Justice For Families

Loving Mama

I have found "some clues to the case", it has taken me almost two days but I have found the Lord Justice Holman ruling was in 2007, IT IS THE WEBSTERS CASE.

I have also found a news snippet,

In February this year, at an interim hearing for the proceedings Norfolk County Council was still pursuing, Mr Justice Holman told the council it could not simply cite the May 2004 case as proof of Brandon's risk. It would, he said, have to prove "from scratch" that Child B was abused.

hopefully LM this points us in the right direction now and hopefully we should be able to track down the judgment.

Subsequently it is this judgment that led the L.A to drop the case on Brandon allowing the Websters to take him back home, L.A had no evidence to prove abuse.

WELL DONE MOBALDY!!! Yay!!

Thanks Mobaldy, I will start trawling for it, although I hope it doesn't take too much finding !!!

Well another hearing, and some progress:

THE CASE IS STARTING TO CRUMBLE (at last) & ALL CHILDREN ARE TO BE GRANTED AUDIENCE WITH THE JUDGE .

The judge instructed the ss sol to go ring my 16yr old daughter whom had left court 5 mins previous after the case re her daughter had concluded, and get her back on the stand to come speak to him (not give evidence) re her wishes & feelings re my application to discharge the care orders, after a few hesitant answers she said she wanted to CO discharged, judge asked why, her reasons - The CO is too restrictive, she has to ask to sleep at other peoples homes, she has to ask to see her now suppposed EX, and she has to give 3 days advance notice of coming to my home to visit me. The Judge accepted this and asked her again what she wanted, and if she saw any benefits of the CO she said no I want it discharged. So Judge has directed ALL children to be given the option of being granted audience to verbally express their wishes and feelings to him in person

Due to this the ss sol started running around like a headless chicken trying to draw up a plan to show my 16yr old the benefits of remaining on a S.31 CO. Jeez these people will stop at nothing.

Unfortunately the Judge refused to accept that contact with my son was set at once very 3 weeks, bloody sneaky GAL Sol ommited to write it in the directions of that hearing. I missed this because it was one of the directions orders I had struggled to get a paper copy of, mmmmm I wonder why?? The Judge refused to order the transcript of that hearing be obtained and said it was a waste of the public purse, yeah ok so what the hell is his big fat salary then? Wonder if he wants to take a reduction to pay for transcripts, I doubt it. I therefore am going to have to apply for the transcripts of my own accord.

The judge directed NO ORDER re contact, the LA have it set at what they say is 'My Son's Discretion' yet he has proven he wants to see me regularly. We even counter-argued the contact stability, consistency, routine, stuff etc etc, but this judge was NOT giving an inch. Last contact was deemed to be very successful! No Order doesn't stop me instigating informal contact then does it and if my son wants to see me I will do it.

The judge even tried to tell me that Crapcass don't lie or mislead the court, or the GAL has lied and I CAN and WILL evidence that he HAS.

Now the GAL & GAL Sol want a meeting with me and my sol, over coffee and biscuits, mmm no point trying to sweeten me, it doesn't work. All I want is the GAL to do is be honest and do his job properly, not too much to ask. That is what he gets paid for. Is he worried that the children are not retracting their complaints about him? Is he worried that I have taken advice from Cafcass Complaints HQ, whom have requested I email a brief outline of his behaviour in this case to them. Seems his writing in a court report that I had instructed VOICE For The Child In Care is not in line with Cafcass National Standards, which clearly state Cafcass welcomes the involvement of Voice For The Child In Care so they can ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child independently of any parent/carer. This information has been provided to me by the HQ of BOTH organisations, tut tut tut GAL you really did make a silly mistake this time.

Hi, Got your text and have just read your update.

Wonderful news - the judge is going to speak to the children himself - what an opportunity for them. Tell little missy not to get too carried away with allegations about being beaten up by foster carers!!! Have you still got a copy of wishes and feelings letter I did? If so show it to the girls, remind them specifically of the points where they said it's hard with mum because she sets boundaries but we'd still rather be with her.

By making no order on contact for your son the judge has left the door wide open for you, you should see this as a positicve thing - he has not restricted venue, quontum, form, or anything else - the only restriction seems to be when your son says he has had enough. Why would you want to prove to the judge that he said something else earlier? Don't be daft girl - this is a gift.

