Justice For Families

Mobaldy, i have been tricked into an assessment with an expert i have agreed to a previous expert that has reported on me 3 times and has produced 3 reports in my favour already, for that reason i declined to be assessed by another expert the court are claiming that as the other expert is seeing my ex and the child then its a different slant on the report she would produce. I told them all including the expert and put it in writing that i did not consent to be assessed the letter of instruction was only agreed by me if it stated that on it, they failed to do that in the mean time i met with the new expert alongside my son as i had said i would do, it now appears during that meeting she has attempted to assess me clearly knowing she did not have my consent. The Judge is subpenoa my gp to court with my medical records for the gal and her team to fish through before they go to the expert. Im lucky that my gp is on my side but then how far can they really go against court orders????

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... 8C7p6Ff-Bg

Page 181, at the end, under the heading, courts and tribunals. I can't copy and paste.

9. At the hearing on 28th November 2005, W's counsel submitted that the defence case was that this was a school girl crush used as a basis for fantasy and to invent an allegation. The judge considered that evidence from the medical notes that TB had attempted suicide and that she was having difficulties was plainly relevant to her credibility and that any argument to the contrary was wasting his time. He said that he had a balancing exercise to perform, one side of which was to make sure that W had a fair trial. W was a 34 year old man of good character facing serious allegations which, if he were convicted, would result in a prison sentence. In the balancing exercise, that must take precedence over confidentiality issues. The judge ordered disclosure of 23 pages of TB's psychiatric records.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2087

RECENT CASE LAW SUMMARIES

RE B R & C (Children) (2002) CA
LTL
12/11/2002
Family – Disclosure of parents’ medical records
In proceedings under the Children Act where the mother of three
children and their respective three fathers were ordered to disclose
their medical records for the preparation of psychological reports,
the failure of the mother to do so because she did not want the
information to be heard by the other parties, would not be
tolerated. The court would only withhold evidence from parties if it
was detrimental to the children



http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:-b ... =firefox-a

2.4 The Data Protection Registrar recommends that any information sharing agreement should address the following issues.

2.5 Will it be necessary to share personal information to fulfil the purpose of the agreement?
If depersonalised information can be used, there are no data protection implications. However, given the purpose of this protocol as set out in 1.1 and 1.2 above, it is clear that only personal information, which is likely to be of a sensitive nature, will fulfil the requirements.

2.6 Do the parties to the arrangement have the power to disclose personal information for that purpose?
This is a particular issue for public sector bodies or agencies whose powers and responsibilities are defined by statute or administrative law. If a public body acts ultra vires or outside its powers, then it may break the lawfulness requirement set out in 2.3 The Data Protection Act 1998 itself states that personal information may be disclosed for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, in cases where failure to disclose would be likely to prejudice those objectives. This may be relevant in serious cases of abuse or likelihood of suffering significant harm.

http://microsites.lincolnshire.gov.uk/s ... ocId=28288

Kandy you need to speak to your GP again and of course the Caldicott Guardian. Ring the PCT Complaints Commission and get some guidance from them, they are usually quite good as are PALs. Whatever they quote ask them to send written copies to you, get as much ammunition to take into that courtroom as possible. If you do your homework and show your GP you are willing to make a stance and are able to form a good defence against them then the GP might be more willing to stand by you. Good luck

In the post I replied to I am using my own experiences.

The Gal and Sol do not under any circumstances have any right to the medical notes, in a case I am closely involved in, the clients medical notes were withheld from all parties except the expert appointed, this way it keeps the noses twitching but cannot see the notes. In this matter also the GP has gone mad at the courts and expert because she was not notified at first instance, this is another factor of the experts, your GP should have a copy of the reports and also the reports should be attached to your medical notes, a Psychological or Psychiartic assessment are medical in nature and as such should be carried out with the GP constantly aware of the situation.

We now have filed criminal proceedings against the Expert, more to the point that he carried out assessments before any letter of instructions were given to him.

mobaldy2005 wrote:We now have filed criminal proceedings against the Expert, more to the point that he carried out assessments before any letter of instructions were given to him.

Good!

It's about time these so-called experts are challenged, quite often they just send any old tosh to the court, they seem to be willing to lie, exaggerate and to be frank get the 'exercise' done ASAP - I don't think half of them have care that there sloppy work is being used in life possibly changing circumstances.

hi Kandy - its great to see you again!!

If this expert has already had a history with the other side, then it's that biased?
Why doesn't your expert who's done 3 reports get to interview the other parties? no ... that' cos it's biased, but that could be what they're doing to you

NRPARENT after reading your posts things are looking bad!!

I have a link (which if I still have - I can't get to) where it explains that medical records should only be shared with other medical profesionals for (if I remember correctly) treating a patient. Reserch has some contribution and isn't relevant in this post.

From what I can work out, the Judge can make an order for medical record disclosure, only if there is an overiding need for the medical records to be disclosed. The disclosure doesn's simply mean - giving all the records over. The Judge is expected to ensure that the records and it's details are confined to a specific use, for a particular duration and with conditions attached.

