Childrens panel decisions

[Jmcwitch]

Hi there, I don't know where to start, my friend recommended this forum.

I've had a pretty horrendous life and was unfortunately sexually assaulted when I was younger. I am not in denial of this, but other than that had a life the same as the rest of my friends.

The fact that I feel this way is an issue for the social work department in itself, they feel like I'm hiding something and I don't really know what to do.

Today the childrens panel decided that my daughter should be removed from my care, as I've been deemed to be emotionally abuse towards her for asking her to remove her feet from the couch when she was crying.

The childrens panel where rather verbally agressive, with the three of them shouting at me at once.

I have no idea where to go now, other than an appeal.

Thanks

Collaborate et al :- 1. Although the care system and care proceedings are in principle compatible with HR rights, that doesn't mean the child's and family's HR rights are always delivered. 2. I think it is possible for a lay person to discover a lot about the relevant law by looking at relevant cases via the above BAILII search link and other online resources. 3. Solicitors and barristers representing parents in "public law" child care cases get paid regardless of whether or not they "win" on behalf of their clients. However, if they do win for their client they can probably kiss goodbye to any future work from a UK State related organisation, eg a Local Authority or CAFCASS or such like.

Most solicitors do not act for CAFCASS (ie when you act for the child). None who act for parents also act for the LA, who use in-house solicitors.

We get paid more the more the case is fought.

If your going to make accusations against us, at least make sure they aren't contradictory.

You'll note that I have agreed that HR issues can quite properly be raised in court - but do so during the process. It's pointless to hold back on those arguments just so later on you can bring a separate (and probably doomed to fail) HR action.

Oh, and from what CAFCASS officers tell me, when they decide what solicitors to instruct they prefer to go for those that challenge in an intelligent manner the position of the LA, in preference to those who stay meek and accept the LA's position.

In my experience lay people are generally far too close to the trees to see the forest and often tie themselves in knots by reading cases and law. It isn't possible to just read them to understand how they are applied. For example many people home in on the right to a family life and choose to ignore the oppositions human right to security, freedom to move etc that a court must also take into account. The objective justice of a judicial decision may bare no resemblance whatsoever to the subjective justice the litigant expects. Every week I come across at least one litigant in person where things have gone badly wrong and the errors are far more frequent and serious than those made by solicitors.

One LIP in England relied on part of the Family Proceeding Rules which have never been implemented. In Scotland party litigants have been known to quote sections of the Scottish Act of the Union 2007, failing to appreciate that a particular section was obsolete even though it hasn't ever been repealed. As one solicitor pointed out just because a bylaw that makes it legal to kill a Scotsman carrying a bow and arrow in York on a Saturday night hasn't been repealed does not mean someone can get away with murder.

If people wish to represent themselves in court they have the right to do so but it should be from an informed position. A McKenzie Friend and a "lay person" accompanying a party litigant in Scotland aren't quite the same thing, although neither of them are regulated or insured should things go wrong. Helping a LIP is a growth industry. Far too often people in England & Wales are persuaded that family solicitors are sharks and greedy and they would be better off with McKenzie Friends who perhaps have their own axes to grind, overheat the situation unnecessarily and are increasingly charging, in some cases as much as a solicitor.

Yes, it is much more difficult to represent yourself in Scotland than in E&W and even Families Need Fathers advised against it until very recently. Peter Cherbi's campaign has focused more on issues surrounding property, housing, debt and perhaps employment which can be dealt with under different procedures than family cases. The link provided is to the Court of Session which is the Supreme Court and the Sheriff court applications, rules and procedures are different.

Whilst there may be some dinosaurs in the legal profession the overheads of solicitors are high and the average high street family solicitor earns between £27k-£40k which is peanuts for someone who has studied a degree, completed years of training on the job and undergoes further training year in year out. Lawyers don't go into family law to make large amounts of money, there are far more lucrative areas of law to work in.

Returning to the original topic there is far too little information to be jumping to any conclusions. There could be numerous reasons why the Children's Panel took the decision it did, including the OPs lack of knowledge and experience to present her case effectively.

Sorry, that should be the Act of the Union 1707!

Collaborate Re your comment above "If your going to make accusations against us, at least make sure they aren't contradictory." I am not a lawyer. I think you may be saying High Street family law solicitors don't work for CAFCASS, or whatever any equivalent organisation in Scotland is, they work for the child. However, the solicitor takes his or her instructions from the CAFCASS guardian, not the child. I think, if the solicitor did what the child wanted, as opposed to what the CAFCASS guardian wanted, that may well be the last time that solicitor "represents" a child via a CAFCASS guardian. There is also the possibility that the solicitor's firm of solicitors does "non-public law" legal work, ie not child care related, for the Local Authority. So, I don't think there was anything contradictory in me saying, words to the effect, the "child's" solicitor may well not want to get on the wrong side of the LA or CAFCASS. The parent(s) already being on the wrong side of the LA and probably CAFCASS as well. CAFCASS normally agreeing with the LA. Whether any High Street solicitor wants to do much to help a parent who is on the wrong side of the LA and CAFCASS is also debatable.

The contradiction is that we're in it for the money, yet at the same time collude with the LA to have the parent lose their child.

If we wanted to boost our fees we would be fighting every little thing.

That would mean, however, that we wouldn't be colluding with the LA to have the child taken away.

You'll never accept that solicitors and barristers are conscientious professionals acting in the best interest of their clients. Of course there are good ones and poor ones. Much like clients really(!).

Did a lawyer run over your dog when you were a kid?