accounts which would make reference to any such
advice you might give, would you not - would your records make
reference to the particular Law at the time and my legal position with
regard to this Law, or not?

<nux vomica>

[Richard Miller]

In message
<c42ad7dc-c0b6-4bce...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Shoodie <masud...@gmail.com> writes

>
>the mother's on legal aid? will she get better help if she goes
>private? she will if she has to.

No she won't. Because care work (for the parents) is all legally aided,
all the experts do legal aid and virtually nothing else.
--
Richard Miller