Author Archives: Sarah Phillimore

Match Mothers

Match Mothers  is a charity, run by volunteers, which supports mothers apart from their children, for whatever reason:

  • You have been through divorce and family breakdown
  • Your child has been fostered, taken into care or adopted
  • You are a mother in prison
  • Personal reasons or choice
  • Religious and cultural
  • Your child has been abducted

 

What it offers

It offers uncritical support, from other mothers who are in similar situations. There is an annual membership fee , but there are concessions for those on low incomes. The first line of support is online, via the website where there are various sources of information available including about family courts and links to resources. Members can also contact each other via the forum, either in a public post or a private message. There is also a private Face book group, which is strictly available for members only. In addition there are a number of local support groups where members can meet face to face and a pen friend matching service. There are two get together’s a year, free to attend, one in the South and one in the North of England, which are very social able meetings with fantastic raffles.

Why it helps?

It can be very isolating being a mother apart from your children. There is still significant stigma, mothers apart being judged far more harshly than their male counterparts. Just realising that you are not the only one is a relief. More experienced members can offer their personal experience in trying to either maintain contact or offer you hope for the future.
A monthly newsletter, offers members a chance to tell their stories and shares relevant topics that may be of interest to members on subjects such as parental alienation .
Members have also taken part in research and shared their stories with journalists who have contacted Match Mothers which has increased awareness.

How to contact ?

[email protected]

Mothers in Re-current Care Proceedings – how do we break the cycle?

On 20th October a group of about 100 lawyers, social workers, local authority professionals and others interested in child protection issues, met at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre to discuss how we can break the cycle for those mother who have child after child removed from their care.

This is a post by Sarah Phillimore. 

The timetable and speakers for the event

16.30 Introductory remarks by Judi Evans, Barrister, St John’s Chambers.

16.35 Professor Karen Broadhurst of Lancaster University explained why some mothers are so vulnerable to repeated care proceedings and removal of successive children.

16.45 Georgina Perry, Co-Founder of Pause, discussed the Pause project.

16.55 Sally-Ann Jenkins, Head of Children & Young Peoples Services, Newport City Council discussed the development of their recent programme of help and support for vulnerable mothers.

17.05 Dr Freda Gardner, Chartered Clinical Psychologist and Deputy Clinical Director of Orchard House assessment and intervention centre, discussed a pre-proceedings intervention model for parents with children.

17.15 Written contribution from Surviving Safeguarding, a parent and campaigner outlining her concerns about the types of intervention proposed for mothers (read out by Sarah Phillimore as sadly Annie couldn’t make the event).

17.20 Questions from audience

18.00 Close

Presentations from the Speakers

Professor Broadhurst kicked off discussions by presenting some ‘short, sharp’ findings from her research into recurrent care proceedings. If the rate of ‘recidivism’ for mothers in care proceedings was repeated in the criminal justice system it would be a huge concern. Research in 2015 showed 1 in 4 of mothers would return to the family courts. The data she presented showed powerful argument for intervention – not merely to save money but to recognise the significant and harmful emotional cost upon mothers who have successive children removed from their care.

 

Women facing recurrent care proceedings are often very vulnerable and there is a real risk of injustice that many cannot access the interventions that the family court say they need. There was clear argument for earlier intervention – if we continue to do nothing, as care proceedings rise, we are simply creating more mothers for the family justice system.

We then heard from Georgina Perry of Pause, who gave brief overview of how the organisation started and what it wanted to achieve.  They had been ‘astounded’ to identify 205 women who had 49 children removed between them. Something had to be done to break the cycle. The group of women they met were very vulnerable – issues of violence in relationship, drug use and mental health challenges. Their vulnerability was compounded by the alien environment of the family court and the language used. They did not understand what was being demanded and they could not access the services the courts ordered them to use.

Pause requires the women they support to use Long Acting Reversible Contraception for 18 months – they appreciate that this is a controversial topic but point out that the adversarial atmosphere of the family courts gets in the way of supporting women and allowing them time and space to reflect and benefit from that support.

The wording of this tweet caused some concern from Surviving Safeguarding, which I shall discuss below.

Sally Ann Jenkins then spoke. She is Head of Children’s Services in Newport. She spoke of working in the area as a social worker in the 1980s and on her return meeting a mother she had worked with and one of her children had children in Newport’s care. This was a stark reminder of the cycle that needs to be broken.

Inspired by attending a seminar and hearing from Professor Broadhurst, Ms Jenkins became part of a local initiative to use existing funding and resources to help parents break the cycle. They work in close collaboration with Barbados. It was early days for the Newport project and it was important to manage expectations – but key message for the audience was that we are going to have to do this by better use of existing resources; unlikely to be any extra funding.

They ask parents – what do you need? What can we do to help you access our services? Work with Swansea on the ‘cost/benefit’ analysis of this approach shows clear

Dr Freda Gardner of Orchard House then spoke about some initiatives that she was piloting. She pointed out that it was often simply a waste of resources to carry on ‘assessing’ parents who had not been able to access the therapy/intervention proposed in previous proceedings by the family courts. She suggested instead a new model – use the funds to provide some therapeutic intervention.

Not all parents could or would respond to intervention. But for some, a short period of focused intervention could bring about real change – for example, helping parents understand the need to be emotionally atuned to their child. This can be taught.

Then a powerful written piece from Surviving Safeguarding. She supported the need for intervention and preventative work but was very concerned by the requirement of Pause that women agree to take LARC as condition of getting access to services. She felt strongly that for vulnerable women who had faced control all their lives, this was simply another aspect of control and she was concerned at the implications this raised around State control of women’s bodies.

She was also concerned about the language used by some professionals – there was a risk that it would continue the ‘othering’ of such mothers and treating them as less than human.

https://twitter.com/survivecourt/status/789141442438520832

 

Discussion with the audience

There was then discussion with the audience about the various issues raised by the speakers. There was exploration about the reasons why women had successive pregnancies – clearly an important driver for some would be the desperate wish to have a child they were allowed to keep.

Pause emphasised that the requirement for women to use LARC was not seen as some form of ‘control’ but to give women freedom from continuing adversarial care proceedings and to empower and educate them so that they could be able to parent in the future. However, judging from subsequent conversations on Twitter, this is clearly an issue which raises strong emotion, along with the need to use language with care in case it simply built up further barriers to engagement and communication.

There were some useful discussions about better support for parents who were often very hostile to and alienated by the court process. A suggestion was made that it would probably be cheaper in the long run to provide parents with their own social worker – the social worker for the child was unlikely to effectively advocate for and support parents.

The Designated Family Judge for Bristol, HHJ Wildblood QC raised three questions: Why has a Pause type model not been introduced in Bristol? Who will introduce it? And when? Bristol City Council confirmed that they were in the process of developing such a service and they would persist.

All recognised the importance of systemic work and recognising the networks around the parents.

It was a useful and though provoking evening and I am grateful for the energy and innovation of our DFJ to encourage these meetings and for use of the Bristol CJC.

Researching fee-charging McKenzie Friends in private family law cases

 

This is a post from Emma Hitchings of the University of Bristol Law School. She is part of the independent research team investigating what fee-charging McKenzie Friends do and what difference their support makes to people who deal with a family dispute without a lawyer.

In the wake of legal aid cuts, individuals in the midst of a family law dispute who cannot pay for legal representation are faced with a stark choice: settling the dispute outside of court or representing themselves as a litigant in person. However, a new market has emerged to plug this post legal aid funding gap: the fee-charging McKenzie Friend. A non-lawyer assistant who charges a fee for services provided to litigants in person.

Fee-charging McKenzie Friends are a current hot topic in the legal press. Only this week a fee-charging McKenzie Friend was jailed for perverting the course of justice in a private family law case and earlier this year the Judiciary conducted a consultation into the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends.

