A & S v. Lancashire County Council [2013] EWHC 851 (Fam) read judgment

This was a costs application arising from an extremely important decision by Peter Jackson J in June 2012 (see Alasdair Henderson’s post here and read judgment)

In that original judgment, Lancashire County Council were found to be in breach of Articles 8 (private life), 6 (fair trial) and Article 3 (inhuman treatment) of ECHR. Two brothers had come into local authority care as infants and were freed for adoption.

The original judgment

The judge had summarised things as follows:

A has had no fewer than 12 main placements during his lifetime, of which 7 lasted for less than a year and 5 lasted for between a year and 5½ years. During this time, he has been placed in respite care 36 times, with 19 different respite carers. In one 18 month period beginning when he was 10, he went to 8 different respite carers. A has moved backwards and forwards between placements of all kinds no less than 77 times in his 16 years of life.

S has had no fewer than 16 main placements during his lifetime (12 with A and 4 without him). Of these, 10 lasted for less than a year and 6 lasted for between a year and 5½ years. During this time, he has been placed in respite care 40 times, with at least 22 different respite carers. Like A, in one 18 month period beginning when he was 9, he went to 8 different respite carers. Overall, S has moved backwards and forwards between placements of all kinds no less than 96 times in his 14 years of life.

The result was that the boys remained under freeing orders for 11 years, suffering multiple placement breakdowns. They became increasingly unsettled and disturbed; they suffered irreparable harm and real life long damage. The local authority failed to apply to discharge the freeing orders, despite abandoning plans to  adopt. This meant the children’s links to their family were severed – and the parents were unaware of the plight of their children.

Peter Jackson J demanded local authorities to overhaul their systems, so that children who remain under unsuccessful freeing or placement orders are identified, and those cases to court to apply to discharge the orders. Likewise, the Independent Reviewing Officer system across the county needed to work more effectively.

The costs judgment

 Unsurprisingly an applications for costs was made on behalf of the children.

In his short but significant judgement, in which it was agreed he would not hear any oral submissions, the judge found that:

• Despite the “civil” nature of the Human Rights applications (with Particulars of Claim and Defences being filed), the costs issue should not be considered under the Civil Procedure Rules. The general rule that “costs follow the event” did not apply.
• The HRA applications had been considered alongside applications for discharge of Freeing orders, and an application for Special Guardianship- costs were to be considered under the Family Proceedings Rules and family cases relating to costs.
• He approved the principles in Re T (Children) (Care Proceedings) (Costs) [2012] UKSC 36: Orders for costs in family cases are unusual but can be made where the behaviour of a part has been reprehensible or outside the band of reasonableness”
• In considering the “conduct” of the party it was not limited to “litigation conduct”- the behaviour of the local authority was to be looked at in the whole.“If this were the case a party who had behaved reprehensibly for years could escape a costs award by being sure to behave impeccably once the litigation for which they were responsible had begun.” (para 19)
• The fact that the children were publicly funded made no difference; “the legal services commission is an equally hard-pressed public agency and the commission and the taxpayer – are entitled to look at the court to apply the costs rules impartially (applying G v E & Manchester CC [ 2011] 1 FLR 1566

The judge concluded the  decision was “quite simple” despite the considerable effort of the parties to argue it.

In this case [Lancashire County Council’s] conduct in relation to these  boys over many years was blatantly unlawful and unreasonable (as both it and the Independent Reviewing Officer have accepted) and led inexorably to substantial litigation.

The costs claimed were £210,734 –  the judge noted that “the impact on Lancashire’s budget is extremely regrettable”. It was not a case for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis, and would  be subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

• Care system failure breaches children’s human rights
• Local authorities and the duty to consult with parents
• Interests of children should not prevent extradition for serious offences
• Consultation on children’s heart surgery was lawful, rules Court of Appeal
• Vulnerable adults still protected by High Court’s “great safety net”

The decision is available at – http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1366121097047.pdf

From Judge Bork himself:

“The typical law partnership provides perhaps the most familiar example [of agreement on prices and markets]. A law firm is composed of lawyers who could compete with one another, but who have instead eliminated rivalry and integrated their activities in the interest of more effective operation. Not only are partners and associates frequently forbidden to take legal business on their own …, but the law firm operates on the basis of both price-fixing and market-division agreements. The partners agree upon the fees to be charged for each member’s and associate’s servicse (which is price fixing) and usually operate on a tacit, if not explicit, understanding about fields of specialization and primary responsibility for particular clients (both of which are instances of market division)” The Antitrust Paradox, 1978, p.265.

Bork used this example to criticize the blanket per se  prohibition of price-fixing and market division schemes. Cartels formed amongst lawyers yield redeeming efficiencies (the combination of complementary skills, notably) + there are many law firms and all compete fiercely. Hence, output restriction is not a tenable hypothesis.

This later point ties in well with C‑226/11 Expedia Inc. v. Autorité de la concurrence, a judgment poised to earn a “worst antitrust development Oscar”. Bork’s example casts a bright light on the judgment non-sense: in this case, the Court held at §37  that conduct with marginal market coverage (<10%) ought to be deemed to have appreciable anticompetitive effects as long as it can be categorized as a restriction by object:

“It must therefore be held that an agreement that may affect trade between Member States and that has an anti-competitive object constitutes, by its nature and independently of any concrete effect that it may have, an appreciable restriction on competition“

In other words, a price-fixing scheme that covers 5% of the market is per se illegal under Article 101(1) TFEU. Again, a dispairing judgment…

“I know this is off topic but many municipalities are inaccessible. Yes a wheelchair can get over a curb cut but the mindset of the municipality (company) simply isn’t conducive to real access. Accessible I.T. is simply an extension of this as IT, website, e-documents becomes one of the biggest barriers towards accessibility and disability employment.

Like i said, I know nothing about the subject matter so I am speaking in general rather than the details above.

Any Canadian who wants to see a rockstar municipality should research the city of Sarnia. Its not what you see, its how they think and it starts from the top with a mayor who is simply the best.”

Sounds a lot like segragrated washrooms in the southern US

In another Linked In Group there is a “warning” of sorts

HR quotes “The ADO has commenced attending on site with workplaces to see if they are in compliance with the Customer Service Standards (CSS). Specifically they are asking for evidence of training for all employees on the CSS, Policies and Feedback forms. On Site inspections have occurred with some Ontario Colleges and Municipalities so far. Private companies and businesses will be targeted next….”

Make no mistake. Read some of the Blogs and Discussions in Linked In by many people with disabilities. There is a good deal of anger about some companies who do not comply or do not really put accessibility at the forefront of their businesses. Small groups of people in the disabled community will take their frustration to Human Rights and others will discuss this in the social media. Now is the time for private industry to take accessibility and fold it into Diversity Programs and Inclusion. This will truly impact Brand but also shareholder value.

