Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Interim Care Order?

(59 Posts)
KrystalVixxen Sat 24-Nov-12 22:09:58

Quick background - I'm kinda stuck on how to word a statement to the courts regarding the opposition of the renewal of an interim care order - It was granted by the judge and simply told me to write how 'I plan to look after my son' - but I know that the statement has to stay focused on my child - but I don't know where to start - My son was put into care over my refusal to take him to hospital over a 2mm cut in his lip - hes possibly Dyspraxic. They have been using my past upto now to get him into care, even though its now no longer relevant, as nothing they say is the same now as it was then. What will the court be looking for in order to change it to a supervision order or follow the no-order route? Thanks in advance smile

Collaborate Mon 26-Nov-12 01:13:17

What country do you live in?

KrystalVixxen Mon 26-Nov-12 01:17:03


Collaborate Mon 26-Nov-12 01:23:12


KrystalVixxen Mon 26-Nov-12 01:25:06


Collaborate Mon 26-Nov-12 01:27:51

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KrystalVixxen Mon 26-Nov-12 01:35:27

If you say so - truth is, Google won't prove anything will it, because you're not in my situation, nor are you someone close who does know, so regardless of what it says, I know the position I am in. Now do you have any useful input as I really can't be wasting time on here trying to prove myself to you when you're not someone I should have to convince, like a Judge, or a Social Worker.

End. Of.

MerryChristMoose Mon 26-Nov-12 02:28:48

Well, before I moved to Canada 20 months ago I was a Solicitor specialising in family law, a member of the Law Society's Family Law Panel and a Resolution Accredited Specialist. I know there have been some major changes to Legal Aid, but I'm with Collaborate on this one OP. Amongst others, Collaborate and I are exactly the "sort of people" you need to convince. You might get more sensible help that way.

Lougle Mon 26-Nov-12 06:59:13

Let's step this back a bit, then smile

Bearing in mind that it's a public forum, are there any details that you can give, such as what sort of/level hearing it is?

If you are self representing, you need all the help and advice you can get.

This is serious stuff and no one cares what your view of authority is, they'll treatyou the same regardless.

cruxible Mon 26-Nov-12 07:05:38

I would say that by choosing not to use a solicitor you are not doing everything you can to get your child returned to your care. You are not fully engaging in the court process and I am afraid that could count against you.

If you have been told you do not qualify then go and try a different solicitor. There may be some not so good ones, but you will be able to find a good one and a good solicitor will know everything you need to put in a statement.

Collaborate Mon 26-Nov-12 07:44:13

OP talks of her case not being a "level 2", whatever that is. that's why I asked her what country she's in, as "level 2" does not correspond to the court process in care proceedings in England & Wales.

She tells of interim care orders. They are made after a LA has applied for a care order but before the court has made a final decision, and to apply for legal aid for that you use the form you can easily find via google CLSAPP5, which to anyone who cares to look is obviously for non-means tested LA.

RedHelenB Mon 26-Nov-12 08:10:56

Krystal - I hate to say it but that reply to Collaborate is exactly what you need to avoid. Being seen to have a big chip on your shoulder will not go in your favour! Personally, I would stress the fact that you see the necessity of working with Social Services to see that your son is getting the best care possible & show that you are willing to listen to concerns and address them.

RedHelenB Mon 26-Nov-12 08:11:45

BTW do you mean 2mm because that is very small, hardly visible to the naked eye.

Lougle Mon 26-Nov-12 11:56:25

That's why I queried it, redHelen. 2 mm is teeny tiny.

Muffintop101 Thu 29-Nov-12 10:37:06

I'm also with Collaborate on this one. All parents are entitled to legal aid in care applications and it's not means-tested. There is, as is often the case, likely to be much more to the OP's situation than meets the eye. Nonetheless, if, OP, you insist on representing yourself you need to read the Children Act 1989 and in particular sections 31, 38 and s.1 and s.1(3) in the preparation of your statement.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Thu 29-Nov-12 23:49:13

Hi Krystal

I am experienced in the 'other side' of what the SS do
First may i ask, when you say you are 'up north' please don't tell me (as it appears your child has been targeted because of your 'religious' or whatever-it-is beliefs.. political? ... That you are in the area where children have just been removed from the care of foster parents simply because they are UKIP members?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Thu 29-Nov-12 23:55:13

Krystal - I hate to say it but that reply to Collaborate is exactly what you need to avoid. Being seen to have a big chip on your shoulder will not go in your favour!

I would have given the same reply to someone saying i wasn't telling the truth either .. the link to my story in case it helps ..