In response to the ongoing debate, the Bar Council  is currently funding research into the work that fee-charging McKenzie Friends do to support litigants in person in private family law cases. There is very little evidence about the background, skills and practices of fee-charging McKenzie Friends and there is no research on the factors underpinning litigants’ decisions to employ a fee-charging McKenzie Friend or on their experiences as McKenzie Friend clients.

The project comprises three strands:
– Strand one involves in-depth interviews with fee-charging McKenzie Friends
– Strand two involves in-depth interviews with clients of McKenzie Friends
– Strand three involves observation of a number of private family law court hearings involving a fee-charging McKenzie Friend and linked interviews with those involved in the case (litigant, judge, McKenzie Friend, lawyer),

 

Have you ever paid a fee for a McKenzie friend?

The team are currently in the process of recruiting clients of McKenzie Friends and would like to talk to individuals who have ever paid a fee for a McKenzie Friend to help them with a dispute about childcare arrangements or post-divorce financial arrangements. Potential participants can find out more information by visiting the following website

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/projects/view/410729-mckenzie-friends

or they can take part by sending an email to [email protected].

The team expect to present the research findings in a final report due to be published in early spring 2017.

Special Guardian Orders and Supervision Orders – is it ever right these go together?

On 13th October 2016 a group of local practitioners – barristers, solicitors, guardians and local authority managers – met to discuss the growing concerns over the practice of making special guardianship orders alongside supervision orders. Those present agreed that this should not be  as commonplace as the statistics suggest (about 30% of SGO have a SO attached) because this could indicate concern about the vulnerability of the kinship placement. However, some commented that that a SO had been used positively in their cases to provide a framework to promote local authority help around contact issues. 

We agreed that we should contact those researching the issue and highlight some of our discussions. Crucial to proper understanding of what is going on is identifying who is pushing for these orders – is it the local authority applying or the court imposing? And what are the statistics on breakdown of such kinship placements? 

We met at the Bristol CJC to discuss this issue. By happy coincidence, it was the subject of a letter to the Times by Sir Martin Narey that very day, so his observations provided another framework for discussion.

Sarah Phillimore lead the discussion by first setting out the historical development of our debate about permanence for children.

A history lesson – the push for adoption and the push back from the courts

[If you are interested in reading more about this debate and want the links to documents cited, see the ‘Forced Adoption’ post.]

In 2000, the government introduced a national target to increase the number of children adopted from care by at least 40% between 1999-2000 and 2004-5. Tony Blair had been horrified by the numbers of children who remained in care for long periods of time without a permanent home. These were not targets to take children from their homes in order to get them adopted – as some assert – but a well intentioned attempt to help children who were already in the care system and hadn’t been found a permanent home.

Claire Fenton-Glynn describes the situation in her study on the UK system, presented to the European Parliament in June 2015:

The Prime Minister’s Review of Adoption in 2000 put forward the belief that the system was not delivering the best for children, as decisions about how to provide a secure, stable and permanent family were not addressed early enough. As such, it advocated an increase in the use of adoption to provide children with permanency at an earlier stage. The Review gave the opinion that there was too great a focus on rehabilitation with the birth family, at the expense of the child’s welfare. It emphasised that the first choice should always be a return to the birth family, but where this was clearly not an option, adoption should be seen as a key means of providing permanence. Foster care, on the other hand, was viewed as a transitional measure, which should be used only as a temporary option.
Following on from this, the government produced a White Paper entitled Adoption: A New Approach, which outlined the government’s plan to promote the wider use of adoption for looked after children, establishing the target of increasing adoption by 40-50 per cent by 2004-2005.39 The White Paper also announced that the government would require local authorities to make a plan for permanence – returning home, placement for adoption, or special guardianship40 – for a child within 6 months of being continuously looked after.
It was in this context that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was introduced, with the explicit aim of promoting the greater use of adoption. The Act changed the process of adoption itself, by making the welfare of the child the paramount consideration for courts and adoption agencies in all decisions relating to adoption, including in deciding whether to dispense with the birth parents’ consent to adoption.

Various governments since 2000 have been very clear that they believe adoption is the best option of permanency for children who can’t live with their birth families. See for example letter in today’s Times from Sir Martin Narey (above).

This official ‘push’ for adoption met an equal and opposite reaction from the courts in and In the matter of B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 and Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. Although the Judges insisted they hadn’t changed the law, there is no doubt these authorities had a massive impact on PRACTICE and applications for placement orders fell dramatically.

So – what to do with children if you are worried they aren’t safe with their birth families, but you also worry that you can’t show sufficiently well argued grounds to support placement order with plan of adoption? One recourse was clearly Special Guardianship Orders.

Implications of the ‘adoption agenda’ for SGOs

Its worth reminding ourselves why SGO came into being. It is an option of permanence – not a ‘holding position’. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 amended section 14 of the Children Act 1989 to create special guardianship orders (SGO). These are a ‘half way house’ between a Child Arrangements Order and adoption, which severs all legal ties between a child and his birth family.

The aim behind a SGO is that it will give a child permanence and stability but also allow him to retain links to his birth family. For example, if a child is cared for by a close relative such as a grandmother, then adoption doesn’t make much sense as his grandmother would legally become his ‘mother’. However, special guardianship is not intended to be only used for relatives; foster carers should also be considered as potential special guardians. See Re I (Adoption: Appeal: Special Guardianship) [2012] Fam Law 1461.

The court in S (a child) [2007] EWCA Civ 54 discussed the government’s motivation behind creating SGOs at paragraph 11 of its judgment. The concept of special guardianship was introduced and discussed in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.11 of the 2000 White Paper in the following terms:

5.8 Adoption is not always appropriate for children who cannot return to their birth parents. Some older children do not wish to be legally separated from their birth families. Adoption may not be best for some children being cared for on a permanent basis by members of their wider birth family. Some minority ethnic communities have religious and cultural difficulties with adoption as it is set out in law. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may also need secure, permanent homes, but have strong attachments to their families abroad. All these children deserve the same chance as any other to enjoy the benefits of a legally secure, stable permanent placement that promotes a supportive, lifelong relationship with their carers, where the court decides that is in their best interests.
5.9 In order to meet the needs of these children where adoption is not appropriate, and to modernise the law so as to reflect the religious and cultural diversity of our country today, the Government believes there is a case to develop a new legislative option to provide permanence short of the legal separation involved in adoption. This view was strongly supported by respondents to the consultation on the PFU report.
5.10 The Government will legislate to create this new option, which could be called ‘special guardianship’. It will only be used to provide permanence for those children for whom adoption is not appropriate, and where the court decides it is in the best interests of the child or young person. It will: –
• give the carer clear responsibility for all aspects of caring for the child or young person, and for making the decisions to do with their upbringing. The child or young person will no longer be looked after by the council;
• provide a firm foundation on which to build a lifelong permanent relationship between the carer and the child or young person;
• preserve the legal link between the child or young person and their birth family;
• be accompanied by proper access to a full range of support services including, where appropriate, financial support.

Use of SGOs on the rise – and concerns about this.

There is no doubt that the use of SGOs is rising. So too the number of SGOs made together with a SO. What isn’t clear from the statistics is whether this is a combination actively pursued by a LA or imposed by a court.

Community Care made a FOI to CAFCASS and reported the statistics in an article on 3rd December 2015. Of the 4,121 special guardianship orders (SGOs) made in 2014, 1,193 had a supervision order attached. The number of SGOs made with a supervision order attached almost tripled from 2012 to 2014, while the numbers of those without a supervision order rose by around 50%.Figures up to 31 September 2015 indicate the practice may increase again this year. By September 2015 922 of the 3,148 SGOs made had a supervision order attached, which is nearly 30%.