The AODA Team at OPC Inc

The Petitioner, an advocate, filed an application with the CBDT under s. 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information pertaining to cases excluded from scrutiny, where the disclosure was made during survey. He also sought information qua the scrutiny guidelines for the financial year 2009-10. The Department opposed the disclosure of the scrutiny guidelines on the ground that it would prejudice the “economic interest” of the Country and enable assessees to “configure” their return to avoid scrutiny. The refusal to supply the information was upheld by the CIC. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition to challenge the order of the CIC. HELD by the High Court reversing the CIC:

Joginder Pal Gulati vs. OSD – CPIO (Delhi High Court)

The assessee set up a Wind Mill and commenced operations on 29.09.2006 (AY 2007-08). In that year the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 3.5 crores on account of depreciation and interest which was set-off against the other income. In AY 2008-09, the assessee earned profit of Rs. 7 lakhs from the Wind Mill and claimed 100% deduction u/s 80-IA by treating AY 2008-09 as the “initial assessment year”. The AO allowed the claim. However the CIT, relying on Goldmine Shares 302 ITR (AT) 208 (SB) (Ahd) & Hyderabad Chemical Supplies 137 TTJ 732 (Hyd), revised the order u/s 263 on the ground that as u/s 80-IA(5), the eligible unit was deemed to be the “only source of income”, the earlier years’ losses of the unit had to be set-off against the profits before allowing s. 80-IA deduction. On appeal by the assessee, HELD reversing the CIT:

Shevie Exports vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) and raised a demand of Rs. 1719 crores. In response to the assessee’s stay application, the AO accepted that demand of Rs. 1370 crores had to be kept in abeyance as they were covered in favour of the assessee by appellate orders for earlier years. However, he still held that the said demand had to be adjusted against refunds of Rs. 560 crores determined for earlier years. He demanded that the balance demand of Rs. 377 crores on the other issues be paid by the assessee. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the adjustment of refunds against the demand on covered issues and the non-grant of stay on the other issues. HELD by the High Court:

HDFC Bank Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

The assessee acquired the business of manufacture of glass from Piramal Enterprises Ltd. It also entered into a non-compete agreement with Piramal Enterprises whereby it agreed to pay Rs. 18 crores for the seller agreeing not to carry on a competing business for a period of 18 years. The assessee claimed the said payment as a revenue deduction and in the alternate as a depreciable asset. The AO rejected both claims. The CIT(A) held that though the non-compete fee was not a depreciable asset, the amount paid for it was entitled to be amortized over the period of the agreement. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the non-grant of depreciation while the department filed an appeal challenging the grant of amortization. In the first round, the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s plea by relying on the Third Member verdict in Paper Products. However, as this verdict was not put to the assessee, the matter was reposted for hearing. In the second round, the assessee relied on Smifs Securities 348 ITR 302 (SC) where goodwill was held to be eligible for depreciation and several other judgements. HELD by the Tribunal rejecting the plea:

Gujarat Glass Private Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 31 lakhs on freight but did not deduct TDS thereon u/s 194C. The AO held that as there was a failure to deduct TDS, the expenditure could not be allowed as a deduction u/s 40(a)(ia). However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim on the ground that the freight charge was a part of the price of the goods and there was no contract between the assessee and the transporter. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by relying on the Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping 146 TTJ 1 (Viz) (SB) where it was held (by a majority) that s. 40(a)(ia) had no application to amounts that were already “paid” during the year but it was confined to amounts remaining “payable” as at the end of the year. On further appeal by the department, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

We already have delivered a judgment on 3rd April, 2013 in ITAT No. 20 of 2013, G.A. No. 190 of 2013 (CIT, Kolkata-XI Vs. Crescent Export Syndicates) holding that the views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (ITA.477/Viz./2008 dated 20.3.2012) were not acceptable. That is one reason why the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal. Another reason for remanding the matter to the Tribunal is that the finding of facts recorded by the CIT (Appeal) was not tested by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a decision de novo.

CIT vs. Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal (Calcutta High Court)

The assessee was a beneficial shareholder of two companies named Kingston Properties P Ltd. (KPPL), New Dimensions Consultants P Ltd (NDCPL) & R. S. Estate Developers P Ltd (RSEDPL). NDCPL & RESEDPL advanced various sums of money to KPPL towards “share application money”. However, some of the advances were returned by KPPL while some were adjusted towards allotment of shares. The AO held that the transaction was a “colourable device” and a “loan and advance” which fell within the ambit of s. 2(22)(e). The said “loan and advance” was assessed as “deemed dividend” in the hands of the assessee – beneficial shareholder – following Universal Medicare 324 ITR 264 (Bom). The CIT(A) reversed the AO. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

DCIT vs. Vikas Oberoi (ITAT Mumbai)

Firstly and as many Londoners might naturally feel, there is of course the very practical consideration that fighting back in this way tends only to inflame an already delicate situation. Secondly, here in the UK at least, in your malice you might be creating an actionable private nuisance yourself!

Sound strange? Maybe, but look what happened when this kind of case was brought to court, many moons ago…

The case of Christie v Davey, 1893, 1 Ch 316

Seems that Christie here was a music teacher, who gave lessons in her house. Mr Davey, living in the semi-attached property next door, didn’t much like the noise. It seems he complained directly to Mrs Christie more than once. I’ve just found online a letter purporting to be penned from Mr Davey to Mrs Christie:

“During this week we have been much disturbed by what I at first thought were the howlings of your dog, and, knowing from experience that this sort of thing could not be helped, I put up with the annoyance. But, the noise recurring at a comparatively early hour this morning, I find I have been quite mistaken, and that it is the frantic effort of someone trying to sing with piano accompaniment, and during the day we are treated by way of variety of dreadful scrapings on the violin, with accompaniments. If the accompaniments are intended to drown the vocal shrieks or teased catgut vibrations, I can assure you it is a failure, for they do not. I am at last compelled to complain, for I cannot carry on my profession (the defendant was an engraver) with this constant thump, thump, scrap, scrap, and shriek, shriek, constantly in my ears. It may be a pleasure or source of profit to you, but to me and mine it is a confounded nuisance and pecuniary loss, and, if allowed to continue, it must most seriously affect our health and comfort. We cannot use the back part of our house without feeling great inconvenience through this constant playing, sometimes up to midnight and even beyond. Allow me to remind you of one fact, which must most surely have escaped you–that these houses are semi-detached, so that you yourself may see how annoying it must be to your unfortunate next door neighbour. If it is not discontinued, I shall be compelled to take very serious notice of it. It may be fine sport to you, but it is almost death to yours truly.”

Evidently the letter (which is also referenced and indeed quoted here) didn’t have much effect, and so it seems that Mr Davey took to making noise in retaliation whenever he heard anything from Mrs Christie.  Mr Davey’s noise in turn distracted Mrs Christie’s music lessons, and so Mrs Christie took Mr Davey to court to get him to stop.  According to records I’ve found cited many times online, it would seem that the court ruled in favour of Mrs Christie and granted an injunction against Mr Davey.

Surprised?

When I first heard this story, it was told as Mr Davey having brought the case to court, to get Mrs Christie to stop her teaching activities, and that the court turned the tables on him.  This would have been a much bigger surprise than what I’ve found to have been documented.

Given the presented evidence of his ongoing sufferings, if this case came to court now I might still ordinarily hope for a ruling in favour of Mr Davey. But on reflection, I think there’s an principle at work here:  one cannot justify the creation of a new nuisance, especially out of malice, in order to fix or protest against another.

A lot of water has passed under a lot of bridges since this case originally came to court in 1893.  I’m intrigued to see what others might think of this case in light of our present-day exposure to noise, and whether attitudes have changed about such confrontation.  I wonder if there are any more recent rulings that might counter this one?

In most cases the reduction in sentence is usually as follows:

At the earliest opportunity – one third;

When a trial has been set – one quarter;

At the door of the court or when the trial has begun – one tenth.

Here are the main principles from Caley:

1. There is a difference between a defendant admitting his guilt and entering a guilty plea.

The important time is when the defendant indicates his plea.This is the definition in s.144 Criminal Justice Act 2003. It does not necessarily mean being arraigned and actually entering the plea.

The fact that lawyers have to assess the evidence in a case and advise about the charges does not stop a defendant from admitting what he has done before a formal guilty plea is entered.

2. Credit for a guilty plea derives from the need for effective administration of justice.

This is the principle from paragraph 2.2 of the Sentencing Guidance Council’s Guideline – Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea. Credit is quite separate from mitigation.

3. Admissions in police interview should be treated as mitigation – not credit

They are a factor for downward adjustment of the sentence passed and are not a matter related to credit. They should be taken into account before considering credit for a guilty plea. The amount of reduction should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. For example admissions tendered on a voluntary basis before the police could have brought the allegation will be worth more.

4. Full credit will not normally be given for a guilty plea entered at the PCMH.

Lord Hughes said at para 18:

All this leads us to the clear conclusion that, absent particular considerations individual to the case, the first reasonable opportunity for the defendant to indicate (not necessarily enter) his plea of guilty, if that is his mind, is not the PCMH, This court pointed towards this conclusion in R v Chaytors [2012] EWCA Crim 1810. The first reasonable opportunity is normally either at the Magistrates’ Court or immediately on arrival in the Crown Court – whether at a preliminary hearing or by way of a locally-approved system for indicating plea through his solicitors.

5. Courts should be very cautious before withholding credit in overwhelming cases.

Even if they do so then credit of 20% is appropriate.

6. Courts must not withhold credit just because the statutory maximum sentence is low.

The sentencing guideline says at paragraph 5.6:

The sentencer cannot remedy perceived defects (for example in an inadequate charge or maximum penalty) by refusal of the appropriate discount.

With the anticipated settlement in the Google search case (amongst other things), journalists keep asking whether this represents a major win for the Commissioner. Like I have said before,  the best way to address this question consists in assessing the substantive merits of the case. The settlement certainly represents a major win if one believes that the case is meritless (I have argued this elsewhere). The FTC’s decision to do nothing on search supports this theory.

In contrast, this settlement is not a major win if one believes that the case is strong, and that the Commission could have easily pushed for an Article 7 decision (I have also made arguments to this effect, given the loose substantive and judicial review standards promoted by the EU courts in abuse cases).

But there’s one thing which may have dissuaded the Commissioner and his administration from using the conventional Article 7 track (remember, he actually voiced his disinterest for the Article 7 procedure and pleaded that fast moving markets need fast enforcement mechanisms (read Article 9): the protracted duration of such proceedings.  The Commissioner’s mandate expires somewhere in the Fall of 2014. Under an Article 7 procedure, he might no longer have been in office to sign the  prohibition decision. In short, to put the Google case on his hunt list, Almunia needed a settlement.

But is it really true that it takes so much time to adopt an Article 7 prohibition decision in an abuse case? After all, we are now 3 years and 2 months after the initial complaints in the Google case (they date back to February 2010), and the supposed celerity of Article 9 decisions seems all the more relative.

I made a quick check on the duration of Article 7 proceedings in abuse cases since 2005 (using COMP’s case search tool):

• Intel, 9 years following complaint
• Microsoft, 6 years following complaint
• Astra Zeneca, 7 years following complaints
• Tomra, 6 years since complaints
• GVG/FS, 4 years following complaint
• Wanadoo, 4 years following investigation
• Telefonica, 4 years following complaint
• Telekomunikacja Polska, 3 years following investigation
• Clearstream, 3 years following investigation

Two things stand out of this review: 1. Article 7 decisions can be adopted in 3-4 years; 2. cases with formal complainants are much longer than cases without.

Against this backdrop, the Commission could thus not have conceivably adopted an Article 7 decision before the term of Almunia’s mandate.

So if the Commission is ever to settle with Google, this will clearly be a big win for Commissioner Almunia.

PS: for a funny paper on Google death inactive account manager service, see here.

PS2: for yet another ordinary interview of the author of this post in the press, see here.

 The case is here

 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/388.html

 This is, I think, the pivotal passage from the judgment (hence the title)  – underlining mine

 When an ICO is made the local authority and the parent share parental responsibility for the child – albeit the local authority is usually the one in the driving seat particularly when removal has been sanctioned. This plainly does not mean the parents or others are of little or no consequence. Although the local authority may be driving the vehicle, on a journey approved by the court, it does not mean it is able to ignore the views of the passengers as to the route to follow. There needs to be consultation; and concurrence (if possible). The consultation must be genuine and not merely a process whereby decisions are merely the subject of information to parents. I repeat a parent with parental responsibility does not surrender that when an ICO is made, nor when removal is permitted by the court. The weight to be attached to the views of parents and others is a different question. A local authority must always work in a carefully calibrated manner and act in a proportionate way commensurate with the issues involved and those involved… A sense of reality and a sense of proportion are key to the concept of consultation; however, consultation there must be, save in exceptional circumstances where child safety or other pressing reasons are present. I should also add that proper records are an essential aspect of consultation and decision-making.

In this case, the Local Authority had initially sought to remove the children from the parents, and at Court (as is often the way) a compromise was reached, whereby the parents agreed to an Interim Care Order if the children were placed with grandparents, and the LA agreed to place the children with grandparents. As often is the way with compromise, regrets followed.

 Thereafter, the LA had doubts about whether that was the right placement, and they conducted their fostering assessment, which became available on 30^th January. This was very negative, and it considered that the grandparents attitude towards the concerns about the parents care was worrying. Sufficiently worrying for them to decide on 31^st January that they would seek to move the children into foster care.

 They met with the parents on 1^st February, and told them that this was the plan. The parents reacted badly, particularly the father, who said (inadvisably) that he would kidnap the children.

 The LA then moved the children, earlier than they had intended to.

 The parents made an application for judicial review, seeking to overturn two decisions :-

1. That the decision on 31^st January that the children would be moved was unreasonable, it having taken place without consultation
2. That the decision on 1^st February to move them forthwith was unreasonable

The parents triumphed on ground 1, but lost on ground 2  – the Court determining that the events of 1^st February (although they had arisen purely because of the LA’s failure to properly consult) did legitimately give rise to a reason to implement a move.

 The LA had claimed that they had not MADE a decision on 31^st January to move the children, but the Court rejected that.

40.  I gave a short judgment announcing my decision in which I set out the following:

(1) The decision made by the LA on 31^st January 2013 to remove the children was unlawful.

(2) The LA was the author of the very unhappy events of 1^st February 2013 (the Riverside Incident); and, had they acted lawfully, those events may have been avoided.

(3) Having created that situation, as a result of that unlawful decision, the LA acted reasonably in taking the immediate action to remove the children during the afternoon of 1^st February 2013. The LA are much to be criticised for creating the situation (due to an unlawful decision); but having created it, acted in a way that many other local authorities would have acted.

(4) The proposal to remove the children is one that would have received the support of the guardian providing appropriate planning had been undertaken (it was not). In consequence the children entered foster care in a rushed and unseemly manner. The guardian was not in fact consulted.

(5) At no stage did the decision of the LA have the approval of any court. The decision not to refer the case back to the FPC or any family court was unlawful.

 The Court placed quite a lot of emphasis on the LA not consulting with the Guardian (perhaps working on the basis of five years ago, when  all Guardians communicated much more regularly with social workers and would give a view on events) , and in this case the children were between Guardians, leaving responsibility solely with CAFCASS.  Nonetheless, this LA did not notify CAFCASS or the Court, or the child’s solicitor that a move was afoot.

 The Court summed up the human rights position in relation to interim care orders, and this is a helpful summary.  Underlining again mine, for emphasis.

50. An interim care order is exactly what it says – interim; and does not bring in its wake all that flows from a final order. An ICO may only be made when a court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the basis for making a care or supervision order are present. In short terms the full case for a care order does not have to be established – simply reasonable grounds for believing that position exists. A wholly separate question arises in many cases whether removal from the parent is justified. There is much Court of Appeal authority upon that which I have no intention of setting out, but essentially the court considering such a course must: (i) only do as much as is really necessary to secure the safety of a child; (ii) only decide what really needs to be decided at the interim stage (as the concept is purely to hold the ring until the full hearing); and (iii) only remove a child if it appears truly necessary to do so in the interests of the child’s safety.

The interim care proceedings are not a dress rehearsal for the final hearing. An ICO is an interim protective order and requires renewal from time to time under the present statutory arrangements. That does not mean regular reappraisal of the living arrangements, but it does mean the court is keeping a watchful eye on developments. The interim process of care proceedings is judicially controlled and the more so with the advent of recent family justice reforms. I feel it always needs to be remembered that the removal of any child from a parent is a very serious step that should never be made lightly. That similarly applies to the removal of a child from another family member to a foster carer. These observations are particularly significant when such a course is postulated prior to full investigation at a final hearing.

51. There can be no doubt that Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights 1951 (the Convention) are engaged when an application for an ICO is made – and all the more so when removal is in issue. This issue was addressed by the Court of Appeal in Re S (Care Proceedings: Human Rights) [2010] EWCA Civ 1383 [2012] 2 FLR 2009, where Sir Nicholas Wall P (with whom Arden LJ and Wilson LJ, as he then was, agreed) said that a useful formulation of the test to be applied in questions of removal was: whether the removal or continued removal of the child from the care of his or her parent(s) is proportionate to the risk of harm to which he or she will be exposed if the child is allowed to remain or return to parental care [see paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment]. The articulation of the test by the President in Re S is a valuable lodestar for courts deciding whether an ICO should be made and removal countenanced. It will be understood that making an interim order when not all is known about the family dynamic is one of the most difficult decisions a family court is asked to make (particularly when removal of a child from a parent or other family member is proposed). There is a volume of Convention jurisprudence which emphasises the invasive and draconian nature of an ICO and removal of a child from the family.

52. When an ICO is made the local authority and the parent share parental responsibility for the child – albeit the local authority is usually the one in the driving seat particularly when removal has been sanctioned. This plainly does not mean the parents or others are of little or no consequence. Although the local authority may be driving the vehicle, on a journey approved by the court, it does not mean it is able to ignore the views of the passengers as to the route to follow. There needs to be consultation; and concurrence (if possible). The consultation must be genuine and not merely a process whereby decisions are merely the subject of information to parents. I repeat a parent with parental responsibility does not surrender that when an ICO is made, nor when removal is permitted by the court. The weight to be attached to the views of parents and others is a different question. A local authority must always work in a carefully calibrated manner and act in a proportionate way commensurate with the issues involved and those involved. Calibration and proportionality are highly fact specific. The level and manner of consultation with one family will inevitably differ to that of another family depending on the issues and circumstances. The weight to be attached to the views of a father who murdered the mother of his child is likely to be rather less (if any) to be attached to the views of grandparents who are looking after a child in a difficult family situation. A sense of reality and a sense of proportion are key to the concept of consultation; however, consultation there must be, save in exceptional circumstances where child safety or other pressing reasons are present. I should also add that proper records are an essential aspect of consultation and decision-making.

53. During the course of argument I was referred to the case of Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam) which was a decision of Munby J (as he then was: now the President) involving a challenge to a decision of a local authority to remove a child from parents after a final care order was made. Munby J reviewed the convention cases and domestic law in a comprehensive judgment which has continuing relevance. He drew attention to the fact that social workers (in 2003 when the Human Rights Act 1998 was still in comparative infancy) needed to be more aware of its terms and import (see paragraph 3 of the judgment). Given the events of this case that is a paragraph that needs repetition. Let there be no misunderstanding: the convention applies to local authorities in respect of their decision making in care cases and all social workers need to be alive to its provisions and import; moreover they must apply the convention. The texture of decision-making needs to have the weave of the convention visible and palpable.

54. In my judgment it is possible to distil the relevant law in the following way by reference to the expansive and helpful judgment of Munby J in Re G which has resonance today in this case. I particularly call attention to paragraphs 28 to 55 of the judgment which I say, with profound respect, were both learned and graphical – making it all the more readable. The distillation of relevant considerations applicable to the facts of this case are:

(1) It is always important (usually vital) for any decision-maker to consult with all relevant parties to be affected by the proposal before making the decision. The weight (or none) to be attached to the responses is a matter for the decision-maker providing the decision is legally rational.

(2) In the context of the removal of a child from a parent (and I would add any other family member) should not be countenanced unless and until there has been due and proper consultation and an opportunity to challenge the proposal.

(3) Article 8 not only provides substantive protection for parents and other family members, but requires procedural safeguards too.

(4) Article 8 is not something that applies simply to the judicial process, but to other decisions made by the local authority too.

55. The passage of the judgment at paragraph 36 is apposite to this case:

“So Article 8 requires that parents are properly involved in the decision-making process not merely before the care proceedings are launched and during the period when care proceedings are on foot (the issue I was concerned with in Re L), but also —- after care proceedings have come to an end and whilst the local authority are implementing the care order.”

This is interesting – there are occasions, when representing a Local Authority that the concerns the LA have are so high that care proceedings are certain to be commenced. In those circumstances, it is traditional to send the Letter Before Action, making it plain that care proceedings will be commenced.  [Though of course, the parent is able to obtain legal advice and contest the ICO application]

Is the upshot of this judgment that it is unlawful to DECIDE to commence proceedings before consulting with the parent about this?   It seems to me that it probably is.    

The Court then went on to consider the interplay between interim care orders and judicial review – mindful that there is of course a remedy in the care proceedings (to challenge the ICO, or to appeal a court decision to continue it)

56. There have not been – in so far that counsel and I have been able to determine – any reported case of judicial review proceedings in relation to ICO’s. It was felt by counsel – and I am inclined to agree – that challenges whilst care proceedings are in train are usually made within the confines of the family court when an application to revoke the ICO is made or a renewal application is made. Ordinarily, the Administrative Court will not countenance judicial review proceedings when there is an alternative remedy – especially so when that alternative is a judicial remedy. However, that does not mean that judicial review cannot apply to decisions made by local authorities whilst care proceedings are in train. I am of the view that there are limited – perhaps very limited circumstances – where an application can be made justly. This would be so when a person affected by a decision is not actually a party to the care proceedings and might not have a sufficiently good reason to be made an intervener in those proceedings. It might equally apply where (as here) a party (the mother) does not wish to challenge the basis of the ICO, but merely a decision made by the LA as to its implementation. It may be that a local authority has reached a conclusion in respect of which it refuses to alter (despite the request of the family court). All the family court can do is to exhort (it usually works – but it does not always) or revoke the ICO. The family court is not exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court in, the now infrequently used, wardship procedure where by the court makes all important decisions about all aspects of a child’s life as used to be the case. In my judgment the circumstances whereby judicial review is applicable whilst care proceedings are in progress (and there is an extant ICO) are likely to be rare and distinctly fact specific. The Administrative Court is very alive to the concept of an alternative remedy.

The Court also covered the duty to consult – and made it plain that there is a spectrum of consultation, not merely ‘agreement’ at one end, and ‘informing the parents of the decision’ at the other  – there has to be a genuine dialogue which allows for the potential for a parent or other interested party to bring something to the conversation which might result in a different outcome.

58. I have made it clear that there is a duty upon a local authority to consult with all affected parties before a decision is reached upon important aspects of the life of a child whilst an ICO is in force. I have been shown the guidance issued by HM Government to local authorities in 2010 [The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations] where there is valuable material available to social workers about how to approach their difficult task in this regard. Paragraph 1.5 provides (inter alia):

“Parents should be expected and enabled to retain their responsibilities and to remain closely involved as is consistent with their child’s welfare, even if that child cannot live at home either temporarily or permanently.”

Further:

“If children are to live apart form their family, both they and their parents should be given adequate information and helped to consider alternatives and contribute to the making of an informed choice about the most appropriate form of care.”

59. Whilst it is not spelled-out quite as starkly as perhaps it should, there is contained therein a plain message that a local authority must consult and, in my judgment, that is even more crucial during the interim phase of proceedings when final decisions as to the threshold criteria and outcome have not been made by a court. The question as to whom the local authority needs to consult is distinctly fact specific. In my judgment that should ordinarily include the parents. If capacity is in issue or there are safety issues or other genuinely powerful reasons not to embrace them, then different considerations apply. It should also embrace the guardian (if appointed and available). It should also embrace any other family member who has a material interest in the children. This would include a family member who may be caring for a child or otherwise closely concerned with the child. This frequently involves grandparents who step-in to help.

60. The weight to be attached to the input of parents and others is for the local authority to judge – it may be no weight at all may be attached depending on the circumstances – but there needs to be consultation about fundamental decisions. Moreover, the concept of consultation does not mean concurrence at one end of the spectrum; nor information at the other. The “others” who need to be consulted may have a valuable contribution that might alter the proposal of the local authority. It does not mean the parents and other parties must concur with the proposal before it can be implemented. There can be no veto or casting vote. Equally, the parents and other parties are not mere vassals to whom information is given and nothing more.

61. It has to be acknowledged that there will be decisions to be made in some cases where it is impossible to engage with parties or even to consult where the local authority must act speedily in the interests of child safety and protection. When this is done there must be clear reasons for this and the decision must be objectively reasonable and justifiable. Such a decision needs careful justification and calibration. A full note of the reason for such an exceptional course must be made.

62. During the pre-final hearing stage (the interim phase of the case) the family court will be monitoring developments and where there is a fundamental disagreement as to an important decision, the parties need to have the issue adjudicated upon. This is of critical importance where the court has made an ICO upon a particular premise and that is to be changed, and changed where there is no agreement. Unless there a real need for an urgent decision (on proper grounds of child safety or protection) the family court should ordinarily be involved. The interim phase of care proceedings is now under even tighter judicial control than hitherto. I cannot emphasise enough the local authority is not allowed to act unilaterally upon important matters affecting a child in its interim care without proper consultation save in exceptional circumstances. There must be proper consultation and judicial input when there is a contested proposal. It must be equally emphasised that local authorities must act speedily and without express approval if exceptional circumstances obtain. The weight to be attached to the views of those consulted is a matter for the judgment of the local authority in whom trust for the management of the ICO has been reposed by the court.

Whether you represent a parent, or child, or Local Authority, this case has some important information, and reminders.  I think that most Local Authorities would have had the case before the Court before the children were removed, but conversely, that most would probably have made the DECISION that they intended to remove once that negative viability report arrived. This case reminds us that the duty to consult goes far deeper than simply telling the parents that a decision has been reached, but actually to be a genuine discussion about the situation and the options available PRIOR to a decision being reached.

Several businesses in the South West have been marketed interest rate swap contracts by their banks, and have found that these contracts are inflexible, with very high quit fees payable if, for some reason, a client wants to comment on this in the press and a week ago there was a discussion in Parliament where MP’s raised the mis-selling of these swaps in Parliament. The reason of the rate swaps was to secure clients against raises in interest rates, and a market research by a member of the Bully Bank’s Group found that 79% of clients purchasing the swaps were told by the bank that rates of interest were going to increase. Customers are now finding that their situations have changed, or for another purpose they wish to stop the swap agreement. The clients are then challenged with extremely high exit fees billed by their bank. These products and solutions are complicated economical derivatives, and in most of the situations we have observed, the swap contracts have been mis-sold.

The Economical Services Authority may release an important analysis into claimed mis-selling by British Banks of complicated interest rates hedging products and solutions to small businesses. A lot of small businesses are complaining about the sale of complicated hedging products in 2007 and 2008 previous to interest rates were cut, with a lot of saying they were forced into accepting these conditions as a reasons for acquiring funding for their businesses. Some interest rate swap misselling lawyers do not experience it is a main problem in terms of selling, saying that individuals are utilizing hindsight financial aspects, and that if someone has set their interest rate just before it moves down, then they are certain to experience that it was not best guidance when it may happen to be at the moment.

For further details about case law and court cases please visit the website.

 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/854.html

 A long time ago,  1995, an application to terminate a father’s parental responsibility was heard in the High Court, and that had been the only authority on the point since that time. Re P (Terminating Parental Responsibility) [1995] 1 FLR 1048

 The grounds were that during the course of care proceedings, it had emerged that the father had caused the serious injuries to the child, and the mother no longer wanted him to have parental responsibility, made an application and the Court granted it.

 [Now, of course, that course of events, though tragic, is not exceptional in care proceedings – and one might well argue that finding out that a father had not behaved well, had even been abusive, ought not to result in him being stripped of his parental responsibility – at least not unless the child was being adopted, and I know many of my readers think not even then.

 This is particularly so, since the Children Act 1989 provides a statutory mechanism for the mother to apply to remove the father’s PR, but NOT the reverse. The mother’s PR is sacrosanct, and is only removed by the making of an adoption order. It seemed terribly wrong that the father’s PR could be removed by an application, pace Re P,  with just some evidence that the father was an abuser]

 Most practitioners considered that to be a quirk, an anomaly, and a decision that wouldn’t actually stand up to scrutiny of the Human Rights Act if it were looked at again today.

Most practitioners (myself included) would have been wrong.

 The father in DW was not, one would have to say, a very nice person. He was a man who had been on trial for ten counts of sexual abuse and who only pleaded guilty the day before his children were due to give evidence. He received a four year custodial sentence.  The father, throughout the private law proceedings maintained that he was innocent of all charges and had only pleaded guilty to protect the children   (although finally advanced a position that he accepted that the convictions were made and he could not go behind them)

 So, not a man who would be on the shortlist for any father of the year award, and in writing this piece, I am clearly not defending anything that he has done, or saying that he should play any part whatsoever in the children’s lives.  I am merely doubtful that removing his parental responsibility  (no matter how diminished his exercise of it would rightfully be in practice) is fair.  If you asked me should he have done twenty years in prison rather than four, I’d be right there with you signing a petition to that effect.

 The Judge looked obviously at the statutory provisions (underlining mine) :-

Section 4 (1) Where a child’s father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the father shall acquire parental responsibility for the child if

(a) he becomes registered as the child’s father under any of the enactments specified in subsection (1A);

(b) he and the child’s mother make an agreement (a ‘parental responsibility agreement’) providing for him to have parental responsibility for the child or

(c) the court, on his application, orders that he shall have parental responsibility for the child.

(1A) the enactments referred to in subsection (1)(a) are

(a) paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of section 10 (1) and of section 10A (1) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 ….

…

(2A) A person who has acquired parental responsibility under subsection (1) shall cease to have that responsibility only if the court so orders.

(3) The court may make an order under subsection (2A) on the application

(a) of any person who has parental responsibility for the child… “

Raising the interesting question that a mother can apply for a father’s PR to be withdrawn, and oddly the father can apply for the father’s PR to be withdrawn, but neither can apply for the mother’s PR to be withdrawn.

 The Court also looked at the existing authority of Re P

16. “I have to say, notwithstanding the desirability of fostering good relations between parents and children in the interests of children, I find it difficult to imagine why a court should make a parental responsibility order if none already existed in this case. I think the continuation of a parental responsibility agreement in favour of the father in this case has considerable potential ramifications for future adversity to this child. I believe it would be a message to others that he has not forfeited responsibility, which to my mind it would be reasonable to regard him as having done. I believe that it might be deeply undermining to the mother and her confidence in the stability of the world surrounding (the child).”

17. Later, he added (on page 1054):

“I believe that there is no element of the band of responsibilities that make up parental responsibility which this father could in present or in foreseeable circumstances exercise in a way which would be beneficial for the child. I therefore conclude that it is appropriate to make an order as sought under section 4…bringing to an end the parental responsibility agreement entered into….”