With regard to his comments about GALS not lying, the judge is trying to do you a favour with that. Do not make this a battle between you and the GAL, SW or DSM. He is trying to keep you focused on the kids and how does having a personal vendetta help the kids? Not at all - I would advise you to leave this alone for now, smile sweetly at the judge and ignore the sewer rats.

It sounds like this judge (am I right in thinking this is a fairly new judge to the case?) has realised what a load of mixed messages there are in this case, he has realised the children are all of a competent age and he is going to do what the GAL and SW have refused to do and actually listen to the children. This could be a real result - well done!

Thanks KIT

Glad you got the message and hope you & your lovely family are all ok.

Yes, we still have the independent wishes & feelings you did with the girls in the file. Seems these have been forgotten along the way, I will remind my sol about them to make sure she references these in the next position statement.

The judge was on the verge of discharging 16yr olds CO today, but the LA Sol jumped up and started babbling about the baby which made him hesitate. So near yet so far!! The LA really are using the baby against my daughter with her discharge of the CO, yet she has agreed to sign S.20, grrrrr.

My sol was trying to get me to consider accepting having the girls on Placement with Parent Regs, and go for an application for Defined Contact, with Penal Notice attached, but the (new) judge was so close to discharging it was surreal. Yet he was hesitant about letting the whole application continue, which is what the LA & GAL have been after for so long, my application thrown out of court, S.50 rubber stamped etc etc.

I am undecided what to do now. Do I ask my sol to get the LA to agree permanent Placement With Parent Regs for the girls with a new definitive Care Plan, incorporating several conditions for the LA to adhere to, i.e no disrupting placements with me, only stat 6 weekly visits to decrease in frequency after 6 mths, family therapy, and also negotitate decent contact to my son, or just keep going with the current application to discharge? If I negotiate now what is to say the LA would stick to any of the plans/agreements? With a S.31 & 51% shared PR they have the over-riding power to do as they see fit. Future litigation would be extremely damaging to the children, without a doubt. There is a real danger if I do bargain with the LA they are going to resurrect their desire for a S.91(14), which I am under no doubt they are going to apply for as it hasn't faded away yet!

The case is to be heard by the same judge to final hearing; if he agrees to timetable that far. He is sprouting about considerable delays, wasting judiciary time, cost to the public purse with an application that is not going to succeed etc etc. However he is reveiwing in December (1 week before christmas), with option for childrento be granted audience and speaking to him in person, to enable him to ascertain their wishes & feelings verbally.

The new psychiatric report will have been received by the December hearing, so a much clear position will have been obtained. The worse case scenario with that report would be that the psych will recommend 12 mths DBT as out-patient. (My healthcare team enquired about funding from the Specialist Funding Commission for a DBT assessment, but they will not fund anything at the moment, not until proceedings have concluded. I have been self-funding private psychodynamic psychotherapy for the last 2 years, which is on-going).

My healthcare team have suggested I consider us having a meeting with the LA to enable them to express their concerns that the LA are frustrating their therapeutic work with me, and to also put their views forward that they do NOT have any child protection concerns. Although I appreciate this meeting could be a positive, I am undecided. My anxieties are telling me to be wary as the LA may try to use this a phishing exercise. I have considered inviting my sol to attend due to the possible legal implications. My healthcare professionals wouldn't have any objections to my legal rep being present, and would welcome meeting her too.

Decisions, decisions - did you ever think you would get this far?

I can't tell you what to do, obviously but I am minded to agree that you have no way of keeping the LA to any agreement, nor can you guarantee that the jdge will give a defined contact order that suits what you want.

I think it really depends on what the children say to the judge on the day (and it sounds to me like he will listen to them).

What have you got to lose by carrying on your current application to discharge? Chances are if you fail the LA will place the kids with you anyway, after all when they place them elsewhere they just walk straight home!!!!

Don't know about healthcare team meeting LA, it coud go either way - what does your solicitor say?

PS - We are just about getting through each day - girls get to school clean, tidy and fed - sometimes they get their homework done as well. We are all just very sad at the moment - I imagine it will get easier over time, but it's never going to be as good as it was.