This is confirmed by the research funded by the Nuffield Foundation ‘A national study of the usage of supervision orders and special guardianship over time (2007-2016)’:
• There has been a steady rise in the number and proportion of special guardianship orders resulting from public law proceedings since 2007/08.
• There has been a marked change in the ratio of usage of special guardianship orders since 2012/13 when compared to placement order trends. The proportion of placement orders has declined as the share of special guardianship orders has risen. In 2014/15 for the first time ever, the proportion of special guardianship and placement orders (20.1% v 20.9%) and the numbers (3,591 v 3,749) are converging.
• A new and growing trend is the use of a supervision order made to the local authority to accompany a special guardianship order. In 2014/15 28.7% of special guardianship orders were accompanied by a supervision order, up from 11.2% in 2010/11. But usage of supervision orders as a standalone option compared to other legal orders has remained almost level (e.g. 13.1% in 2010/11 and 13.8% in 2014/15).

The first briefing paper comments:

The steady increase in special guardianship orders accompanied by a supervision order is another important new trend. It means that in approximately a third of all cases the local authority is required to ‘advise, assist and befriend the supervised child’ when a special guardianship order is made. There are practical and resource implications arising from this new trend. But above all it raises the question why a supervision order is necessary and what it can achieve. There is no national evidence on the contribution of supervision orders to child wellbeing in general and supporting special guardianship orders in particular. This trend will need careful monitoring.

Concerns about this trend and poor quality assessments have been exacerbated by extensive media coverage of the death of young children at the hands of their Special Guardians.

  • 7 year old Shanay Walker was found dead at a house in Nottingham in July 2014 while in the care of her aunt Kay-Ann Morris, 24. She had suffered more than 50 injuries. Jailing Morris for eight years and Smikle for four years, the judge Mr Justice MacDuff said the pair were guilty of a “most wicked betrayal of trust”
  • 18 month old Keegan Downer was killed on 5th September 2015 by Kandyce Downer, 34, less than a year after SGO made.

Andrew Webb (ADCS) and Anthony Douglas (Cafcass) prepared a note: ‘The assessment of Special Guardians as the preferred permanence option for children in care proceedings applications’ . This was circulated via email in October 2015 to all local practitioners for ‘information only’ – it was not signed or endorsed by the President of the Family Division.

Their identified concerns were:
a. Insufficient consideration of placement’s long term viability.
b. Many placements have been arranged at a late stage in care proceedings without adequate time to carry out a suitability report to safe minimum standards which avoidably increases the risk of placement breakdown or the risk of immediate and significant harm.
c. Basic safeguards routinely applied to other forms of permanence should be followed with every Special Guardianship assessment and court process.
d. Where an SGO is being considered at a late stage in proceedings, care must be taken to ensure that minimum standards are complied with and that the suitability report covers the issues sufficiently. This is just as crucial if professional concerns relate to the long term capacity of the proposed special guardians to parent well, as it is if the child has neither lived with the proposed special guardian/s nor has a relationship with or attachment to the proposed special guardian.
e. If such a late assessment means that the 26 week limit cannot be complied with, this should be clearly presented to the court as a legitimate reason for assigning the case to the non-standard track.
f. All assessments/suitability reports, should comply with the Schedule set out in Regulation 21 of the Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 (2005 No.1109). The threshold for a Special Guardianship Order in social work terms is that there is an evidence base that neither a co-parenting agreement, nor a s8 Order under the Child Arrangements Programme, will guarantee the child sufficient security and stability throughout their childhood. Conversely, the social work assessment and the children’s guardian’s analysis must demonstrate that the special guardian can meet the needs of the child in question including, where appropriate, recovery from the trauma associated with severe abuse or neglect if that has been the child’s prior lived experience.
g. It is important not to regard a Special Guardianship Order as a default option because of the higher hurdle of an adoption recommendation – ‘the nothing else will do’ test, or ‘last resort’ concept. Care must be taken to provide a balanced assessment of the special guardian, rather than over-emphasising untested positives.

The Department of Education conducted a review of the use of SGOs and published its findings in December 2015:
a. A significant minority of cases where assessments were rushed or of poor quality;
b. Potentially risk placements being made – for example, where the SGO is awarded with a supervision order (SO) because there remains some doubt about the special guardian’s ability to care for the child long-term
c. Inadequate support for special guardians, both before placements are finalised, and when needs emerge during the placement.

It is vitally important for the local authority analysis to be robust, supported by strong and intelligent evaluation. SGOs are permanence orders, awarded on the expectation that the child will remain in that placement until he or she is an adult. For this reason, a sound prediction of the child’s long-term welfare in that placement should sit at the heart of the assessment, and form the basis for the final care plan.

Discussions with the audience

SGOS made alongside SO are rising. Is this ever the right outcome for children ? Why would these orders be made together? Some possible answers are:
a. Worries about SG placement and risk of harm. But if you are concerned about a placement to the extent that a Supervision Order is required, can this really be the right permanent placement for a child? Particularly now with judgment of Court of Appeal in Re W (A Child) [2016] which demolishes any presumption of the primacy of a family placement. A child’s opportunity to grow up with a distance aunt or uncle or grandparents should not outweigh that child’s right to be kept safe – even alive.
b. Worries that not sufficient analysis for ‘nothing else will do’ – but SGO can’t be fudged compromise between adoption and long term fostering.
c. Court concerned that lack of support on offer for the SG – but will a supervision order have any impact on this?

There was general agreement in the audience that they were very uneasy about a SO being used to ‘prop up’ a risky placement but some said a SO had a positive impact when used to promote contact arrangements. However, it is not clear that this is a legitimate use of a SO; there is no enforceable obligation upon a local authority to supervise contact post placement unless the court was prepared to entertain an application under the Human Rights Act (which carries its own complications). Some in the audience agreed that what made post placement contact arrangements work was the willingness of the local authority to engage, not the impact of orders which could not be practically enforced. There was widespread unhappiness about the impact of Family Assistance Orders – most perceiving them to be ‘useless’ – but two practitioners did report a positive impact of an FAO after the SGO was made.

All agreed it was vital to try and break the statistics down further to see if it was local authorities pushing for SGOs with SO, or whether this was being led by the court.  Further, it would be essential for future discussion to understand more about how and when SG placements break down. It was noted that some LA review and keep records of the financial assistance offer to SGs so this would be one way of trying to ‘track’ what happened to placements when the court proceedings finished.

However, the point was made that local authorities could not be expected to be a ‘go between’ the Special Guardians and other family members throughout the child’s minority. The whole point of such a placement was that that the SG was deemed able to meet the child’s needs. If continuing assistance was required from a local authority to monitor or manage contact, that raised some doubts as to the suitability of the SGO in the first place.

All agreed that the rise of social media had a significant impact on issues around contact and children seeking out their birth families post placement. This was another reason for getting better statistics for breakdown rates for SG placements.

There was general agreement that the ‘disconnect’ between official policy – more adoptions, more quickly – and what was happening on the ground – pressure to end proceedings in 26 weeks – was having an impact on the nature and quality of assessments. The majority of those present had experienced SG orders being made for people who had failed or would have failed a fostering assessment. There was general agreement that courts needed to be more robust in insisting that possible family placements were identified as soon as possible and that ‘late applications’ would not be entertained. It simply isn’t possible to produce a SG assessment of suitable quality in the middle of a 26 week timetable.

It was agreed that Sarah Phillimore would contact the Nuffield and raise some of these issues with the researchers.

