Thank goodness for a sensible judge

[Freckle]

How dare social services think they are above the law? Well done that judge.

it's incredible that social services don't follow the correct legal route.

Message withdrawn

saw this on the news this morning.

It's about time someone said that SS are out of order in cases like this.

Well done Mr. Judgey Man

i was just about to start a thread on this. I'm sure people will say we don't know enough about the case to comment, but the SS obviously behaved illegally and thought they could do what they liked without going through proper procedures. That is terrifying.

Yes the SS acted totally outside of the law-it doesn't matter whether they were right to have concerns about this mother or not-they cannot take babies or children away without Court sanction (police can remove for a short period)

Mumby J is a superb Judge

So glad there's a thread on this. And thank heavens there is at least one judge who is prepared to hold SS to account.

This is exactly what they were planning to do to Fran Lyon.

And it proves that they are telling downright lies when they say they aren't babysnatchers, they merely make recommendations to the court and act on the court's ruling. Clearly the SWs in this case, and in Fran's, thought they were above the law. My guess is that attitude is widespread.

It's particularly worrying that the poor mother in this case had just left 'care' herself. SWs should be supporting her, not taking it upon themselves to punish her for crimes she hasn't even committed.

yes, well done that judge
how long was the mother separated from her child in total?

poor poor things

Edam-I don't think Nothumbria County Council were intending to take Fran Lyon's baby before they obtained Court approval ie-acting outside of the law.

god it's terrifying that they did that. I wonder whether they'll try again? Hopefully will get sat on by a judge again if they do.

has anyone heard anything about Fran, btw?

The birth plan imposed by SS in Fran's case said the baby was to be removed very shortly after birth and she was to be prevented from b/f, IIRC. There was no court ruling at the time the plan was drawn up.

There cannot be a Court ruling until the baby is born so the Council did nothing illegal. It is common practise to draw up a birth plan in a case where the Council rightly or wrongly think that there is cause for concern. It is the Court that would ultimately decide whether the birth plan should be approved and sanctioned by Court Order. The Council would have to apply for an urgent hearing following the birth.
The case law is very clear about the draconian step in removing babies in this way-and the extent of perceived harm before any removal could be justified.
Frankly I would have been surprised had the Court sanctioned the immediate removal of Fran's baby on the basis of the information that was provided to us.

well, quite - there was no court ruling, there couldn't possibly be any court ruling, so they had no right to order that Fran's baby be taken away or that she be prevented from b/f.

well this case shows the SS can and do take babies away without a court ruling.

The reason this case has made news headlines is because it is not happening every day. In sixteen years of practice in this area of law-I have never come accross a local auhtority acting outside of the law in removing babies in this way.
It is absolutely abhorrant that the local authority in this case acted outside of the law. The Children Act recognises the enormous consequences of seperating a mother and child and that is why there are strict procedures to be followed and serious hurdles to cross before such a step can be taken. The Local authority in this case completely ignored their statutory duties.

i hope you are right chipkid. I'm hoping that it is not unusual because in this case the judge went against the SS's wishes.

completely agree chipkid
most unusual, hence munby's v robust language in the judgment

I'm crosser that it still took 48 minutes to get the baby to the mother after the court order when they were both in the same hospital - how long does it take to make a phone call ffs - but then I'm just being fussy

mumby
sorry

no I'm confused, its munby isn't it?
christ knows I've read enough of his judgments

Hello all,

Fran here (very briefly...)

The plan in my case was to take Molly without court sanction (bit tricky to get within ten minutes of the birth) by using a police protection order if I would not consent. The would then have applied for an urgent hearing for an interim care order. Technically that would all have been legal. Though I don't think something being legal necessarily means it's right.

I don't know anything about this woman's case aside from what was on the Today programme (heard via the internet - we're not in the UK!).

These sickening aberrations in the system make it that bit harder each and every time they occur for the changes we desperately need to be made - changes that would actually keep children safer.

I desperately hope there is a happier outcome for this family. As has been said - Munby J is a wonderful judge, and so they at least have that in their favour. If what I've read is correct then he has given the council till early February to come up with a plan to support the family.

Fran

(We're fine by the way...sleeping well, bf-ing well, well supported and happy - a real fairytale ending. I only wish every family in my situation could be given the same chance.)

Oh lovely to hear from you, Fran. So glad that you and Molly are doing well.

And that teenager was very lucky that (a) she had a solicitor who acted so promptly and (b) a judge who had some sense between his ears.

Jeepers seasidemama-a PPO!!!!

I'm with chipkid, in all my time practicing I've never known a situation like this. I can't believe that SS didn't look at any alternatives and certinaly didn't think through the consequences of their actions.

seems to be a right royal cock up by that SS department
I'm pretty sure 99% of SS depts would know that removing a child without a court order wasn't an option, legally speaking

sounds like in fran's case they were also well aware of that and were trying to cobble something together than would hang together legally, hence the PPO...

so glad all is well Fran. Look after both of you.