Need advice re contact

[stoppinchingthedummy]

Hi all i apologise if this is a little confusing ,i will do my absolute best to let this make sense without too many details being revealed ...ok

My sister split from her partner of 6 years - he has a daughter who my sister has cared for,for the past 6 years since they got her out of care. Ok so they have split due to his drug taking and being unpredicatable and basically putting her through crap.

Ok so 3 weeks ago he left and came back a day later and "snached" his daughter( i know technically she hasnt been snatched cos he is her dad) and they are living with his relatives. Ok so now a court case is on as my sister fights for this child and has been told for 2 months the child will reside with her fathers family and my sister will have access once a week while the police,courts and ss find out the whole history!!

Right so now my sister has been told by her barrister no contact with the ex or his family only to meet on her access day at a specific time and drop off at the same time every week. She has just had a phonecall from one of the family members who has the child ,saying that he has been texting her (my sis) and as she hasnt replied he will be using this as evidence in court that she cant be bothered about her access day!!! My sister is now highly upset as she is very very excited about seeing the child (who she has always been mum to) and is now worried this will go against her having her back permanatly

my question for someone who knows is can she get into trouble for not answering them since she was told by her barrister no contact?

Any replies recieved i will be greatful for. :)

You are welcome. I have been in a similar situation and I know how hard it can be. It is very easy to feel like the wicked witch, trying to steal someone else's child. I hope that this situation is resolved soon.

SS do have to consider what the child wants. She is old enough to express her wishes and the court has to take these into account.

Poor little thing

I would encourage you to contact the organisation I linked to above. They will be able to tell you exactly what to do.

I wouldnt have my son if it were not for their help.

stoppinchingthedummy It seems like the child isn't being looked after very well at present. Problem is social services won't be able to take the the child from the father and give her to you to look after without obtaining an order from the court to remove the child from the father. If they do that they will very probably, if not definitely, take the child to foster carers, after which it may well be very difficult to retrieve the child. If you or your sister can get the father to leave the child with you but you refuse to allow the father into your home, then the child will be safe and I don't think social services will be able to remove her, because she will be there with the consent of her father, even though he isn't allowed to enter your home, whereas of course your sister will be able to do that to visit the child, assuming the child is safe in her presence. Maybe that would work and avoid the possibility of social services snatching the child from any property where the father is also living!

Social services have a legal duty to explore friends and family carers before outside foster carers wasthat.

They cannot place a child with a fc if there is a family member or someone with a close connection who is willing and suitable to care for the child.

Agree with thefirstmrsdevere

Thank you wasthatheguy - and thefirstmrsdevere im quite glad to read that - the child has been assigned a social worker now and i hope to hear by tomorrow this child has been removed from his care and is safe

Please be aware stopping that although this is the law, not all SS are aware and if they are they may not think YOU are aware.

If you are serious (or any other family member) are serious about taking this child on you may still have to fight. That is why I advise getting good quality information.

I hope everything turns out for the best asap.

Remember though that placement with a family member is always far better and cheaper for SS. Try and see if they will organise a family conference of those willing to step in and care- basically they leave the whole family in a room together and see if the family can come up with a workable solution.

stoppinchingthedummy I think the simple solution will be for the father to "deposit" the child at your home. And say he consents to you looking after the child for the time being. Also that he agrees to you refusing to consent to him entering your home. It would be best if the biological mother also consents that arrangement also applies to her. Your sister could enter your home at any time with your consent, assuming she, or anyone else you allow to enter, is not likely to cause the child any physical or emotional harm. If you and or your sister, when out and about with the child, happened to meet the father, or anyone else, that would not be a problem, as long as there were no major arguments, in which case it would be best to remove the child from the scene. If social services remove the child from the father but place the child with foster carers instead of you, the father could say he consents to the child being accommodated by you, but does not consent to the child being accommodated by foster carers. Preferably ditto for the mother. Anyway, if you wish, you can say what happens and imvite any comments on that.

The biological mother has no say in what happens - she isnt allowed cotact or access which is why the father making his daughter contact her is wrong on so many levels. It a tough fight thats on to be honest and im finding it quite stressful so god knows how my sister feels . I will update you on here when something happens. thank you

The trouble with that scenerio *wasthat (and I am sorry it I appear to be picking on your posts) is that it would be considered a 'voluntary arrangement'. This would make it pretty much impossible for the OP to access any practical or financial support from SS. She would be left to deal with any emotional, financial and family fallout on her own. If the placement were to be long term this could cause considerable difficulties and even set the arrangement up to fail.

stoppinchingthedummy Because the father is taking drugs and unpredictable, social services won't allow the child to be left alone with him, ie will remove the child if that is the situation. So the father needs to consent to someone else having the prime responsibility for caring for the child, at least for the time being. Your sister, who has done that for the past six years, being the most obvious choice. If your sister is the sole tennant where she lives the father could leave the child with her and he could live somewhere else. Otherwise, the father could leave the child with you and live with your sister or anywhere else. Either way, the plan would be that the father has consented to the child being accommodated by your sister, and or you, who has or have prime responsibility for caring for the child including taking her to and from school. As regards the child's biological mother, I think she will definitely have some parental rights, even though they may been curtailed or restricted in some way via a court order which is still in force. That is something you could ask the biological mother and or father about. The biological mother's consent to any plan may well be useful and or appropriate.

thefirstMrsDeVere The potential future difficulties you refer to are possible but, depending on how things develop, may not happen or be a major problem.