It's good that you're all getting through the days, just take it one day at a time and eventually it will start to improve. Things will be good again, just a different type of good. He touched your life to give you those beautiful children, who would be there needing you to go on for them once he was gone. He left part of him with you, and the love & wonderful memories can never be taken away from you. At least he is held safe in your heart. The fact that he was completely cleared and had a short period of time back with you all was a blessing. Thoughts are with you all (((cyber hugs)))

My sol hasn't really given advice re a meeting, no committed opinion, but then again she hasn't really gotten to grips with the history of this case yet, as I keep having to fill in the gaps etc. If you recall the LA sneakily requested a meeting with my Consultant Psych alone some months ago, after stating they only required a report from her. However this meeting would be controlled by the healthcare team, Psych, GP, CPN all there to state their displeasure with the LA, along with my sol due to current legal implications. The LA would be backed into a corner. All healthcare team members are fully aware of the medical references/terminology to avoid like the plague, and have been extremely supportive throughout

The sol is a little reluctant to get my healthcare team too heavily involved in the proceedings at present. She suggets allowing the independent psychiatrist to make the contact, as the LOI gives him the unusual priviledge of contacting GP, Consultant Psychiatrist and Therapy Centre Manager to obtain information from files, which he believes are revelevant to the assessment, and not just to have the usual mountainous pile of files to sift through.

If you are happy with the LOI then I would let the expert contact your medical team - why do the LA need to get involved at this point? They're not experts, are they?

Case Update:

Psych assessment takes place next week - arrrggggggghhh panic


There is no chance the CO's will be discharged now.

16yr old daughter physically attacked my 14 yr old daughter, it was necessary to involve the police and get the LA to remove the 16 yr old & baby following day due to seriousness of volatility of 16yr old (although email from 16yr old's sol dealing with baby's case suggests LA cite me as the bloody problem). 16yr old & baby are now reportedly in a mother & baby foster placement, although as usual the LA don't see fit to keep me up to date and fully informed, even though I have PR, not that it is worth the recycled toilet paper it was written on.

That leaves 14 yr old and 12 yr old now residing with me, under Placement With Parent Regs.

My 13 yr old son has reportedly changed his mind about the CO discharge after having a 36" flat screen TV bought for him by the fc & the sw also provided him with a brand new laptop (poor lad doesn't realise he has been bought & has to return the laptop to the ELAC team once he leaves education). There has not been any contact with son for 10 weeks as we have all been physically ill with various viruses, and the LA don't want to promote indirect contact, therefore it does not go ahead.

How low these people will stoop to bribe children is disgraceful & that bloody fc is going to get the roth of my tongue when I see her next too.

The judge has reserved my case to himself and is going to be dealing with matters on the 18th December. He has already stated he is NOT permitting it to go to final hearing nor finding of fact. The final hearing for the week of 18th December was vacated at the last hearing. Surely this is NOT legal. I fear the LA may also get a S.34(4) & S.91(14) too

Stay strong...

Could someone explain to me the Placement with Parents Regs?

Thanks
TC

For me it was a case of signing the contract the la drew up.
Its the process that allows you to have your child overnight again
In my case,. They drew up the expectations. They went through
what was happening, where we were at, and wot days and nights
my child would be coming to stay. It requires your signiture
in order to agree.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19910893_en_1.htm (link to the Statutory Instrument)

Placement with parent regs menas the child remains on a S.31 (full care order) and resides with their parent(s). SS like to use this one as it gives them more say in the child's upbringing as they retain all their legal powers and 51% parental responsibility of the child(ren). It is just the same as the child being in LA care on a full care order but the child simply resides with one or both parents. LAC & PEP reviews still take place, along with all other statutory sw visits, medicals etc etc.

The sw has a great deal of paperwork to go through, forms have to be sent to at least 13 other professionals including GP's, teachers etc etc. The parent is required to complete forms and also sign a carers agreement. DO NOT be fooled ingto disclosing sensitive personal information, hobbies interests, previous employment etc etc. The LA also have to apply for a new Ehanced CRB for the parent(s) at the LA's expense, which the parent(s) should receive a copy of.

Hard work for the parent(s) but well worth it and one of having the child return home.

Children can also be placed at home during proceedings on an ICO too.

Was yours a Working Agreement Anon & not the formal placement with parents regs?

Definatly the last one. Yes all of that stuff too that you added is involved. It did not register it was that much work but yes it was in fact . it took a good month or so for it all to come together, however It was not as many as 13 profesionals as far as Im aware.
(Its hard to remeber as so much goes on at the time)

It was what I was told to sign if I wanted my child to have overnight contact during the case. So yes a placement with parents reg during an ICO ?!

It was TC who brilliantly informed me about woking agreements some years ago which I asked a Judge to make, I was representing myself.
He said I cant make the LA go into a working agreement with you?!