SS can and do abuse their power. If they don't meet the threshold they are not above making things up, i'm afraid to say. And most solicitors you could instruct also work for the LA on other cases, so if you are able, represent yourself. I got further representing myself (an EPO against the SS granted in my favour) then i ever did when i had a solicitor. I hated that she got invited to 'professional meetings' and didn't provide adequate feedback.. felt very much in the dark, not a good feeling when you're fighting tooth and nail for your child.. sad

Collaborate Fri 30-Nov-12 00:08:06

Local Authority solicitors are employees of the LA. Solicitors who act for parents (such as me) are in private practice. Yet another conspiracy theory....

monsterchild Fri 30-Nov-12 00:09:25

Krystal, I think following the guides that were suggested up thread are good. I am a bit concerned that you are struggling to keep your focus on your kids. Be very sure that you have someone who is willing to be truthful read it first to make sure it does in fact keep the focus on the kids.

Many of the judges have a lot of experience with statements from parents who can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Fri 30-Nov-12 00:28:17

LOL its not a conspiracy theory. A lot of solicitors have work contracted out to them.. mostly they are representing the child = they usually agree with the SS = in the pockets of the SS.

Anyway if thats the only problem you could find with my comment i suppose i should think myself lucky.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Fri 30-Nov-12 00:29:14

Oops my link was pants .. here it is again ..

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Fri 30-Nov-12 00:33:38

Also you might try contacting this woman :

Expose the Tyrants of Child Protection
The Sun – Jane Moore Twitter @JaneMooreSun 28th November 2012
It can no longer be ignored by those who purport to be in charge of this country that something is deeply rotten at the core of Britain’s Social Services.
Believe me, the case of the three Eastern European children removed from a loving home because their foster parents were members of UKIP is just the tip of the iceberg.
Lurking below in the murky depths of our ferociously secretive ‘’ care ‘’ system , will be hundreds if not thousands of similar cases where a gross abuse of power has helped to destroy the lives of the very youngsters it was set up to protect.
Hopefully they will now rise above the surface : expose the ugly, playing-God mindset , and prompt a dramatic overhaul of these tin-pot dictatorships more reminiscent of Stalinist Russia than a democracy.
Babies forced in adoption after being taken from mothers on a mere suspicion of ‘’ future emotional abuse ‘’, fathers and paternal relatives denied access to children on nothing more than maternal hearsay, and prospective well-meaning fosterers and adopters subjected to the ridiculously stringent political correctness that is making the headlines right now.
All concluded under a cloak of secrecy that claims to be in the interests of the children involved but all too conveniently protects the increasingly warped system itself.
Don’t get me wrong : There are plenty of frontline social workers doing a fantastic job in often deeply challenging sometimes harrowing circumstances.
That they are so poorly paid indicates that their motives for choosing to do it are well-intended.
But even they must be despairing of the lucrative industry that has sprung up around what was once the noble and pure intent to protect children but has seemingly morphed into the far uglier whiff of political or financial self-interest.
Roger Stone, the Labour leader of Rotherham council, says that while membership of UKIP should not prevent someone from fostering, this was a ‘’ complex ‘’ case (aren’t they all?) involving legal advice and an external agency responsible for finding the foster carers. Sounds expensive.
It could well be an outfit like the National Fostering Agency, set up by two former social workers in 1995 and sold earlier this year to venture capitalists Graphite for an eye-watering £130 million.
And by the way, it’s only the UK’s second biggest private fostering business.
In other words, there’s money in them there ills.
Then there’s the outreach workers , the ‘’ experts ‘’ paid to provide statements to the courts, the state’s legal advisors , the ‘’ independent ‘’ legal advisors the guardians, the police workers, the court officials etc etc . All with a vested interest in ‘’ child protection ‘’.
Little wonder then that, according to a Children in Need census, in 2007 the number of children and young people who were the subject to a Child Protection Plan was 27,900.
In April 2011, it was 42,700.
Plenty of those will be genuine cases where the work of social services has proved vital, in the spirit of its original ethos to act in the interests of the children.
But all to many will be based on nothing more than an unfounded suspicion , plunging one or both parents into a Kafka- esque nightmare, a punishment without crime.
And worst of all, those who suffer most are the children, emotionally damaged by the actions of self-interested zealots who affect to ‘’ care ‘’.
We are used to case-centric inquires such as the one surrounding the Baby P scandal but it’s now time to shine a torch into the dark, secretive corners of the entire system to try to make its work and objectives more transparent while still maintaining anonymity for the vulnerable.

I think she makes some big fat way out there bang on the nose valid points ..

RedHelenB Fri 30-Nov-12 07:21:18

I'm not sure this is helpful to Krystal though - she needs to show that her child will do best by living with her. Being angry, lashing out at SS etc is not going to be seen in a positive light. And at the end of the day it is a much less expensive option to keep children with their parents than in foster care.

Lougle Fri 30-Nov-12 09:26:54

Goodness, some of you are going to help make sure that Krystal really blows this opportunity hmm.

Krystal, do please listen to the voice of reason on this thread and don't be sucked in by people who want you to serve as part of their agenda.

Collaborate Fri 30-Nov-12 09:31:54

Some of the posters on this thread have been encouraging OP to take a one way ticket to having her children adopted.

Lougle Fri 30-Nov-12 13:18:24

I agree, Collaborate sad

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now