Some info re the relevant law :- If the Local Authority, according to the wishes of it's social workers, applies for a care order, it will obtain an interim care order if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if the care given to the child, or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, is not what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her. A full care order will be issued if the court, at a final hearing at some later date, is satisfied that the above is in fact correct. The words highlighted above being from sections 38(2) and 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. Section 1 of the Act specifies that the child?s welfare shall be the court?s paramount consideration and that a court shall have regard in particular to - followed by the so called Welfare Checklist in section 1(3). In my opinion it isn't a major problem if a parent makes arrangements for someone else to care for his or her child, possibly temporarily,as long as the welfare of the child is not significantly adversely affected as a result.

Children Act 1989 :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents

wasthatthatguy: There are existing court proceedings, so the court gets to say who the shild shall live with. Any proposal to change residence on an interim basis, unless it is with the consent of all parties to the proceedings, should be ventilated (I like that word) before the judge.

Thank you for your comment Resolution, a family solicitor with 20 years experience, who I presume represents this organisation www.resolution.org.uk here on Mumsnet.

In her first comment stoppinchingthedummy says "a court case is on as my sister fights for this child and has been told for 2 months the child will reside with her fathers family"

The first interim care order issued in a child care case has a duration of two months. So it looks like what may well be happening here is a very typical situation of a Local Authority applying for a care order re a child and all of the lawyers (allegedly) representing the child and the child's family not significantly opposing the issuing of the first interim care order. Once an interim care order has been issued the LA gets to say where the child is accommodated. Currently at the child's grandparents. Anyway, the LA will no doubt have their plan, which may well not yet have been disclosed to anyone else. I think the only way the child's parents and other biological relatives and the child's wider family, like stoppinchingthedummy's sister, will be able to prevent the child going into care, and then probably being forcibly adopted against their wishes, is if they can come up with a viable plan under which the child can be adequately cared for.

Here is Lord Justice Thorpe saying how aghast he was at how a child had been removed from a family via a 15 minute (so called) "hearing" :- www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8363501/Parents-denied-a-voice-in-court-against-the-child-snatchers.html

I hope you're not having a pop at me.

I do not represent the organisation Resolution, though I would urge you to inspect the aims and code of conduct of Resolution practitioners and tell me what is wrong with any of it.

You don't know enough about what you post about. No interim care order can last longer than 28 days. Ever.

Good God - why does this forum attract the conspiracy theory cranks? You're either part of a network where when one disappears another pops up, or you're the same one who has been upsetting responsible posters giving freely of their time to share the benefit of their sometimes professional and sometimes lay experience in these areas. How can you possibly conclude what you do about this case? LAs have to file a cre plan when they apply for an order and it's only granted if the judge approves the placement.

Funny that you link to an article that Melvin has commented extensively upon.

Think so.

OH FFS why do I bother? Really? Why?

Is it because I like dragging up the incredibly stressful experiences of 8 years ago? Is it because I like airing my family business on MNs for the fecking joy of it?

No. Because I have been through it, experienced it, studied because SO much depended on it and got through it.

But what is the point when there are people who are determined to scare the shit out of posters because of their own agenda, not because they actually care about the eventual outcome.

The problems I describe probably wont happen? A family member left to care for a deeply trumatized child plus cope with a bunch of angry and dsyfunctional family members? Nah, not probs, let her get on with it, be fine

Resolution Re your comment "You don't know enough about what you post about. No interim care order can last longer than 28 days. Ever." If you check section 38(4)(a) of the Children Act 1989 you will see that the first ICO can be, and probably often is, 8 weeks (ie 2 months) and the subsequent ones 4 weeks (ie 28 days). I admit I am jumping to conclusions. On reflection, perhaps I should have said maybe an interim supervision order or an interim care order has been issued by the court, the relevant info being in Part IV of the Act :- www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/part/IV If you, or any of your solicitor or barrister or social worker pals who post messages here on Mumsnet, can find anything else "wrong" with anything I have said, please specify my "errors", which I will subsequently "correct".

stoppinchingthedummy If you wish to invite further comments on any developments just do so, regardless of what the self-appointed thought police here on Mumsnet say.

Ah Mr Hemming we meet again, new name but still a prick.

A dangerous one who really doesnt give a toss about the families he is 'advising'. He just wants to be right.

"Anyway, the LA will no doubt have their plan, which may well not yet have been disclosed to anyone else."

Not correct. A care plan has to be presented to the court, which will signify where the LA proposes the child be housed, and an alternative if that breaks down.

"I think the only way the child's parents and other biological relatives and the child's wider family, like stoppinchingthedummy's sister, will be able to prevent the child going into care, and then probably being forcibly adopted against their wishes, is if they can come up with a viable plan under which the child can be adequately cared for."

I agree. I hope you see nothing wrong in that. You see, it's all about child protection.

Quite.

If the LA have no reason to think that the child's family or friends are willing and able to care for them - what are they supposed to do?

Resolution Re my earlier comment "Anyway, the LA will no doubt have their plan, which may well not yet have been disclosed to anyone else." Re which you said "Not correct. A care plan has to be presented to the court, which will signify where the LA proposes the child be housed, and an alternative if that breaks down." Although what I said may appear to be wrong it isn't actually wrong. The LA may well present a care plan (eg intervention followed by reunification of the family) to the court at the first hearing, but that may not be the real care plan they have in mind (eg forced adoption). I think it is probably quite common for LAs to commence proceedings alleging they are intending to reunify a family. Appear to do that for a while. Then for no obviously adequate reason switch the care plan to forced adoption, which is probably quite often what the LA child-snatchers were intending to do from day one anyway! So, that's zero outstanding corrections for me, and one outstanding correction for you, bearing in mind you have yet to admit you were wrong to indicate that the first interim supervision or care order could only have a duration of one month, ie the first order can and probably usually does have a duration of two months.