Vicky Haigh in Ireland

[johnhemming]

In my view not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

"John Hemmings says the local authority control the experts appointed in care proceedings. They don't. Parties agree them."

This has been pointed out to him repeatedly. He simply refuses to accept it.

The process of joint appointment has the effect of giving control to the LA. The LA are continually issuing care proceedings whereas parents generally don't have the same experience.

I have had two whistleblowers from different areas tell me how this mechanism is used to win cases by LAs. In practise often the parental assessments are done by the local authority. This is where feeding a baby on demand can result in a mother losing her child to adoption.

OH well, JimmyS, at least we can feel confident that he will never have a ministerial position in order to implement any of his ideas.

While parents don't have the same experience as the local authority in care proceedings, their solicitors are likely to be experienced. I myself was supervised by a solicitor who was much more experienced than any of the local authority ones. She could, and did run rings round them! So I absolutely do not accept that joint appointment automatically has the effect of giving control to the LA. It just doesn't. I have personally witnessed parents solicitors taking control in this matter. And I say this as someone who isn't a defender of the status quo.

John, if you're concerned about the rights of parents in care cases, I suggest you should also focus on their access to quality legal representation. All parents are entitled to a legal aid solicitor in care proceedings, regardless of income- it isn't means tested at all. But if you don't live in a geographical area where there's one available, it can be a nightmare. So I can envisage a situation where a parent living in a legal aid desert might suffer.

And there's also a problem because care lawyers as a group are older than the average solicitor, and young solicitors aren't entering the specialism in sufficient numbers to replace those retiring. Also, many firms are going to the wall eg Law For All, and this will only get worse with the 10% fee cut that has been introduced.

Mr. Hemming generally advises people not to use lawyers as they are too conciliatory. Parents are advised to use one of his unqualified advisers instead. Although they will of course lose the case, this will simply be further evidence of the bias in the system.

Mr. Hemming generally advises people not to use lawyers as they are too
conciliatory. Parents are advised to use one of his unqualified advisers instead.
That is untrue on two counts.

Firstly, there are honest lawyers who act for their clients rather than undermining them. We have identified some of those and we recommend people to them.

Secondly, however, there are situations where someone cannot get funded legal advice (for example when they wish to contest an ICO having originally accepted it on the advice of their lawyers). In those situations we can assist.

One of those, for example, is Vicky Haigh. We are still stuck on this case at the position whereby her previous advisors won't give her a copy of her file.
However, when we get the paperwork we will assist with an appeal.

Presumably because Ms. Haigh has not instructed a solicitor (on your advice?) there is no-one who can give an undertaking with respect to the solicitor's lien. The net result of course is that an appeal already hopelessly out of time remains unfiled.

Who are these "honest lawyers" you recommend? And why aren't they acting here?

And why aren't they acting here?
lack of funding.

She's written a series of blogs boasting about her lifestyle, she managed to find the money when it was about her, she even managed to pull up stumps and relocate to another country both of these things well after the period in which she should have filed her appeal. Has it ever occurred to you for one moment that she may not be entirely truthful?

I have seen one family court case which over a number of years cost £1 million (in a Crown Dependency). Obviously it would not cost this much, but just because someone can afford to move country does not mean they can afford to pay for a private appeal.

As it stands in any event she has not yet got a copy of her case file.

Trial's the expensive bit, not the appeal. Given the lifestyle she's described, the suggestion that cost is the obstacle is highly implausible. As is pretty much everything else she's said. Why you encourage this I have no idea.

As for the case file, it is not a prerequisite to instructing a solicitor, indeed a solicitor is more likely to be able to get hold of it. All this is extremely unconvincing.

"I have seen one family court case which over a number of years cost £1 million (in a Crown Dependency)."

Did any of that result from criminal proceedings due to her refusal to obey the law?

All this is extremely unconvincing.
It is quite clear that you find everything "unconvincing."

I do tend to be skeptical where conspiracy theories are concerned.

There are reasons why it is normally expected that judicial proceedings should occur with scrutiny.

Conference season continues. This weekend was the turn of UK Column, a motley collection of right wing tinfoil hat enthusiasts. Why am I telling you this? Well you'll never guess who their guest speaker was. Watch to the end and see him explain why smearing judges and social workers may be acceptable, smearing him crosses the line: