BS: Here we go again!

Subject: BS: Here we go again!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 May 08 - 12:33 PM

Social Services in East Sussex.
I leave others to comment, as I cannot.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Donuel
Date: 01 May 08 - 12:39 PM

I suspect the judge will go to church and celebrate family values this weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:28 PM

I don't feel sorry for the father. He tupped the mother and paid no attention to what happened next. He gets served while in the hospital, does nothing. 'Eventually' learns of the adoption...

Normal people, when their child is threatened, react INSTANTLY.

The child was born in 2006. It needs a family.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 May 08 - 01:12 PM

"The appellant, identified only as MC, did not know he was the father until the council served care proceedings on him and asked him for a DNA test."

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Emma B
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:12 PM

Court of Appeal

Published December 5, 2007

In re C (A child)(Adoption: Local authority duty)

Before Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins

Judgment November 23, 2007

There was no duty on a local authority to make inquiries of a child's extended family or father about the possibility of their providing long-term care where mother wished to place the child for adoption.

In the (present) case, the father did not have a right to respect for his family life with the child because he had no family life with the child. He had never lived with the mother or expressed any commitment to the child. He could not have done so because he did not know of the child's existence.

It was not a violation of a Convention right to deprive him of the possibility of obtaining a right to respect for family life with the child. The father therefore had no Convention right and accordingly it was unnecessary to ask whether article 8.2 applied.'

My own views, as someone who worked in child adoption, are that all parents should have the right to retain contact with children (where contact has been established) but, ultimately, I would concur with the judges presiding on this occasion that

' Her Ladyship did not consider that the court should require a preference to be given as a matter of policy to the natural family of a child. Section 1 did not impose any such policy.

Rather, it required the interests of the child to be considered. Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins delivered concurring judgments'

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:20 PM

"Published December 5, 2007 "

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Emma B
Date: 02 May 08 - 02:29 PM

....sorry I should have made it clear that (In re C (A child)(Adoption: Local authority duty) was a previous judgement about the 'rights' of a father who, not only had had no contact with his child but was unaware of the child's existance being born as the result of a 'casual relationship'

In these dificult and emotive decisions it is the judges who have the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the legislation not the Local Authority who act under guidance from previous judgements such as the one in 2007 (where new adoption legislation was challenged)described above

As I said, I have my own views both about the legislation and 'social worker bashing' but I, likewise, make 'no comment' on the judgement in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Emma B
Date: 03 May 08 - 06:36 AM

btw - could I just clarify a couple of other details in the case that prompted this thread.....

The girl was born in November 2006 to parents who had had a casual relationship.

At the time the child was in a mother and baby placement but when her mother left, leaving the baby behind, the council recommended adoption. The father WAS served with these proceedings and initially took no interest in his daughter.
However, after suffering a heart attack and undergoing treatment in hospital he changed his mind.

The council had already obtained care and placement orders and the child had been moved to foster parents.

When the father learned from his mother the adoption plans were well advanced, he appointed solicitors who the following day, January 10, made an application for permission to apply to revoke the placement order at Brighton County Court.

At the hearing, the council said it was legally entitled to process the adoption and that the court had no jurisdiction to grant leave to revoke the placement.

The judge in the case agreed and the adoption was allowed.

The father made an appeal to the Court of Appeal in March.

But yesterday he was told he had lost his case by a majority of two to one.

Lord Justice Thorpe - the dissenting voice - wanted to allow the appeal on human rights grounds to a fair trial and give the father a chance to challenge the adoption order in court.

But he was overruled by the other judges on the panel who said that "with regret" the words of the act were clear and compatible with human rights laws.


N.B.
This is the same Lord Justice Thorpe who is such a staunch supporter of an uncommited father's 'rights'

'Thorpe finds that it is in the best interests of the children if their mother permanently ends contact between a father's children and their father by emigrating with his children to another country and living with a man resident in that country who is married to another woman.

He said: "Often there will be a price to be paid in welfare terms by the diminution of the children's contact with their father and his extended family." '

London, July 31, 2003, Court of Appeal

source Fathercare.org

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 08 - 08:36 AM

Upholding a law is a waste of time if it is a bad law in the first place.

I have been dubious for more than 20 years, over the wisdom of persons with degrees in sociology and very little experience of life, making decisions that can affect the rest of the lives of their 'clients'.
Social justice is achieved through wisdom and experience, and not by applying theories learned in text books.
The government has no place in family relations.
How can a legal statute fit all sizes in something as personal as that?
I am not social worker bashing, I am questioning the need for them in this role in the first place.
As far as familial relationships are concerned, there must be a better way?
G

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 03 May 08 - 09:03 AM

So John would you say they are both irresponsible parents ?

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Emma B
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:37 AM

Well the legislators make the laws and we elect the legislators!

Perhaps the question should also be asked what 'experience of life' many of the judges making these interpretations of the legislation which dictate the actions of the Local Authorities have.

Unlike training for Social work which, I can assure you is considerably more than simply possessing a degree in Sociology, judges receive no training in child development or domestic violence although a report by Women's Aid in 2004 implied that such training may have prevented child deaths at the hands of seperated or divorced fathers where judges had granted contact orders.

To say that the government/law has no place in family relations would condemn countless numbers of women and children to domestic violence or other forms of abuse.

In addition the 'text books' you mention are nothing more,or less, than the sum of aquired wisdom and experience of many people's experiences from many fields of expertise in the field of human relationships - surely you are not suggested that we should should ignore such aquired wisdom?

Actually I do agree that many of our laws are badly drafted and can leave gaping loopholes open to exploitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:53 PM

It still appears to me, to be a 'one size fits all' approach, and as such it will never work.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Emma B
Date: 03 May 08 - 01:22 PM

The Compact Law organization gives a useful summary of the legislation on their web site
The Adoption and Children Act 2002

It really isn't a 'one size fits all'

In answer to the question

'Does an unmarried father have any rights to stop the adoption of his child ?'

The following reply is given -

'Yes, if he has a parental responsibility order or a parental responsibility agreement (see Children section). He can then apply to be joined as a party to the adoption proceedings.

If the father does not have a parental responsibility order or a parental responsibility agreement he still has some rights.

He will be asked for his consent, however, if he cannot be found his consent is not needed. Or if he does not consent the court has the power to override his refusal and still make an adoption order.

N.B.
In fact the adoption law was modified a few years ago to provide that an unmarried father CAN acquire parental responsibility for his natural child where he and the child's mother register the birth of their child together

* Please note it is still the responsibility of the COURT to overide the refusal of a natural father (where no such parental responsibility has ever been assumed) to adoption.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again!
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 04 May 08 - 11:09 AM

I really wish some people would take the time to read the The Adoption and Children Act of 2002 before commenting.