Parents 'should go abroad to avoid family courts'

[ScrambledSmegs]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25641247

Yep, that's the BBC. Currently trending as one of the most read pages on the site.

I know they've tried to make this balanced by referencing CAFCASS, but it doesn't feel like much balance when the headline is something as scaremongering as that. It feels quite irresponsible.

Yes, I know that they're trying to drum up interest in their Panorama program, but I think they'd have been better off not publicising JHMP and his ramblings. Unfortunately, he's dangerous. Ridiculous and foolish, but dangerous.

Holly I have just caught up with the thread.
Do you understand what confidential or confidentiality means?
JH certainly doesn't and I wonder if the HemmingLemmings have caught this mysterious illness of lack of vocab.

If you do indeed know, then perhaps you would like to re-read your question to me and my answer, along with at least three others given to you on why Social Services knew it as ILLEGAL to make any comment.

And if you do speak to JH you can show off your new word and explain it to him.

Holly has gone again. Some emergency in Yardely perhaps.

Or some fairy tales about social services to do more scaremongering.

Which really worries me, because Hemming's victims are all vulnerable people :(

And YOU clearly....

She was being sarcastic.

Is that not allowed?

And if her sarcasm is a 'disgrace' I would be interested to know what word you would chose to describe the behaviour of a politician who lies about the family justice system and posts the names of vulnerable children on the internet.

Spero,

PM

Interesting case just reported in Ireland.

An Irish mother and her four children relocated from where they were living in UK (it does not actually say England) back to Ireland to avoid a threatened British care order for the children.
UK Social Services pursued an interim care order to Ireland but lost in court in Dublin because the children were not considered to be at risk by Irish standards.

Two things - (1) I bet this whole affair cost a huge amount of public money and for nothing. No doubt the social services will be complaining next that they are underfunded.
(2) Thank goodness Irish family courts are not secret so the mother got to defend herself.

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-orders-return-of-three-children-to-mother-who-left-uk-following-care-order-1.1675665

I don't understand what you mean by Irish courts are not secret so mother got to defend herself?

Mothers in English proceedings get to defend themselves. I know, because I get paid by the State to do just that.

Spero > Mothers in English proceedings get to defend themselves. I know, because I get paid by the State to do just that.

Alessandra Pacchieri alleges that court hearing involving her, in both secrets courts, took place without her knowledge. If you don't even know that you are being disposed of in a court case you cannot effectively defend yourself. Instead she was "represented" by a lawyer who did not even ask her for her views. So AP alleges. This is quite separate from the fact that we now know (but did not then) that the court even lacked jurisdiction in the child care matter.

Do you really think that it is a good use of public money for social services to pursue expensive foreign court cases that they cannot win? The Dublin judge did not even reach the issue of jurisdiction in Britain over foreign children.

In the Dublin case it boils down to this. The British social services presented evidence that they had a British care order for the children and there is a cooperation agreement between British and Irish social services. The Irish judge ruled that it was insufficient that BSS had convinced a British court that the children were in danger, they also had to actually be in danger if with the mother. The mother testified that they were not in danger and the Irish judge believed her testimony in preference to that of the British experts. It comes down to whom do you believe and the UK social services lack credibility overseas.

for possibly the 100th time... AP was seriously mentally ill. She did not have the capacity to understand proceedings and instruct a lawyer.

You are not comparing like with like.

Just in case there is a misunderstanding, I am not saying that the Irish judge got it right and the British social services got it wrong. That must depend on the facts. But I am saying that the mother had an outcome favourable to her in the Irish court whereas the BSS had an outcome favourable to them in a British court.
I don't see anything wrong with litigants seeking to have a matter removed to a jurisdiction that is favourable to their case. It's OK for both sides to want to win. I am confirming that a mother who moves her case abroad is likely to be better placed in court and that British social services are acting irresponsibly with public money when they pursue families overseas. In part because the money spent on one such case could probably pay for a half a hundred deserving cases back home that are consequentially neglected for an insufficiency of money.

And, if you like, to give you an idea target to rag on, I will take a gratuitous swipe and say they should be spending money on helping mothers instead of these charades.

Spero > for possibly the 100th time... AP was seriously mentally ill. She did not have the capacity to understand proceedings and instruct a lawyer.

So say you. Ms. Pacchieri says contrariwise. That she was denied the opportunity to make that case by not being informed of the hearing. I am not saying that she was not mentally ill. I am saying that she was denied due process. And that even people who are mentally ill should have due process.

You will forgive me Holly, if I am guided by the views of qualified medical professionals as to whether or not a person was suffering mental illness of a nature and a degree to render them incapable of engaging in legal proceedings.

Your point about due process also fails. She was provided with lawyers to represent her in court.

Please explain why due process was not adhered to in this case. or is your only reason because you don't accept she lacked capacity?

And if you don't accept she lacked capacity, please explain so I can understand, your relevant qualifications which allow you to make this determination.

thanks.

It's ludicrous to say at AP was mentally well on her say-so when there was evidence that she was very unwell not only from the independent hospital doctors treating her, but also from Italy where she had been hospitalised three times previously when in manic phases of her illness. There was also the fact that her own mother called for help for her when she spoke to her on the phone; that her older child had been traumatised by seeing her when manic; that her two children had been removed from her care; that, when she came to court some time after she had left hospital the judge was concerned about how unwell she still was; and that her father said she was not well enough to care for her child. So were all those people wrong whilst AP, who was off her medication at the time, was right?

Holly, I think I've asked you before what independent evidence there is that no-one saw AP on behalf of the Official Solicitor, but I never got a reply. I take it from the fact that you repeat this allegation without any back-up that actually there isn't any such evidence?

One thing no one has pick up on in the AP case is that the NHS found a cure for schizophrenia, normally a life long chronic disease! In all the judgements released after the c-sect hearing, schizophrenia is not mentioned. Oddly enough bi-polar is not the same as schizophrenia and no overlap. Either that misdiagnosed her or somehow schizophrenia was not relevant even though bi-polar is.

Also why did they not file for a court ordered c-sect sooner being that they had for months, knowing that she was not going to get better? Reading other c-sect orders it would appear that you can get a court ordered c-sect granted on the provisional basis long before they come to full term.

Is it fair to charge a OS with defending a client on such short notice without any info or time to gather info? If they had followed the guidelines set by the St.George's case the OS would have had enough time to properly defend their client.

Holly, I think I've asked you before what independent evidence there is that no-one saw AP on behalf of the Official Solicitor,

I am going off allegations that Ms Pacchieri published in Italy.

Who is to get the benefit of the doubt here?
The mother who says she was detained against her will, prevented from giving birth to her child in her own country as she wished, and had her child removed from her against her will by a social services "organisation" that did not follow the law by notifying her embassy?

Or an official solicitor who claims it was her wish (hah!) to be declared mentally incompetent in a hastily arranged last possible moment hearing and not challenge the expert medical witness in court, would claims to have met with her, who easily could product records to show he or she had acted lawfully and refute the accusation, but chooses not to because the other side has not yet produced irrefutable proof of malfeasance?

Well who should get the benefit of the doubt?

I submit the person who was dreadfully harmed and not the cowardly expert lawyer who chooses to hide behind a cloak of secrecy "to protect the privacy of child" (a baby who could not care two hoots in hell about privacy in all likelihood).

There is good reason why UK and Croatia are the only countries in the EU who allow unconsented adoptions. And secret courts with secret witnesses, secret evidence and secret judgments where the accused (sorry the declared incompetents) are not even present those outrageously unjust secret courts are needed to make it all happen.

Why could she not have had a lawyer who was a bit more like an angry pit bull and a bit less like a dozy doting spaniel representing her?

Oh, and by the way, I can possibly see a case for unconsented (forced if you like) adoptions of older children who are Gillick Competent, but not, emphatically not babies and infants.

And so we now have the latest case of English social workers trying to seize a newborn and having their evidence disbelieved by a judge. Sitting of course in a court that is not secret, this time in France.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625665/French-judges-foil-social-workers-who-were-out-to-take-mothers-baby.html

Just how much money do they waste sending Interpol on wild goose chases? Why don't they help people who need and want help? Mothers who are too poor to feed their babies as well as they would like. Apparently any amount of money, nothing is too much for social services to spend rather than admit a mistake. Meanwhile people who really need help are not getting it because the money to pay for it has been thrown away.

Well the good news is that foreign judges are now getting the message. Evidence presented by British social services simply lacks credibility. They are not exactly going to be pleased if the English keep on wasting their resources and will do something about it. I wonder what exactly? Perhaps bring the English social workers over to present evidence and then gaol them for contempt of court to set an example.

Yawn.

Going to answer my question Holly?

No?

Re -reading (god knows why, I really do need to get out more. Or at all)

and this struck me
(a baby who could not care two hoots in hell about privacy in all likelihood)

Babies do grow up you know. Into people with autonomy and an identity. Who may not want the most intimate details of their lives splashed all over the press and internet. Who may not want your pals downloading their photos from Facebook before the account gets shut down...

But your lot don't really give a damn about the children do you? They are simply parcels who can be 'stolen'.