For my part, I think there is a conflation there of two issues. If the father in this case DID not have PR, and one were considering his application for PR, I can see compelling reasons not to give it to him. But what the Court is doing is removing PR from a person who already has it  (knowing that the only other mechanism for this is adoption, the most draconian order a family court can make) . 

I think that removing PR from a person who has it is a big deal, and requires something much more compelling – if indeed section 4 as drafted is compatible with human rights (given that it is framed entirely on gender terms, I just don’t think it is). And moreover, that although the fathers in these two cases appear to be pretty unsympathetic characters, the way the decisions are framed mean that fathers who have done less bad things could lose their PR.

 I shall be fair – the alternative way of framing this argument is :-

1. Parliament put in place a mechanism that allowed a mother to apply to terminate the PR of a father , and a mechanism that allowed the Court to terminate that
2. If you are going to have that power, there must be circumstances in which it can be used
3. The father’s conduct in both of these cases was reprehensible, and if you aren’t going to allow the application in these cases, what sort of case are you going to allow it? 
4. If it is only a theoretical power, what is the point of it?  And as far as we can see, it is a power that has only been used on 3 occasions in nearly twenty five years, so it is hardly a landslide.

 [The problem with playing devil’s advocate, is that the devil is persuasive. I shan't do that again in a hurry]

 The Court in DW clearly considered the case very carefully (and I shall come onto some of the evidence in a moment) and also took into account the human rights issues, rejecting the father’s claims that section 4 of the Act was discriminatory if it penalised ‘bad conduct’ for fathers but not mothers.

 I am troubled by this, since I think that the facts in these two cases, and the decisions as reported, do open the door to a lot of fathers having applications for their PR to be terminated. 

 I don’t think that the bar here was set very high, bearing in mind the importance of the issue at stake. And not least because if the roles were reversed, a mother would be at no risk of losing her PR.

Looking at the bar, considering what’s at stake, it seems to be more fit for limbo dancing than pole vaulting.

 [I did look at illustrating this, and my quick trawl of google images located a David Hasselhoff  Limbo-Dancing album.  And he has his shirt off on the front cover...  I have resisted this, as likely to place me  in excess of the EU Regulations on Cheese-Content for Blogs]

It is however, a judgment that was careful to take into account various factors and placed the welfare of the child at the heart of the case   (and once the Court rejected the argument that section 4 was incompatible with article 8, was the only rational conclusion)

55. In my judgement, the magnetic factors in this case are D’s emotional needs, the harm he has suffered, and the risk of future harm. As a result of the turbulence and disruption endured by this family during the mother’s relationship with the father, and the period leading up to the father’s criminal trial, all members of the family, including A, C, the mother and D have suffered harm of varying sorts and to a varying degree. So far as D is concerned, whether or not he witnessed the father perpetrating any abusive acts on A, I accept that he has suffered emotional harm as a result of the harm inflicted by the father on other members of his family. I accept that, because of his parentage, D’s position in the family is difficult and that there is a risk of his suffering further harm and stigma if he continues to be perceived and treated in any way as the son of this man who perpetrated acts of sexual abuse on his older siblings.

56. In addition, I take into account D’s expressed wish to have no involvement with his father. As he is only aged eight and a half, the weight to be attached to those wishes is limited. I accept that to a considerable extent his express wishes have been influenced by his mother and siblings. Nevertheless, I find that they are rooted in the reality of his life.

57. I also take into account the capacity of the mother to meet D’s needs. I find that were the father to retain parental responsibility, she would be placed under very great strain, given the probability as I find that the father would subsequently apply for contact, and that he would seek to be further involved in D’s life. Equally, given all the harm that the father has inflicted on the family, I accept that the mother would find it well-nigh impossible to send a regular report to him concerning D’s progress. I find that imposing such an obligation on her would impinge on D’s emotional security.

58. All these factors point towards an order terminating the father’s parental responsibility and dismissing his application for a specific issues order. On the other side of the scales, I take into account the fact that, as part of his background, D is the biological child of the father, and that as an aspect of his emotional needs he, like every child, should grow up with some understanding of his origins and, whenever possible, a relationship with each biological parent. But in certain circumstances those needs must give way to more important considerations, in particular, the need for emotional security. I conclude that D’s emotional security would be imperilled were the father to continue to have any further involvement in his life. Equally, whilst acknowledging that as an aspect on their respective Article 8 rights, both D and his father have a family life together, that aspect is in this case outweighed by D’s overriding need, as part of his Article 8 rights, to security within his family.

59. Miss Townshend sought to persuade me that Re Pwas distinguishable on the facts of this case. On the contrary, and notwithstanding the factual differences between the two cases, I find that it provides invaluable guidance. Following Singer J’s example, I look to see to what extent the well established factors for making parental responsibility orders would be satisfied in this case. I accept that, although the father showed a degree of commitment to D when living in the household, that was wholly undermined by his actions in perpetrating serious sexual abuse on A and C, and this has been compounded by his subsequent denials up to the third day of the trial and renewed assertions that he is not guilty. So far as attachment is concerned, whilst there was undoubtedly some degree of attachment between D and his father when he was a baby, there is no attachment now as he has not had any contact for several years. As indicated above, I find there is force in the mother’s concerns that the father is motivated by wishing to become more involved in D’s life, to the detriment of the family including D. As in Re P, I find that, if the father did not have parental responsibility, it is inconceivable it would now be granted to him, and that this is a factor I should take into account when considering this application to terminate his parental responsibility. Furthermore, like Singer J in Re P, I find that in this case there is no element of the bundle of responsibilities that make parental responsibility which this father could in present or foreseeable circumstances exercise in a way which would be beneficial for D.

The evidence in this case was interesting, since father instructed a clinical psychologist, Mr Shuttleworth, to conduct an assessment.

 I am going to simply quote extracts from the judgment and let them speak for themselves  – I do not know Mr Shuttleworth (and I suspect from reading this judgment, I am unlikely to get to know him).  It may be that this judgment does him a grave disservice.

28. In his report, Mr Shuttleworth was critical of Dr Obuaya’s psychiatric assessment carried out in the course of the criminal proceedings, in particular, his failure to identify what Mr Shuttleworth regarded as the clear symptoms of ADHD. Mr Shuttleworth went so far as to question whether Dr Obuaya had been right in concluding that the father had been fit to plead.

29. On the issue of sexual risk, as stated above, the father maintained throughout the assessment that he was innocent of the offences to which he had pleaded guilty. Mr Shuttleworth noted that in prison he had been assessed as ‘presenting a low risk of recidivism’. In his assessment, Mr Shuttleworth stated that ‘there is no evidence that he has any sexual deviations’ and concluded (contrary to the observations of the sentencing judge) that there had been no escalation of his sexual offending. Mr Shuttleworth recorded that the father denied having been sexually abused by any member of his family, contrary to statements that appeared in the father’s medical records.

30. Mr Shuttleworth concluded:

“I do not believe that he would be a risk to a child from a sexual point of view. There may be more doubts if he was looking after a girl because of the convictions, however there is no indication that he ever had any particular interest in a male….While I do not believe there is any evidence that he is a risk, his recent behaviour, particularly in prison, indicates that he is fully willing to enter into any programme which might involve him proving his parental skills. He will obviously stop short of agreeing to claim responsibility for any alleged sexual crime in order to enter into any of those programmes.”

He added:

“My overall impression is that he has been amazingly tolerant and accepting of his ex-partner’s fears in not demanding more contact, although I would presume that he would like to have this sometime in the future when his reputation has hopefully been rehabilitated.”

