![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> C (Revocation of Care Order) [2014] EWFC B55 (30 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B55.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B55 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
B e f o r e :
____________________
N.A.G. |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
N. COUNTY COUNCIL |
Respondent |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court
Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Tele No: 020 7067 2900, Fax No: 020 7831 6864, DX: 410 LDE
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.martenwalshcherer.com
MS SZWED (instructed by Local Authority) for the Respondent
MS KING for the Guardian
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RUMBELOW QC:
(A) C should have been ordered to attend the hearing.
(B) Mrs. G is not and never has been mentally ill. Dr. Mahendra, the consultant psychiatrist who gave evidence to District Judge Venables, which evidence District Judge Venables accepted, was wrong in his diagnosis. Mrs. G has never neglected or ill treated , for example making her run naked down the street. C has never complained of being ill treated. Mrs. G's acquittal on the charge of neglect proved that District Judge Venables' conclusions were wrong and the jury also said that she, Mrs. G, was not mentally ill.
(C) She has been prosecuted by the local authority and locked in a cell by the police, who beat her up. Mrs. G will lay charges against the police and seek compensation. All that was racial harassment, and the local authority has made racially offensive statements. Mrs. G had taken this issue to the European Court which had declared racial harassment to be within its sphere of competence.
(D) The notes relating to contact between herself and C show that they had a brilliant relationship and C wanted to be with her mother.
(E) Social worker, KW was not in attendance at court on 16th April 2014 nor was the guardian. The guardian was not to be trusted. There had been three guardians since 2009 and this contravened Mrs. G's article 6 rights. The submissions made by the local authority and by C's solicitor, Ms King, as to what C had told them and the guardian were hearsay, and should be ignored. The social worker had only signed the first page of her statement and the local authority could have removed that first page and attached it to a different statement. There was no evidence that the guardian and Ms King had gone to see C at her school, as was reported to the court.
(F) The local authority had neglected C physically. Mrs. G had requested photographs of C from the period 2012 to 2013 to show C's condition, but the local authority have not provided these. Further, the local authority has placed C with foster carers who are not sympathetic to her racial and cultural heritage, and who disrespected those needs. The local authority had been found by Ofsted to be a poor provider of care to children in its care.
(G) C was Mrs. G's property. Mrs G had not consented to the local authority taking her property, and she wanted her property returned to her.
(H) Mrs. G said she had been attending at C's school but had not attempted to speak to C, who was pleased to see her. In other documentation Mrs. G refers to having been to a school ballet production which involved C and they had spoken.
(I) As to the allegation that she had published material revealing details of C the whereabouts of the foster carers, the local authority had done the same thing, and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.
(A) C has not been required by the court to give evidence for the reasons set out at paragraphs 5 and 6 above. In short, it would be contrary to her welfare, and superfluous having regard to the unanimity of reports from the local authority, the guardian and C's solicitor as to her wishes and feelings. A copy of Chs letter will be appended to this judgment.
(B) Mrs. G's acquittal on the charge of neglect in no way invalidates District Judge Venables' decision to make the court care in order 2009. The evidence from the criminal trial is not before this court and District Judge Venables would have been concerned with a different standard of proof. I cannot see, in the absence of any specific evidence, how Mrs. G's acquittal means that the jury accepted or stated that she did not have a mental illness. In any event, Dr. Mahendra had not said at the care hearing that Mrs. G did have a formal mental illness. He said that she was a paranoid personality type.
(C) The local authority was not responsible for the criminal prosecution for neglect. That was a decision made between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I cannot comment on Mrs. G's allegations against the police.
(D) It is accepted that at one time C and her mother enjoyed their contacts together. However, it is clear from C that Mrs. G's subsequent behaviour has completely soured their relationship.
(E) Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings. There was nothing to support Mrs. G's allegations of dishonesty or bad faith in the unanimous reports from the social worker, the guardian or C's solicitor. I accept the accuracy of the reports which each of those has given.
(F) The letter from C is overwhelmingly to the effect that she wishes the care order and her placement to continue. There is no suggestion from C that she has been physically neglected or that her racial or cultural background has been disrespected. I record that Mrs. G is black and she says that C's father was Chinese.
(G) C was lawfully removed from her mother's care, made the subject of a care order and a long-term foster placement. Like all the other issues raised by Mrs. G, the appropriateness of the care order has been repeatedly raised and repeatedly affirmed, in a series of previous judgments of the Courts.
(H) and (I) are matters for the separate applications to be heard on 7th May 2014.
(a) During the currency of the care proceedings Mrs. G appears to have appealed the making of an interim care order. That came before my predecessor as designated family judge, His Honour Judge Waine. He dismissed the application and refused leave to appeal. Mrs. G went to the Court of Appeal and came before Ward LJ for leave on 19th January 2010. With respect to the learned Lord Justice I am not sure that he has completely accurately recorded the history. In any event, however, he refused leave and dismissed her appeal on the merits. He also pointed out her appeal on the interim care order was academic, because a full care order had since been made, in November 2009. The order of the Court of Appeal prohibited Mrs. G from any publication of information likely to lead to C's identification.
(b) A month after that hearing before Ward LJ, Mrs. G made an application before Judge Waine to discharge the care order. That application was dismissed in March 2010 and leave to appeal was refused. Mrs. went to the Court of Appeal. Her appeal was refused on 7th October 2010.
(c) Pending that appeal Mrs. G had made another application to revoke the care order, which was heard on 8th October 2010 before Judge Waine, that being only the day after the Court of Appeal had refused leave to appeal Judge Waine's order of March 2010. Judge Waine dismissed the further application and made a section 91(14) order to last for two years until 8th October 2012.
(d) On 31st December 2012 Mrs. G made another application to discharge the care order. On 2nd January 2013 Judge Waine dismissed that application. Judge Waine then retired.
"The paranoid personality type is excessively sensitive to setbacks and rebuffs, has a tendency to bear grudges persistently, is suspicious and with a tendency to distort experiences through misconstruction of the words and actions of others, is combative and tenacious in regard to personal rights, has a tendency to experience excessive self importance and is given to suspecting a conspiracy with regard to personal matters as well as in the wider world at large."