 

EDIT by SP- I am reminded that the Special Guardian Regulations were updated in 2016.  I cannot see that these amendments will have much practical impact on the problems identified, given that the primary problem is the lack of time to carry out proper assessments. But it is a useful reminder that careful consideration must be given to what harm has been suffered by a child before the SGO was made. This will inevitably have an impact on what kind of placement is best for that child.

The relevant part of the amendments reads:

Amendments to the Special Guardianship Regulations 2005

4. In paragraph 1 of the Schedule (matters in respect of the child) —

(a)after sub-paragraph (g) insert:
“(ga)any harm which the child has suffered;
(gb)any risk of future harm to the child posed by the child’s parents, relatives or any other person the local authority consider relevant;”
(b)in paragraph (j) after “related” insert “current needs or likely future”.
5. In paragraph 4 of the Schedule (matters in respect of the prospective special guardian or, where two or more persons are jointly prospective special guardians, each of them) —

(a)for sub-paragraph (j), substitute:
“(j)an assessment of the nature of the prospective special guardian’s current and past relationship with the child;”
(b)for sub-paragraph (n), substitute:
“(n)an assessment of the prospective special guardian’s parenting capacity, including:
(i)their understanding of, and ability to meet the child’s current and likely future needs, particularly, any needs the child may have arising from harm that the child has suffered;
(ii)their understanding of, and ability to protect the child from any current or future risk of harm posed by the child’s parents, relatives or any other person the local authority consider relevant, particularly in relation to contact between any such person and the child;
(iii)their ability and suitability to bring up the child until the child reaches the age of eighteen

Violence and the Family Courts

I am grateful for this post from ‘J’ who contacted the Transparency Project, wanting to share her experiences of going through the family courts and trying to deal with a violent ex partner. 

The Transparency Project will publish Guidance in the new year on the law and practice in such cases involving violent or allegedly violent parents who seek orders relating to their children. Please comment or contact me if you have a story you wish to share. The Transparency Project also hopes to organise a conference to launch its Guidance and discuss these issues. Is the family court really failing so badly the victims of violence and their children? And if so, what can we do about it? 

My Story

My experience started in 2014 when my violent ex applied to court for access to our child.
This was a man with 16 violent convictions, several against me and other partners.
I had managed to end the relationship in 2013. I got a non molestation against him, yet I was continually stalked & harassed by him to the extent that he was arrested and remanded in prison because of it.

I had rang the police 40+ times, 2 blue lights from Oct 2013 – Dec 2013.
He further harrassed me from prison with letters and was re arrested in prison due to that.
He was extremely violent to myself during the relationship and also my children.
He is diagnosed with 4 personality disorders back in 2008 ( unknown to me until court hearing started ).
Borderline personality disorder
Histronic personality disorder
Avoidant personality disorder
Paranoid personality disorder

Cafcass had several concerns regarding him and his violent history so the case was listed for fact finding hearing.
I was cross examined by a man that had tried to kick our child out of me at 10 weeks pregnant
He was extremely aggressive in the court constantly with the judge having him removed several times.
My barrister resigned from the case as he had threatened her also.
He was stabbed in broad daylight in the street half way through this case with a family I had proved to the judge he was fighting with constantly.
His lifestyle and violence was always present.

Yet the judge handled him with ” kid gloves ”
He only paid the fee for court £260.
Never paid another penny even though he was working.
He used my legal aid to get him through court ligitant in person .
As my legal team did all the court orders etc.
My police disclosure alone cost over £3000 funded by my legal aid ( that I contributed to until I had to move home for my safety & my living costs were highly increased ).
I was constantly called a whore & a slag in the court room in front of the judge yet all he got was a telling off.
Fact finding was in my favour as everything I had gone through we had documentation for from police etc.
But the court still said that he could have supervised access.

This put me and my child at further risk as the cafcass offices weren’t safe for me to attend I fought all the way to try stop any contact suggesting indirect contact, yet the history and indeed behaviour of this man in court and out didn’t seem important at all to the judge.
All I got was just because he’s violent don’t make him a bad father , something I strongly disagree with.
In August of this year he was arrested at the court by police for sending his 16 yr old daughter threatening messages.
The police sat in the courtroom with him.
Yet the judge seemed to not acknowledge this at all.

This was a man with extremely violent history trying to get access to a young child, yet was threatening his eldest daughter and nothing was said about it.

I have been to hell and back for 2 years having to face that man multiple times.

He would just email the court if something wasn’t going his way and then another hearing listed
I got out of the toxic relationship alive with my kids just to be thrown back into a extremely unsafe situation month in month out at the hands of the family courts.
I felt like a criminal sat in that court when all I was doing was trying to protect my child from a dangerous and violent man.

The system is flawed and it puts children at risk everyday

Lessons from the Ellie Butler case

These are the notes of a talk given by Sarah Phillimore to the London Resolution group on 3rd October 2016. Further notes of the contributions given by Lucy Reed and Andrew Pack, along with discussion with the audience, will be available shortly on the Transparency Project website. 

Sarah concludes that we all need to be aware of the dangers of confirmation bias and how much we need to tell ourselves stories to make sense of difficult and painful issues. 

“Once free from the shadow of blame… they are going to change” [Hogg J]

The changing perceptions of the nature of Ben Butler.

“I was impressed by the father. He came through as a reflective, thoughtful individual who at times over-reacts through frustration. His manner can be seen by some as rude and aggressive but the mother says there is a much softer side to him. She saw the look of love in his eyes and face…” [para 626 Jmt Hogg J 2012]

“I can’t cope anymore.. woke up in a rage already… been in place so many times… My hands r shaking… One more mistake I am going to lose it.. ur pushing my hate…” [text message from Ben Butler on 19/10/13. 9 days later, he killed Ellie]

“My house is a bad house” [note taken by foster carer of what X reported]

“You are a self-absorbed, ill-tempered, violent and domineering man who, I am satisfied, regarded your children and your partner as trophies, having no role other than to fit in with your infantile and sentimentalised fantasy of family life with you as the patriarch whose every whim was to be responded to appropriately.” [Wilkie J sentencing Ben Butler in June 2016]

Why were such different views held about Ben Butler?

The dangers inherent in imposing our own ‘narrative drive’ upon the facts we know may lead us to ignore other facts or see them through the particular lens of our own confirmation bias.

“Good practice would suggest that when parents are considered to be threatening or hostile, any presumption that they are different with their children should be rigorously tested” [SCR 27/56]

“Hogg J denied as she was of the text messages and an understanding of the violence endemic in the relationship, found the evidence of both parents to be impressive and truthful. In fact what is now obvious is that both the mother and father were being untruthful about the nature and quality of their relationship” [para 48 jmt King J 2014]

The courts can only decide the case that is put in front of them. Accepting that principle, we need to be clear:
• What facts we put before the court – Judges can only decide the case in front of them.
• How those facts should be analysed – but Judges also bring their own interpretations to the facts
• And just how much weight the ‘balance of probabilities’ can bear – is it ever wise to ‘exonerate’ on the balance of probabilities?
• See further https://childprotectionresource.online/achieving-best-evidence-and-use-in-children-act-cases/

Some features of the evidence to consider

Paragraphs from 2012 court judgment
Seeing the case through a lens – ‘a tragedy for a loving couple’

para 51: ‘I have not read the judgments of HHJ Atkins dated 29th January and 28th April nor the summing up to the jury of HHJ Stow in March 2009 as I did not wish to be influenced in any way by another Judge of first instance’ [presumably therefore did not read psychiatric report ordered in February 2008]
NB No mention is made of findings that parents threatened MGP, other than to record that this finding was made.
Para 344: …’other than the injuries found in Ellie’s head [what about burns to head and fingers] …she was a well cared for infant …If that was the scenario, then there is no culpability, it was a reaction to a frightening situation and event’.
Para 507: while pregnant with Ellie’s sibling, the mother committed benefit fraud. [Does not mention other incidents of dishonest behaviour/evasion? Lack of analysis or knowledge of extensive background of criminal background and extensive deception]
Para 509: parents undertook ‘secret’ testing of Ellie’s sibling that confirmed Ben Butler was father of both; known since May 2010 and kept from lawyers. [Dishonesty/evasion]
Para 519: – mother and father did not live together. Saw each other a few times each week. ‘He is all I have’. [no analysis of clear vulnerability of mother and her dependence on Ben Butler]
Para 572: ‘He cannot say what the future holds for the relationship between the mother and himself. He could not commit to living with her’. [It appears the parents never lived together]
Para 618: ‘he accepted that in the past he had not co-operated with the LA … he accepted that he had not helped prepare the life story work for either Ellie or X when he should have. He accepted that he had criminal convictions in the past and more recently. He accepted he had made mistakes. [father’s account appears to be taken at face value]
Para 626: I was impressed by the father. He came through as a reflective, thoughtful individual who at times over-reacts through frustration. His manner can be seen by some as rude and aggressive but the mother says there is a much softer side to him. She saw the look of love in his eyes and face….[Mills and Boon have no place in court judgments?]

Note comment SCR 21/56 ‘In her conclusions the Judge works through the parents’ shortcomings and in many instances frames them in the context of being victims of a wrongful conviction and the difficulties they have suffered as a result and seems ready to accept their explanations for their unhelpful behaviour She states “I was impressed by the father” and refers to the parents “opening up” and states that once free from the “shadow of blame” “they are going to change”
SCR 21/56 – comments from IMR for Children’s Social Care:  “[Mrs Justice Hogg] having decided that the medical evidence in respect of the injury to [Ellie] did not hold, then chose to ignore all the other evidence. She chose to dismiss the evidence of the parents’ hostile and non-co-operative behaviours and appeared to conclude that it was to be expected given that Children’s Services had removed their children.”

Which lead to failure to analyse the father’s prior criminal convictions and propensity for violence

Para 531: ‘[the mother] denied the LA’s suggestion that theirs was a relationship in which domestic violence, bullying and controlling behaviour by the father featured. She denied that he abused her verbally or physically’ [would be interesting to know how mother cross examined about this, particularly in light of father’s previous violent history as documented in probation records and in light of extremely disturbing diary entries from mother about what going on in 2012]
Para 587: [Fathers 999 call] ‘That’s when I put her…. And she fucking. I leant her back too quick. Fuck sake come on’. [No consideration of why he ‘leant her back too quick’ in light of his propensity for violent reactions]
Para 610: ‘Dr Haswell said he saw the parents arguing, the father poking the mother in the chest and forehead and being aggressive’.[This was glossed over, even portrayed as a ‘positive’]
Para 627: ‘he acknowledged his criminal convictions… I note the convictions include assaults on adults, not on children. I accept that he can act out of frustration… –
[contrast with what is said in SCR 5/56: ‘ In respect of [father’s] health: records describe a pattern of frequent injuries related to alcohol, assaults and fights as well as a history of depression. Police and probation records show a long history of offending, including a 3 year 11 month prison sentence for armed robbery with violence and witness intimidation, charges of ABH and an assault on a pregnant ex girlfriend. Many other alleged incidents did not proceed to court as witnesses alleged victims would not pursue a case against [the father]. He frequently breached community orders and failed to co-operate with Probation staff. He reported a history of being sexually abused as a child by a relative, had a history of self harm and was referred to psychotherapeutic help. [The father] appears not to have held employment for many years].

Exoneration – The action of officially absolving someone from blame

Para 488: ‘not finding an answer is not to me the same as saying somebody must have done it’ – If I may say, wise comments from a very experienced practitioner and one of which doctors and lawyers alike should take heed. [Just as not finding an answer does not equate to ‘exoneration’]
Para 659: ‘in fairness to all I should try to go further. Ellie and X when they grow up need to know with as much clarity as possible what happened to Ellie in February… [Just how much weight can ‘the balance of probabilities’ take?]
Para 660: the parents have suffered enormous loss as a result of the findings. If I can exonerate them from wrong doing in February 2007 I should do so. … Para 672: in my judgment he is exonerated from causing her any inflicted injury.

SCR 8/56: The Local Authority was required by the court to send a letter to all agencies who had worked with the family to inform them of [the father’s] quashed conviction and exoneration and directing that this letter should be prominently referenced in their files. It included the statement “[the Judge] concluded that not only was she satisfied that [the father] never caused harm to his child, in fact there was an innocent explanation for his child’s suspected injuries”.
Working on ‘balance of probabilities’ is such ‘exoneration’ ever appropriate? Simply say – no finding made. Why take next step to positive exoneration? ‘

Conclusion – Key finding of the SCR

SCR 19/56 Professionals who had read the [2012 Judgment] concluded that it handed all the power to the parents and did not leave ‘even one percent change that it might be different’. Given the known pattern of the parents’ behaviour – lies, aggression, threats, missed appointments, “disguised compliance” and resistance, one IMR author commented that: “the decision made that allowed the parents to dictate who they will and will not work with is extremely concerning practice that had a monumental impact for [Ellie] and all professionals involved and should be reviewed with courage and conviction to shape future decision making”

Ellie Butler Timeline

2006 Parents meet; by this time the father had a number of convictions of attempted robbery, intimidation of a witness and assault. Sentenced to 3 years in prison [2012 judgment para 11]
30.12.06 Ellie born. Parents in ‘casual relationship’ and were not living together. Ellie moved between parents’ homes.
07.02.07 Ellie suffers burns to her forehead and index fingers when in care of father. He claims ‘total accident’.
08.02.07 Ellie take to GP who did not raise child protection issues
15.02.07 Ellie in care of her father. Ellie was ‘soft and limp’. Ambulance called. Hospital found intra-cranial and retinal bleeding. Father charged with assault and cruelty.
Ellie had very unusual combination of laryngneal cleft and cyst at the back of her tongue.
27.02.07 Strategy meeting concludes Ellie’s injuries were not accidental.
05.03.07 LA issue care proceedings on basis Ellie had suffered inflicted head injury and burns in care of parents. [What was threshold criteria?]
09.03.07 ICO in respect of Ellie
16.03.07 Ellie discharged from hospital and in foster care.
24.07.07 Ellie moves to live with MGP under ICO. They apply for SGO
29.01.08 Findings of HHJ Atkins that father caused non-accidental injuries to Ellie and her mother failed to protect her.
Feb 2008 Psychiatrist instructed to report on both parents
March 2008 Mother had missed 13 visits to Ellie [SCR 7/56]
28.04.08 Findings of HHJ Atkins that parents had not been open and honest and had lied about their relationship. Both had intimidated and made various specific threats towards the MGP.
14.08.08 HHJ Atkins makes SGO to Ellie’s MGP.
24.03.09 Father convicted of assault and cruelty; sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 months and 1 month imprisonment.
May-Dec 2009 Mother had no contact with Ellie; she had gone ‘into hiding’ after becoming pregnant with Ellie’s sibling X.
07.09.09 ‘X’ born.
October 2009 Father released on bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence.
2010/2011 SCR 8/56 both [parents] were convicted of criminal offences, had numerous health problems (including [mother] having 16 hospital admissions in 8 months) and a poor record of contact visits.
07.02.10 Mother arrested for shoplifting: had young baby [X] with her
21.03.10 X removed from the mother by the police.
22.03.10 Care proceedings commence for X
May 2010 Parents conduct ‘secret DNA testing’ of X; confirming Ben Butler is father of both children. Parents do not tell their legal teams or LA, allowing others to believe that the children were not full siblings.
17.06.10 Father’s criminal convictions quashed. New medical evidence raised doubt as to safety of conviction. Mother seeks re-hearing of fact finding but legal aid is delayed.
Jan 2011 Ellie’s mother applies for re-hearing of fact finding, supported by father.
Feb 2012 MGP withdraw as SGO for X (at this time believing that they were not full siblings)
26.05.11 HHJ Atkins granted application for re-hearing of fact finding
Jan 2012 SCR 8/56 X had a period of serious illness but still [the mother] declined to visit.
08.05.12-06.07.12 Hearing before Mrs Justice Hogg
2008 findings of fact set aside – F exonerated. 1st long Judgment Hogg J (761 paras formally handed down in October)
NB note Para 696: I am not yet satisfied that those concerns bring me over the threshold criteria. I do have significant concerns and I wish to know more about the parents’…
Summer 2012 Services for Children conduct assessment about reuniting X with the mother (parents still do not live together).
July-Dec 2012 Absence on sick leave of the second Children’s Guardian. Her work was not re-allocated or covered by her manager SCR 14/56
17.08.12 S4C interim report
13.09.12 S4C final report.
25-28.09.12 MGP confirm they would consider returning Ellie to the parents if it were in her best interests. Court hearing widened remit of S4C work to include consideration of returning Ellie to her mother’s care.
08.10.12 X returns to parents’ care
12.10.12 Judgments of Mrs Justice Hogg handed down.
Second short judgment (4 pages) [2012] EWHC 2763 (Fam)
Services for Children are positive in their view that X should return to the mother’s care. The LA decides to withdraw allegations against the mother and additional allegations against the father. (What were they?)
‘on all the evidence now before me I would have been hard pressed to make findings against the parents’ [para 5] ‘the parents have weathered the storm. They have each been resilient and determined, and shown tenacity and courage. I hope now that the record is put straight, that with their tenacity they will be able to put behind them those difficulties and look forward to a more positive future’. [para 10]
Children’s Services to undertake assessment of how and when Ellie can be returned to her mother.
Care proceedings come to an end. Directions made in parent’s proposed application to revoke SGO.
‘The story does not end today. There is still work to be done. I very much hope that in the near future there will be another happy ending’ [para 22].
Long judgment (88 pages) [2012] EWCH 2604 (Fam)
09.11.12 Ellie returns to parents’ care
Concern expressed by variety of agencies at the speed of this reunification.
SCR 10/56 It had been planned that during the first weekend in November that [Ellie]would spend extensive time with the parents including an overnight stay. This did not happen as the parents had moved to their new house but were without power, they had made themselves unavailable for any contact and S4C were unable to talk to either of them.
04.12.12 The mother attends St Hellier hospital with both children who were hungry and fed by a nurse. Mother was pregnant and wished to conceal this, leaving hospital in the early hours when told Children’s Services would be informed.
11.12.12 Final Review hearing.
Final orders. Residence order to Ellie’s parents with contact to MGP. SGO to MGP revoked.
05.01.13 Mother admitted to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Gives false details and fails to mention existence of Ellie
08.01.13 Ellie not at school. Home visit ‘elicited an angry response from [the father] refusing to deal with Children’s Services [SCR 11/56]
28.01.13 Children’s Services hold professionals meeting and offered multi-agency support to parents but deemed insufficient grounds for statutory intervention.
27.03.13 Mother again admitted to Chelsea and Westminster hospital, again gives false information, denying she had children.
31.03.13 Police make several home visits; no concerns.
12.04.13 S4C submit report to Children’s Services. Report very positive regarding the development of the relationship between the siblings and commented parents had made shifts in their outlook.
April 2013 Ellie’s school continued to have concerns about her attendance, response of parents was ‘aggression, evasion and the cancelling of meetings’ SCR 18/56
May 2013 SW in MASH sends standard letter to the parents after being informed Ellie was missing appointments with a Consultant Opthalmologist. ‘This resulted in a very aggressive telephone call from [the father] followed by a formal complaint from his lawyer. [SCR 12/56]
June 2013 Ellie seen by GP with facial bruising and grazing; explanation of accident accepted. “During this period [the mother] was suffering from depression and receiving medication and [the father] was not complying with requirements from the Probation Service and was made subject of a suspended sentence” SCR 13/56
GP did not fully examine Ellie or refer this to Children’s Services. Comment that this did not meet expected safeguarding procedures [SCR 17/56]
28.10.13 Ellie dies. She suffered serious head injuries in the sole care of her father. At post mortem a fracture to her scapula was discovered. This would also have been caused by severe blunt force trauma.
She was five years and 10 months old. She had been in her parents’ care for just under a year.
28.11.13 Sutton Local Safeguarding Board (LSCB) began Serious Case Review into circumstances of Ellie’s death
11.03.14 Father charged with murder of Ellie and child cruelty. Remanded in custody.
27.03.14 Judiciary decline to take part in Individual Management Review for SCR: ‘For constitutional reasons it would not be appropriate…’ copies of judgments provided instead.
18.04.14 LSCB conclude SCR into Ellie’s death
22.04.14 Mother charged with perverting the course of justice and child cruelty. Remanded on bail.
06.06.14 King J (judgment dated 30.6.14)
Fact finding hearing re Ellie’s death in care proceedings for X. Court refuses application to re-open fact finding in relation to Ellie’s injuries in 2007.
Father inflicted force upon Ellie that caused fractured scapula and serious head injuries, which killed her.
Mother victim of serious domestic violence and in thrall to the father
11 Jun & 29 Jul 14 Reporting restriction orders made
April 2016 Father on trial for murder
14 June 2016 Reporting restriction order Bodey J (relates to identification of sibling)
21 June 2016 Ben Butler found guilty of murder and sentenced to life with minimum tarrif 23 years.
22 Jun 2016 Press apply for publication of King J judgment from 30 June 2014 – Pauffley J refuses. Press appeal.
Serious Case review published.
29.07.16 Judgment of King J finally approved for release by Court of Appeal – identifying information re sibling redacted (RRO in place)

 

Keep on Running

“Every family that I am aware of that have fled have kept their kid yet in the UK they wouldn’t have that – to me speaks volumes.”

This is a post from Stella, a mother who has faced many care proceedings. She is now living in France with her baby son. She explains why she is a ‘mum who runs’ and makes some suggestions for what we could do to make the situation better/safe for other mothers and children in the UK. She makes a powerful case for more targeted support for parents – given the massive impact on families when a child is removed for adoption, surely it’s worth thinking about?

 

They are all running abroad ????……. But WHY???

That really is the million dollar question isn’t it? All are aware the UK child protection system is failing, we the parents know it, you the professionals know, hell even the big fella president Munby admits it.

But why what’s changed in the UK from 10/20 years ago ? Why when parents flee abroad do we sing the local authority praises keep our kids and vow to never return ?

Curious that the UK say we will never be “capable” “safe” “the risks outweigh the benefits “it’s not in the child’s best interests” “not in their time scales” “haven’t got the support required” sound familiar ?

Yet abroad France, for the example I plan to use here, in particular we are given the all clear and stay with our children. Personally the differences I’ve found that stick out in my mind predominantly are the level of support offered freely from everyone here, the level of care, the community compassion and oddly that I am yet to see a single child misbehave.

It’s not a resources and funding issue – its about a way of life

This isn’t a resources and funding issue, France is very much in my view a poorer country than the UK and very much behind in a lot of ways compared to the UK. People still get water out the well, the areas are rural and many buildings in desperate need of upgrades and proper plumbing yet they are very much ahead of the UK in many areas, yet oddly are how the UK child protection services used to be years ago and flourishing from it

It’s mainly a quality over quantity difference from what I’ve seen. Everyone goes the extra mile works together, chips in, there’s no snobbery or segregation most of the shops are second hand shops and most items are bought from boot sales you can pick up some of the most fantastic well made solid wood quality furniture for under the equivalent of £20 (I’m sad yes but I’m a sod for a bargain !) women are helped with their shopping doors are opened everyone is polite and evening meals involve a get together of friends and neighbours eating together, everyone brings a little bit of something  – how I remember it being back when I was a kid.

What support is offered to new mothers by the health system?

Health care is another vast difference that immediately jumps out at you when you come here. Maternity care is very, very intense –  lots of appointments blood tests, scans, internals, midwifes, nurses, consultants, doctors, anaesthesiologists etc ……. All well and good until you need to translate into French you’re a wimp scared of needles, blood and need the kids numbing Emla cream put on, someone to hold your hand another to hide them doing the bloods and ten minutes to stop the crying panic attack and throwing up. Yep I am THAT wimp and it’s not fun for monthly blood tests.

Following labour, after care is amazingly different to the UK – you stay in on average 4 days which unlike the horror that is a NHS hospital stay it’s like staying at the Hilton no kicking out the door after 6 hours with a healthy dose of mrsa and the flu for good measure here nope ….

You’re given your “room” which consists of a wardrobe, a table, a bed, a chair, a nursing chair, a meal table tray, a set of drawers, a bed side table and an ensuite with your basic vanity mirror sink toilet and shower facilities and also a baby goldfish bowl bed if you want your tiny human in the room with you and don’t want to take advantage of the attached room which is your personal tiny human nursery consisting of cot, baby bathing sink, and changing unit weighing scales, all medical equipment type stuff for newborns etc.

Bedding is changed daily, the rooms are cleaned daily, hairdryers, towels, nappies, underwear sanitary products, toiletries, vitamins, meals, tea, coffee, juice fruit etc is provided several times a day. DO NOT try and use your own products or help strip the bed or tidy up for them  – you are there to rest and recover they are VERY strict on that.

You have a call button for your care and a telephone for babies care, they each use their own separate entrance doors to your room so you know whether to hand the tiny human over and breath a sigh of relief it’s not your turn or prepare to be prodded and poked temperature blood pressure and every other thing taken this happens several times a day and don’t for a second think hiding will make you safe. Even the food lady and cleaners are in on this prodding and poking torture treatment there’s something oddly disturbing having to share your toileting n personal hygiene habits with every single person that enters your room. They are VERY big on noting everything for baby and you but primarily if baby is gaining weight well they descend on you with a vengeance.

During your 4 day stay whether you are a first time mum or in my case on your 6th tiny human, you are shown how to do everything – change a nappy, give vitamins, clean eyes, nose, ears, cord, dress them, bath them, feed them.  They make you watch them the first time round then they note if you can do it next time round.  To be discharged you must complete the task to their standard  – no skipping ahead and doing it yourself in day one thinking you get out quicker. You are banned from doing anything day one other than resting.  Day two you get to do exciting stuff like watch them wash your baby, day three you get allowed to try stuff and baby gets their hearing test and by this 3rd day baby must be registered here for their birth certificate. On the 4th day bloods are done and they see if they will let you home.

You are given your health visitor appointment, introduced to them in the hospital before you can leave and you look back quite disappointed you’ll actually have to cease this being waited on hand and foot never did I think miss anti hospital here would want to stay longer ????

If they don’t think you’re managing you get referred to assistant social who will offer additional support. They also help with housing money childcare etc and visit you regardless before u leave to see if you want any help you are not punished for refusing this additional support and they leave with a smile and a card to show their door is always open.

 

What’s the attitude of the French local authorities? Back to basics social work

Which is really what you want to know what are the local authority is like here ….. Fantastic is the answer.

There’s a real air of get it right first time or fix it so it works here from the hospital birth onwards everything is geared towards making the family unit work which is the key difference “if it’s broke fix it don’t replace it” is a running theme from household items to their child protection system and it works.

Another key thing here is future emotional harm isn’t recognised your children only get taken if there has been actual harm such as sexual or physical. With neglect they tend to support rather than remove, such as help with housing food household items cleaners mother and baby units etc unless it’s alcohol or drugs in which case numerous drink and drug blood and urine tests are done to ensure your clean and capable but again rehabilitation is the aim all round here.

It’s primarily back to basics social work where social workers actually work with the community without fear of criticism or reprisal. None of the finger pointing and blame culture the uk now has against social workers who try to give families a chance resulting in social workers unwilling to take a risk and families not seeing the point in working with them as the decision is already made therefore the court system being fit to burst and the whole system being in tatters from start to finish.

Is the UK spending its money in the wrong places?

This isn’t a case of France having more funding and resources it’s more of money being well spent in the right places like their road tax only gets spent on repairing roads and ta Dar …. They’ve got the best roads I’ve ever seen !

Just think how much the UK spends on foster carers residential units, cp meetings, court costs contact workers, venue costs, shrink and psych assessments, therapy, counselling, parenting courses, mother and baby units etc etc for a single family …..

Then think of stopping all of that putting the money in a pot so that some of that money can go towards:

  • a basic child care course covering safe and practical care including bathing feeding dressing cleaning caring parenting playing and teaching a child that course could have maybe THIRTY parents on it in a big enough venue: Or
  • Cooking classes for another group of parents: Or
  • A playgroup day care day for a group of 30 kids so that their parents can have time to clean their house: Or
  • Cleaners for a parent that struggles to motivate to tidy: Or
  • To pay a wage to someone to ring the parents every morning to wake them up for school runs if they struggle with mornings or pop round and help them prepare the kids for school if they struggle managing them in a rush.

The possibilities are endless and after all that’s simply what some families need that bit of support, it clearly works because it’s worked and is still working here and used to work for the UK when it used to be like that there to.  Every family that I am aware of that have fled have kept their kid yet in the UK they wouldn’t have that  –  to me speaks volumes

Yes it won’t work for every family but for the professionals here, think back how many cases you’ve thought if the family got this and that it could work but I darent mention that because if it goes wrong it’s on my head so didn’t dare say it. Or how many times you’ve seen the same families come through your door time and time again nothing changing because the support simply isn’t there to help them…

Where one might argue you are providing a better future for the child by removing are you really though –  and what about the family as a whole, what about mums, dads, siblings, uncles cousins, aunts, grandparents etc. Having a kid removed rips the entire family apart there’s no heads nor tails about it it does. Then from that you lose the family bond and support network not to mention the mental scars and trauma left on all involved.

When surely if the current system clearly isn’t working admitted by all from top to bottom then it’s worth a try doing it the way that worked and is working ….. Surely ? ?

Mothers in recurrent care proceedings – how do we break the cycle?

Family Law Class 20th October Bristol Civil Justice Centre

The event will take place on 20th October at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre from 4.30 – 6pm.

Tickets are free and open to any one with an interest in this subject. Places will be limited so please contact Emma Whewell at [email protected] to book your ticket.

Please mark your email as ‘Family law event 20th October’.

Speakers will include:

  • Dr Karen Broadhurst who has been carrying out important research into why some mothers are so vulnerable to repeated care proceedings and removal of successive children
  • Sally Jenkins of Newport Council who will discuss the development of their recent programme of help and support for vulnerable mothers
  • Dr Freda Gardner will discuss the importance of early therapeutic intervention
  • Surviving Safeguarding, a parent and campaigner, will discuss some issues of concern she has about the types of intervention proposed for mothers

Presentations will finish approx 5.10pm and discussion will then open to the floor.

We are keen to get a conversation going about what works well and what could work better to help these mothers, with a particular view to developing programmes of intervention in the Bristol area.

Mums on the Run #2. Tim answers some questions.

But not enough.

John Hemming’s gone very quiet, Tim is debating my mum’s vulnerability and the fact that I don’t have enough reported cases to my name to comment on the fact that Hemming and JFF appear to be encouraging vulnerable families to leave the UK and go to a house which is profoundly unsafe.

I have discussed all this in more detail here.

I have asked some questions of Hemming, JFF and Tim. I have got some answers from Tim via Twitter and his responses that thrown up even more intriguing questions.

For my own sanity here is a handy cut out and keep guide to the information we have at the moment. I will probably get it laminated.

 

Question put Tim’s response My comments.
When did JFF/JH/IJ start sending parents to Gena’s house We never started But a parent has provided a message from JH saying ‘why not go to Genas’?

Tim confirms JFF had a meeting and agreed to continue ‘not to send’ people to Gena. What was discussed at that meeting?

Why did JH buy Gena a caravan to house other parents if JFF weren’t sending them?
How much money has JFF/JH/IJ paid to Gena Not answered Gena says JH paid for a caravan at her address in France where parents could stay
If they paid her money, what was it for? Not answered
Is source of money donations from public or from private purse of JH/IJ? Not answered We need to know if members of the public are being solicited for money by JFF
What checks/risk assessment do they carry out Claims they have never sent any parents to Gena so never needed to assess her But JH has clearly advised a parent to go to Gena’s. So this response is untrue and we need to know more about their assessment process.

Why did JH buy Gena a caravan to house other parents, if JFF wasn’t sending them?
What did they know about the conditions at Gena’s house Claims never sent any parents there so wouldn’t need to know. So what on earth was being discussed at the meeting about Gena? Why does Tim say that JFF gave advice NOT to go to Genas? What did they know, and when did they know it?
When did they know that mothers were complaining about abuse and theft at Genas? Not answered Again, we need to know when the meeting was at JFF about Gena and what was said
When did they know that Gena was living with a man who poses a clear sexual risk to children? Not answered Again, we need to know when the meeting was at JFF about Gena and what was said
Do JH/JFF/IJ refer ‘mums on the run’ to any other people? Claims not. This is not supported by what others say. JFF need to be utterly open and transparent about their activities in this regard.

 

Some other issues

Attempts are now being made to show that the mother’s who have raised this issue with me are themselves mentally unwell and unfit parents.

So I ask JFF very clearly. You say you didn’t assess Gena because you weren’t sending anyone to her.

Then why were you advising and helping mothers to leave the jurisdiction that you are now describing as mentally unwell and unfit parents?

Just how many families have you helped leave the jurisdiction?

Gena says John Hemming has sent her 4 families.

Is this true.

Please be open and honest about what you are doing. Vulnerable children – and vulnerable mothers – are being put at considerable risk of harm by those who persuade them to leave the jurisidiction. If JFF and its advisers really are able to offer a good quality legal representation for parents, if they are ‘winning’ so many cases, then they don’t need to encourage parents to ‘flee’.

‘Mums on the Run’ – Where do they go? How safe are they?

For some time now I have been talking about and worried about the network of people who help parents leave the country if they are facing care proceedings. I am not convinced they are motivated by wanting to help people. I think they are more interested in showing they can get one over the ‘system’.

I have written about this before, particularly about how worried I am about John Hemming and Ian Josephs – who has given money to Marie Black, a convicted paedophile. I discussed their activities in more detail here:  ‘Helping Parents Leave the Jurisdiction’.

John Hemming set up ‘Justice For Families’ [JFF]  an organisation that;

campaigns to improve the operation of the family courts (including the court of protection) in order to treat families with respect.

John Hemming has often advised people to leave the country as they won’t get a fair hearing here – see Panorama ‘I Want My Baby Back’ in January 2014. There was a post on his blog in July 2015 about ‘mums on the run’ but that blog post no longer exists. The URL reads ‘Gena-and-kerry-mums-on-run-in-france’ [URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator and is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet.] There is a reference to it on the ‘Brummie.net’ site which confirms the name ‘Gena’. 

So I am going to assume that John Hemming knew about someone called Gena in 2015. I am also going to assume that John Hemming has been promoting Gena as a safe ‘host family’ in France for the ‘mums on the run’ as  I have seen Facebook messages from John Hemming to a parent saying:

‘Why not go to Gena’s?’ …’The advantage with Gena is she knows the system where she lives.’

EDIT – the link between John Hemming and Gena is beyond doubt. Also, he knew that she had reported her partner as aggressive. See this article from the Sunday Times in December 2015. 

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

I have recently been given some very disturbing information in copies of texts, emails and Facebook messages from three different parents who have had first hand experience of being ‘mums on the run’. All went to a house in France occupied by ‘Gena’ and her partner.  All were given the details by John Hemming and/or Ian Josephs.

The mothers speak of horrible conditions in the house. Of being physically and verbally abused and having money either taken from them or not given to them so they could not buy even nappies for their children. One mother had to call the French police; the French authorities are now apparently investigating Gena.

I am told that one of the mothers told John Hemming and Ian Josephs about what was going on.   I have seen a message to one parent from Tim Haines [one of the JFF Advisors] saying that JFF held a meeting and said they would no longer refer parents to Gena. I don’t know when the date of that meeting was or what actual discussions were had. It would be interesting to know.

Even more disturbing information came to light in September 2016. That Gena’s partner, who lives in the house with her, was found in court proceedings in the UK to pose a sexual risk to children. 3 children between the ages of 7-14 have made allegations that he sexually abused them.

Questions that need to be answered.

I am seriously worried about this.  I have challenged Ian Josephs many times about what information he got about the parents he helped to leave the country and whether or not he followed up their cases once they had left. He carries out no risk assessment and no follow up. He has already given money to one mother who went on to be convicted of really serious crimes of sexual abuse against children.

But now it seems the problem is even bigger and even more dangerous – not only do John Hemming and Ian Josephs have little interest in the backgrounds of the parents they help leave the country, these vulnerable mothers are being encouraged to go somewhere which is not safe. Not for them or their children.

I have for a long time now accused John Hemming of not caring much for the parents or children he claims to ‘help’. I have said that he is more interested in promoting his own agenda. If I am wrong about that, no doubt John Hemming could assist me understand his actions/motivations better, by answering the questions I set out below.

I hope that someone does not have to get seriously hurt or abused before people start taking this seriously.

  • When did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs start sending parents to Gena’s house?
  • How much money has JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs paid to Gena?
  • If they have paid her money, what was that money for?
  • Is the source of that money donations from the public or is it privately funded by either/or John Hemming/Ian Josephs?
  • What checks/risk assessment did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs/ carry out on Gena and those living in her house before advising other parents to go there?
  • When did they know that conditions at Gena’s home were not acceptable?
  • When did they know that mothers were complaining about physical and verbal abuse and having their money taken/not given?
  • When did they know that Gena was living with a man who poses a clear sexual risk to children?
  • Do JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs refer ‘mums on the run’ to any other people abroad? If so, what checks/risk assessment have they done regarding these other people?

If you are a parent who is thinking about leaving the country rather than face care proceedings PLEASE be careful. PLEASE be wary of people offering to ‘help’ you – they may not actually have your best interests at heart at all. PLEASE get some good advice from someone you trust.

There are some links here to organisations/people who may be able to help you.

 

EDIT – some screenshots to support information given above.

Further, link to video from BBC programme in Feb 2015 where Gena states she was hospitalised by her violent partner.

 

Mums on Run Screen shot 1

 

Mums on the Run screen shot 2

EDIT BBC programme 26th September 2016 – further interview with Gena. She takes 8 families a year. And she isn’t going to stop.