As AP's two elder children were not in her care after being 'terrorised' by exposure to her serious mental illness, is this case REALLY the massive miscarriage of justice you seem to think it is?

If so will you please explain and answer the question I have now put to you on I think 3 different threads - WHAT WAS THE ABUSE OF PROCESS IN THIS CASE.

On one thread you claimed to be an expert in European law. So enlighten me. Please.

Interesting article

www.39essex.com/resources/cases.php?id=3494

In our previous issue we identified one point that Alex – in particular – was interested to see discussion regarding in the judgment, namely the fact that Ms Pacchieri was at the material time clearly habitually resident in Italy but yet being the potential subject of an order of the Court of Protection. Nothing in the judgment in JO v GO discussed elsewhere in this newsletter casts doubt upon the proposition that Ms Pacchieri was habitually resident in Italy, and in the cold light of day, it is perhaps of some note that there was apparently no discussion during the hearing of whether the Court had jurisdiction at all to make an order of the nature sought. By virtue of paragraph 7(1)(c) of Schedule 3 to the MCA 2005, the Court of Protection only has jurisdiction on the basis of presence alone if the matter is ‘urgent.’ This word derives from the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults, mirrored by Schedule 3. The approach of the Court of Protection has been to seek to interpret the provisions of Schedule 3 compatibly with the Convention, and to have to regard to the Explanatory Report thereto (see Re M [2011] EWHC 3590 (COP)). From that Explanatory Report, it is clear that ‘urgency’ for purposes of the Hague Convention, and hence Schedule 3, should be interpreted strictly in the medical context. Ms Pacchieri’s position as at the time that it came before the Court might quite properly be described as urgent given that the procedure was scheduled for the next day (although this gives rise to a separate question discussed below); in future cases, we would perhaps expect to see the judge recording in a preamble that they were satisfied that they had jurisdiction on the basis that paragraph 7(1)(c) of Schedule 3 to the MCA 2005 was met;
Perhaps more troublingly, it is not clear on the face of the transcript of the judgment why it was that the application was only made the day before the procedure was scheduled. After all, it was presumably evident to the NHS Trust – who had been caring for Ms Pacchieri for several weeks under the provisions of the MHA 1983 – that (a) she was in the later stages of pregnancy; and (b) she had had at least one previous Caesarean section. Given that the primary basis upon which the procedure was said to be in her best interests was the risk of uterine rupture if she underwent a vaginal birth following her previous Caesarean sections, it would therefore on one view seem rather obvious that the Trust should have moved with greater speed to bring the matter to Court in advance of the procedure. The Court of Appeal in Re MB and – even more emphatically – in St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam 26 stressed the importance of bringing applications regarding Caesarean sections to Court in a timely fashion. Assuming (if such is a correct assumption) that the procedure had to take place on 24 August, and hence the proceedings could not be adjourned, the fact that the application was only issued the day before radically limited the ability of the Official Solicitor to take steps to investigate and (if appropriate) consult with Ms Pacchieri to obtain her views;
Leading on from this, it is not entirely clear from the transcript whether the fact that Ms Pacchieri appears not to have been consulted in advance (and was not to be informed subsequently) was the result of a considered decision that such was not in her best interests. If it were – and it is quite possible to envisage why that might have been so – then one would perhaps have expected to see this recorded in the judgment. If not, then some potentially difficult questions arise as to whether the decision could be said to have complied with s.4(4) MCA 2005.

the whole article is available at www.39essex.com/resources/cases.php?id=3494

due process technically speaking yes. A fair trial hardly.

Spero if you only had minutes to familiarize yourself with a clients case upon reaching the courtroom, would you feel able to represent your client to your full ability? If the answer is yes why meet clients beforehand discussing cases?

As far as families emigrating to other countries to avoid the UK SS, as long as there is not a court order against the family it is very much legal. As a lawyer you should understand the concept of what is legal and what is illegal. If you don't like the law campaign to amend it. I find smoking to be unhealthy yet I understand it is within the law for someone to smoke.

@Spero

"But your lot don't really give a damn about the children do you? They are simply parcels who can be 'stolen'."

You are trying to sensationalize your emotional viewpoint instead of a logical and rational argument based upon the law. Perhaps you need calm down and stop accusing her of hating children. Have a spot of tea, reflect upon reason and sound judgement. Ad hominem attacks do not further discussions.

Ah! Ad hominem again, how lovely to meet you.

I am perfectly calm thanks. Albeit frustrated that this debate keeps churning on in the same old futile way.

Maybe you would like to visit this site and see what you think? I can commend to you the Myth busting section in particular.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk