There’s another, far more real tension that’s even more invidious in the theory and practice of public family law – that between parents left high and dry by being in effect unjustly ignored and locked-out of ‘partnership’ decision-making by over-zealous social workers who act unilaterally while care proceedings are ongoing and counsel for local authority legal departments, who merely gloss over this modus operandi of keeping parents in the dark, thereby abbreviating this ghastly administrative course of conduct to nothing in the critical judicial formulaic stage of summing up.
Not to omit the more pressing difficulty of parents obtaining effective and timely legal representation over such tortuous ‘rabbinical’ hair-splitting at court in the immediate aftermath of being forcibly separated, estranged and ultimately alienated from one’s child in the first place.
Thought its quite elementary really, dear Ryder – anyway bravo for waiving the rules again – family alienation is disproportional and smacks of undue influence.
The third Court of Appeal decision in a month to backtrack from “nothing else will do” and this one does so very powerfully. (previous two Re MH and Re M, both blogged about last month)
To the point of saying that it is not a test.
In case you are pushed for time to read this, I’m afraid that you still have to write/read all the analysis of the various options, and the Court still have to consider those options and analyse them, but the Court of Appeal say that “nothing else will do” isn’t a test, but a process of deductive reasoning.
In case you are new to the whole adoption debate, then welcome, and in a nutshell there appears in the last year to have been a tension between the Government (pushing a pro adoption agenda, including telling social workers to stop thinking of adoption as a last…
View original post 4,398 more words