In a house of lords document, one of the lords says that a Judges hands can't be tied (or something like that, so the Juddge has the power to get the records assesed or analised). That point goes on to detail that a Judge needs to have the nessesar information to make a decision (or an order). That's the Judges power...so the Judge can make the order. A littigant's strength is to argue against the making of that order. The first point of argument is....that the requesting party should make the application and say why they want the order made, not the respondent say why the order should not be made. It's hard to not fall into the trap of defending the records before the requesting party have said why they want the order made.

When a guardian is apointed, the guardain can use anything she gets as her/his evidence, regardless of how they got it or where it came from. That point comes from the children act or the FPR.

I think the guidelines and laws are there and clear. Medical records enjoy confidentiality and the owner of the information is the patient, who should consent to the disclosure, if he agrees. The court can make an order, when there is overiding reasons which are established before the order can be made. What I can't find out is if the establishing of the overiding reasons to make the order enjoy a time limit (which could be subject to an appeal) from when the reasons were found to the makeing of an order. Logic tells me that there should be a time limit...otherwise the trial could be unfair. (i think).

When a child is involved, there is a "no delay" principal. So....can that "no delay" principal be applied to a parents medical records. One (or an absent parent) could argue "yes" if the child is resident with the parent who refuses to consent. Logic suggests that non medical opinion isn't reason enough (I agree). The child needs to be "at risk of harm" and the parent who is refusing should have a history which suggests that there is a real and actual threat to the child.

The Judge has other orders which he can make, before he makes an order for medical record disclosure....for example a S37 report. Some of the cases I have followed went down the S37 report. 2 cases where I was directly involved, the S37 report recomended keeping the child with the resident parent. In one of the 2 cases, the resident parents medical records were already given, the other case, the parent refused to consent and no one pressed the issue any more.

The 2 cases I refer to are already at a final order stage.

Can anyone help i have today recived the order from the coa stating my permission to appeal be refused, at the very bottom of the order it says NOTE: Your application for permisson to appeal to this court has been refused. No appeal may be made agaisnt this descision to the supreme court of the united kingdom : See section 54(4) of the access to justice act 1999.

I was planning on going to the supreme court, can anyone give me advice as to what i should or can or cannot do next?

54
Permission to appeal .(1)
Rules of court may provide that any right of appeal to— .
(a)
a county court, .
(b)
the High Court, or .
(c)
the Court of Appeal, .
may be exercised only with permission.
(2)
This section does not apply to a right of appeal in a criminal cause or matter. .
(3)
For the purposes of subsection (1) rules of court may make provision as to— .
(a)
the classes of case in which a right of appeal may be exercised only with permission, .
(b)
the court or courts which may give permission for the purposes of this section, .
(c)
any considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether permission should be given, and .
(d)
any requirements to be satisfied before permission may be given, .
and may make different provision for different circumstances.
(4)
No appeal may be made against a decision of a court under this section to give or refuse permission (but this subsection does not affect any right under rules of court to make a further application for permission to the same or another court). .
(5)
For the purposes of this section a right to make an application to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court constitutes a right of appeal. .
(6)
For the purposes of this section a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal includes— .
(a)
the right to make an application for a new trial, and .
(b)
the right to make an application to set aside a verdict, finding or judgment in any cause or matter in the High Court which has been tried, or in which any issue has been tried, by a jury.

Hi Kandy

I am now in the same situation as you. Though the first order was sought fraudulently as the LJs said there was no hearing before a judge in whose name that order to release my records was made, that there was no administrative transfer of the case to a judge who had no jurisdiction, yet they said that making the order gave the principle order effect.

Now back in court - the hight court judge has ordered our pct to release mine and kids' med records to the judge - and then he would send them to psychologist. I made it clear I disagreed and cited the Z v Finland ECHR case law - he heard and ignored. I told judge that he used psychologist's assessment in finding of fact, os if he says it is incomplete then his judgement remains incomplete (I have appealed it) and if he says it is complete as he used it in finding of fcat hearing then no need to update assessment. He did not like the logic.

I have spoken to pct and they said if they have my med records then they will send them; I mentioned Caldicott principle they said they would release as caldicott principle allows for disclosure... and it does and does not - I told them that ECHR has case law that makes it unlawful to disclose, he said he would look at it.

This issue seems set to do what it likes. My statement to supreme court has been lost by them; my 2nd appeal at COA has gone missing; judgement of 10th July 2009 on file and not shared with me; Judgement of 5th August given to lower court judge, in his court file and I don't have copy... L Js, COA, Supreme court will all protect each other.

I wish I could help more, I find myself losing out on avenues to try and test. These bullying tactics will continue unless something is done to show the impact of all this on kids and famiies. These witch- hunts are unnecessary, yet with a Guardian ad litem - an incompetent GAL that has 'feelings' of disclosures and then tells one parent and not the other and waits for disclosures, a GAL that blatantly perjures herself and courts allow it - these practices are rife in our courts and nothing can be done to stop them.

Wow, Janeja, I thought it was just me that the courts "lost" applications for!
My COA July application went on a summer holiday. Things got so bad, they listed a hearing, without the judge having any papers, he had no clue why we were there.
So thats the tactic, they "lose" papers in the system.

However, isn't it try that if refused appeal at COA you can now access the ECHR - within 6 months though.
The 6 months rule is critical as after that it's "inadmissible".
Is that option still open to you perhaps?