31. In oral evidence, Mr Shuttleworth drew attention to the father’s claim that his criminal lawyers had advised him to plead guilty to avoid a longer sentence. Mr Shuttleworth was not convinced that the father was a sexual offender and expressed the view that there were grounds to challenge the reliability of the conviction based on his doubts about the father’s fitness to plead, the failure to diagnose ADHD, and ‘the way the trial was conducted’. Cross-examined on behalf of the mother, Mr Shuttleworth stated that, if the father had been abused by his brother, as stated in the father’s own medical records, and if he had been involved in sexual activity with A and C, he would pose a risk to D that Mr Shuttleworth described as ‘moderate’, but he added ‘other people in prison who have more experience of these things assessed this risk as low’. When invited to consider specifically the risk to D, Mr Shuttleworth said:

“Even if he’s had sex with children, I’ve come across a lot of paedophiles who do not abuse their own children.”

Mr Shuttleworth added that ‘there’s an assumption that people who are paedophiles are unable to control their impulses’. He said that he found the father to be a very warm and caring man who cares very much for his children.

 And the Judge’s conclusions in relation to this evidence

50. In light of my findings about those matters I turn to consider the evidence of Mr Shuttleworth. I listened to that evidence with increasing concern. I regret to say that I have found his opinions naïve, complacent, unreliable and at times misleading. His reluctance to accept the convictions as the factual basis for his assessment was a dereliction of his duty as an expert witness. His statement in his report that there was no evidence of any “deviations” was simply untenable given the existence of the convictions for ten offences of sexual abuse. His various statements about paedophiles quoted above runs contrary to all the understanding about the dangerous and deceitful behaviour of paedophiles which this court has come across many times over the years. His assessment of risk was, in my view, worthless, and I reject it.

The assessee, a civil contractor, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) in respect of the profits from infrastructure projects executed by it. The lower authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. Before the Tribunal, the Members of the Division Bench dissented and so the issue was first referred to a Third Member and then to a Larger Bench of three Members. The Larger Bench (32 DTR 1) rejected the assessee’s claim on the ground that in order to be eligible u/s 80IA (4), the assessee had to be directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the facility and that there had to be a complete development of the facility and not just a part of it. When the matter came before the Division Bench for giving effect to the Larger Bench’s verdict u/s 255(4) the assessee did not appear and so the Bench dismissed the appeal in limine for non-appearance. The assessee filed a MA before the Tribunal to recall the said order and also filed an appeal before the High Court. The Tribunal recalled its order dismissing the appeals and refixed the matter for hearing. Consequently, the assessee withdrew the appeal filed in the High Court. In the order permitting the withdrawal, the High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the judgement in ABG Heavy Industries 322 ITR 323 (Bom). HELD by the Tribunal:

B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)

New York Cases

Dimitrea Walsh v. Michael Walsh  FBTFA094027973 – December 23,2011

IN RE: a Support Proceeding Under the Family Court Act.

 IN RE: a Support Proceeding Under the Family Court Act. F.S.-P., Petitioner, v. A.H.R., Respondent.- August 14, 2007

PEOPLE v. FORTIN  The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Michael FORTIN, Defendant.- March 14, 2000

IN RE: J.F.IN RE: J.F., Petitioner, v. L.F., Respondent.- June 25, 1999

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nd-supreme-court/1501269.html  ND

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1619259.html   FL

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-701688

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ARCO%2020111102015.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR   AK

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6128832880194575595   CT

The Court is dealing today with an application by a father, Mr Edward Scissorhands, for contact with his son, Vincent. Vincent is just 3 months old, and lives with his mother, Kim Scissorhands. The parents have been estranged since the latter stages of the mother’s pregnancy with Vincent, and live apart.

 The unusual feature of this case is a stark one. Mr Scissorhands suffers from a unique physical disability, in that he does not possess hands with opposable thumbs and fingers, but rather a series of blades, five on each hand, the longest of which is approximately eighteen inches long.  Mr Scissorhands has learned, throughout his life, to use these ‘blade fingers’ with precision and accuracy, and the Court has been shown photographs of ice sculptures made by the father, which show both a high degree of artistic skill and control over these fingers.

 It is common ground in this case that Mr Scissorhands is a warm and kind man, who loves and adores his child and that he would be a positive influence and a good role model – his forebearance, inner strength, his kind heart and the way he has overcome what for many people would appear insurmountable obstacles, all do him enormous credit and would be a fine example for his son.

 Nor is there any ill-will or animosity between the parents, save for their disagreement as to whether contact can safely take place.

 The issue is whether, despite Mr Scissorhands knowledge of childcare and desire to put that knowledge into practice, he would be physically capable of doing so safely.

 It is factually correct, and Mr Scissorhands accepts this, that he could not hold his son, nor safely touch him, and that as a result, things that many parents take for granted, such as cuddling, tickling, hugging, changing a nappy, holding the child’s hand when crossing a road, are not possible for him.

 He was asked, by counsel representing the mother, for example, to demonstrate whilst in the witness box, how he would play a game of “peekaboo” and this resulted in several minor, but nonetheless real, cuts to his forehead, which would of course be not desirable for either the father or the child in what is ordinarily a happy and joyful interaction.

 The father’s face, I should add, does bear healing scars in a multitude of places, caused by inadvertent brushes of the scissor blades on his own face. 

One cannot easily ignore, despite understanding that the father would exercise all possible caution and care and would have no intention to cause any harm to Vincent, that if such accidental cuts have happened to the father, causing facial scarring, that it is a risk that cannot sensibly be ignored that a cut might happen, completely accidentally, to Vincent.

 I am invited by the mother to find that the father, not as a result of any culpability on his part but as a result of his unique personal characteristics, would pose a risk to Vincent in unsupervised contact, both in terms of an inability meet his needs  (he would be unable to hold or comfort Vincent if he were distressed and would be unable to change him, feeding him would potentially be manageable though difficult) and the risk of an accidental injury occurring.

 I have to confess that I found this aspect difficult. To make a finding of risk against a father where there is no culpability on his part, appeared at first blush to be harsh, and I had to take care in approaching this.

 However, I have to turn my mind to the test that the House of Lords set for assessing the risk of harm  (although this applies to public law proceedings, it is still pertinent in this private law case, considering as it does how the Court is to tackle the issue of future risk)

 Lord Nicholls in Re H [1996] AC 563 at 585F set out a likelihood of harm as: “a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case.”

 It is not necessary, in determining whether there is a risk of harm to the child (as I must, this being not only a live issue for the Court to determine, but one of the relevant factors in the Welfare Checklist which I must have regard to), that is the basis on which I should approach it  – on the balance of probabilities, with the burden of proof being on the person who asserts risk (in this case mother) is there evidence of a risk that cannot sensibly be ignored.

 I have to answer that question in the affirmative. There is a risk that unsupervised contact would cause harm to Vincent, notwithstanding that father has no wish or desire to cause such harm and that he has nothing but love and warmth for Vincent.  When considering the harm element of the welfare checklist, I am not obliged to consider any mens rea or intent on the part of the parent.

 My conclusion is that Vincent would be at risk of harm in unsupervised contact and that the risk of harm could not be safely managed, despite any assurances that father could give. The harm would be in effect, outside of his ability to control, no matter how careful he would be, a momentary slip would cut this fragile baby.  A baby of 3 months needs to be changed, and comforted, needs to be cleaned, needs to be fed and held. The father, despite his clear desire to do so, is simply not in a position to do that safely.

 I am therefore driven to conclude that unsupervised contact for this father is not possible.

 I turn then to supervised contact. The mother is not willing to supervise the contact (and of course, directing an estranged parent to supervise the contact of their ex partner would be wholly unusual and indeed undesirable).  Nor are any members of her family willing to do so.

 The father has no family members who could undertake this task.

 Neither parent is in a financial position to fund the supervision of contact themselves.

 I have obviously then had to grapple with the fundamental principle that contact with both parents is vital for a child and that contact should not be ceased unless there are compelling reasons for this, only in exceptional circumstances, where there was no alternative. There is a raft of case law to that effect, the most recent being

 IN THE MATTER OF C (A CHILD) sub nom AL v (1) JH (2) C (A CHILD BY HER GUARDIAN) (2011) [2011] 2 FLR 912

 And therefore, a deal of thought has been given to whether some legal underpinning which ensures that there will be a supervisor for father’s contact, to allow him to have supervised contact until such time as Vincent is old enough to (a) not require such ‘hands on’ care and (b) to be in a position to recognise the need to be careful around his father and have the ability to keep himself safe.

 Having established that no family members can supervise the contact, that leaves only professionals.  A supported contact centre would not offer the degree of supervision that is required here – it must be more than merely ‘pop in’ or observed contact, there is a risk management function here.

 Whilst the Court could potentially make a direction for the Local Authority to prepare a report under section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and recommend to them that they prepare some observations of supervised contact, that would be only a short term solution, at best securing two or three supervised sessions of contact.

 Can they be obliged to supervise the father’s contact on an ongoing basis, as that is what is needed here?

 The answer, sadly, is that they are not.

 I cannot compel them under section 11 (7) (d) of the Children Act 1989, since I am not able to place conditions on contact that apply to third parties (as a result of s 11 (7) (b)

 I have been pointed to Family Assistance Orders pursuant to section 16 of the Children Act 1989, where the Court can order a Local Authority to ‘advise assist and befriend’ a family. Does that go so far as to require the supervision of contact?

 The case of S V P (CONTACT APPLICATION: FAMILY ASSISTANCE ORDER (1997)  1997] 2 FLR 277 suggests that a Court going over and above the requirement to advise, assist and befriend component of a Family Assistance Order goes too far.  Whilst I could invite the Local Authority to supervise contact under such an order, I cannot compel them to do so. I can direct s16 (4A ) for the LA to give advice and assistance regarding establishing, improving and maintaining contact, and direct for them to prepare a report s16 (6)

 Additionally, the FAO only lasts for 12 months, and what is required here is something much longer lasting.

 There is a temptation to consider making the FAO, directing that the father have supervised contact, and that the LA report in 12 months; and that is something I will store on the back burner for the moment. 

 I have also considered whether I could reasonably make an Interim Care Order (under which the Local Authority would have a duty to promote the father’s contact, and thus would have to provide supervision of it), but I cannot make such an order of the Court’s own motion, save for alongside a section 37 investigation. I could make more than one such order, if the section 37 report was in my judgment insufficient.  

 RE K (Children) 2012   [2013 1 FCR 87]  being authority for that point.

 But in my view, the most that could be achieved by doing so, would be to obtain a series of supervised contact sessions, and information about whether father could have meaningful contact in such a setting. It does nothing to secure the provision of ongoing supervision of contact; which would only happen if either the Local Authority wished to do so voluntarily, OR they voluntarily applied for a Care Order and one was made in due course.

 I have made enquiries of the Local Authority, and not surprisingly, they take the view that Vincent is being well cared for by his mother and that a Care Order is not required to protect him. They do not volunteer to either supervise his contact, other than as a ‘one off’ nor to issue proceedings.

 To make an Interim Care Order purely to facilitate contact appears to me, in the hackneyed phrase to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 

  [Author’s note, I think I can recall a case several years ago where this was done and supported by the higher Courts but I can’t now find it – if anyone recalls it, please nudge me. It might be Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute :Interim Care Order 2003, [2003] 2 FLR 636 where the Court sanctioned a removal under an ICO and a section 37 to try to resolve an intractable contact dispute. I think it probably is. ]

 I thus, it appears to me, cannot order the Local Authority to provide the supervision of contact, and the best statutory provision is to make an order for weekly supervised contact, make the Family Assistance Order for 12 months and direct the LA to report on their work in 12 months time, adjourning any final decisions until that point.

 It must be open to question whether the Court could utilise the same rationale as in Re K (Children) 2012, to make repeated Family Assistance Orders where the report does not cover what is desired  (i.e reports on the quality of that supervised contact and some ongoing commitment to supervise in the future)     – the Court of Appeal in Re K took the view that as there was nothing in statute to PREVENT repeated s37s, it was lawful to do so, and that therefore could be argued in this case, were I to do so.   Thus, a succession of Family Assistance Orders could potentially be made, leading to many years of litigation, albeit litigation only revisited annually.

  Instead, however, I make an order that the mother should make Vincent available for contact with his father once per week for two hours.

 I am entitled, under section 11 to make directions as to how that section 8 contact order will come into effect, and those of course include the handover venue.

 Very well, I have determined, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, and the welfare checklist, with Vincent’s welfare being my paramount consideration, that the handover venue should be the reception area of the Local Social Services offices. The father is not to have unsupervised contact, and is not to leave that reception area with Vincent without the express approval of the Local Authority. Those are matters that I direct, pursuant to section 11 of the Children Act 1989

 I will ensure that a transcript of this judgment, which indicates that Vincent would be at a risk of serious harm if the father’s contact were not supervised, and that any professional who knowingly allowed Vincent to come to that risk would, in my judgment be negligent. 

 I trust to the goodwill and sensible nature of the Local Authority staff that they would not allow Vincent to be subjected to a risk of significant harm that a Judge has carefully determined cannot sensibly be ignored.  I am sure that they will step in and make sure that Vincent is watched and observed and kept safe during the two hour period when he will be in their reception area (or such other venue as they choose to transport him and the father to)

 The parents, may of course, vary the handover location by agreement.

 I am certain that any reasonable Local Authority, mindful of their duties towards a child in need (and I find that Vincent is such a child) in their immediate proximity would conduct their section 17 assessment of his needs REASONABLY and conclude that he needs to have the relationship with his father that the Court have determined is vital for him, and that in order for him to be safe, there is a need for services, in the form of supervision.

 If I am wrong in my certainty, then another Court will look at this case, either by way of judicial review, or a civil claim for negligence.

 Thank you all for your time. 

[As ever with my imaginary judgments, all I did was have the kernel of an idea – what would happen in Court if Edward Scissorhands have a baby? And then run with that, with no idea of how my imaginary Judge would get herself out of this predicament that I had cheerfully dug for her.  I didn’t get on to the disability discrimination aspects, though it does seem to me that it is solely the result of father being physically disabled and not having hands, that has resulted in him not having unsupervised contact. 

The joy of this draconian decision (which occurred to my imaginary Judge, who I think is called  Judge Knott-Lestyebe  is that not being a party to the proceedings, though the LA would want to appeal it, they may struggle to do so.

Although even this footnote now gets its own footnote  - a person who can show that they are a person interested, aggrieved or prejudicially affected by the judgment may appeal with leave  Re M (Prohibited Steps : Application for Leave} 1993 1 FLR 275.  

Of course, this is all mere fiction and fancy and any lawyer will recognise the most ridiculously far-fetched element of the whole piece - there is no way that post LASPO either party would have had counsel ]

We fail to understand how he would not be entitled to see the pleadings and papers filed in the proceeding to take away his rights. … While we appreciate that the court should find good cause before allowing access to persons who are not parties to the suit or to give access to the proceedings after a final judgment is entered, we doubt that a “good cause” requirement applies to the parties to the proceedings in the midst of prosecuting and defending the petition. They must have access to the pleadings and filed documents in order to conduct the proceedings to conclusion.

D.M. v. Elizabeth R. Berkowitz, PA, 2013 WL 1438253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)