#UK #CoA slams Judge Dodds for “unprincipled” approach to #FinalCareOrders!

Court of Appeal slams judge for “unprincipled” approach to final care orders ~ Local Government Lawyer, Monday, 02 February 2015. 

The Court of Appeal has sharply criticised a county court judge for adopting a “ruthlessly truncated” and “fundamentally unprincipled” process when he made final care orders at what the parties expected to be a directions hearing.

In Re S-W (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 27 (30 January 2015) Liverpool City Council had applied on 18 July 2014 for a care order in respect of three children.

Less than three weeks later (7 August), at a case management hearing (CMH), His Honour Judge Dodds at Liverpool County Court made final care orders in respect of each child.

All the parties had anticipated that the matter would be dealt with by way of directions hearing which would provide for an early Issues Resolution Hearing and which would record, on the face of the order, that the IRH might well be treated as a final hearing.

For the mother, the expectation that it would be a directions hearing was of fundamental importance because the results of hair strand drug testing (in relation to her alleged cocaine use) would inform a decision at the later hearing as to whether further consideration would be given to the rehabilitation of the middle child (LW) to her.

The mother appealed HHJ Dodds’ ruling and was granted permission by Lord Justice McFarlane. Neither Liverpool City Council nor the children’s guardian sought to uphold the orders made by the judge.

Lady Justice King in the Court of Appeal said a transcript of the hearing revealed that “within a matter of minutes” the judge had “made abundantly clear, in trenchant terms, his determination to conclude the case there and then by making final care orders”.

HHJ Dodds had said he was fortified in his approach because the previous week (30 July 2014) an application for permission to appeal in relation to another final care order he had made at the case management hearing in a different case – Re H (Children) Case No: B4/2014/2033 – had been refused by McFarlane LJ.

The transcript also showed the judge had been scathing of the Guardian’s report and her reasons for requesting further information, saying the new Bundles Direction would signal an end to what he called “this sort of Victorian detail”.

In relation to the middle child’s situation, the judge said that whilst he wished LW “every good luck in the world but the Children Act and the court has nothing to do with it”.

Lady Justice King noted that: “All the parties crumbled under the judge’s caustically expressed views, and as a consequence, were unable to explain to the judge that the situation was more complicated than the one the judge clearly saw, and expressed.

“The judge viewed the case as one in which he had before him three children each of whom had been in care for well over a year, two of whom were in settled placements. The mother he saw had had a recent positive drugs test, and therefore in his mind, the inevitable outcome was the making of care orders.

“The judge said that all future placement decisions in relation to LW would be made by the local authority through the Looked After Children review process (LAC reviews).”

At one stage HHJ Dodds referred to the mother as looking “upset and bewildered”.

“It is hard to see how she could have looked otherwise given the course the proceedings were taking,” Lady Justice King said.

HHJ Dodds also failed to give a judgment or reasons prior to making final care orders in relation to all three children.

Lady Justice King said it was conceivable that there might be cases where a final order would be made at the case management hearing. In reality, however, it was likely that such a course would be appropriate only occasionally and in any event:

Where there remained any significant issue as to threshold, assessment, further assessment or placement, it would not be appropriate to dispose of the case at CMH.
  • It could never be appropriate to dispose of the case where the children’s guardian had not at least had an opportunity of seeing the child or children in question and to prepare to a case analysis in which he/she considered the section 31A care plan of the local authority.
  • Where, unusually a case is to be disposed of at CMH, adequate notice must be given to the representatives of the parents and Guardian; reluctance on their part will ordinarily be fatal to the proposed course. “Having said that, where all that is required is for the parties to have a little more time or for the local authority to prepare a section 31A care plan one can envisage cases where the matter is adjourned for a further CMH with the intention that final orders will be made at the adjourned hearing., Another example where in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate to make final orders at the CMH could be where, the outcome is inevitable and the child’s need for an immediate resolution to the proceedings is critical to his or her welfare.
  • A care order should not be made without some reasons or a judgment no matter how concise. “It is not enough to proceed on the basis that the reasons for making a care order, and still more a placement order, can be distilled from the transcript of discussion between the judge and the parties at court.” There must at least be a short judgment/reasons noting the available options, the positions of the parties and confirming that the outcome for the child is in his or her best interests and is proportionate and therefore Convention compliant.

Lady Justice King said: “All parties agree that this is a case where the judge, in his desire to embrace and put into effect the family justice reforms, has unilaterally disposed of a case prematurely in circumstances where such a summary disposal was not only unfair to the mother but contrary to the interests of the children with whom he was concerned.”

The President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Munby, said it was all too apparent from the case that no dispassionate observer of the proceedings or reader of the transcript could think justice had been done, let alon that it had been seen to be done.

Vigorous and robust case management had a vital role to play in all family cases, the President added, but robustness could not trump fairness.

He added that HHJ Dodds had failed to (a) ensure the case management hearing was conducted fairly and (b) arrange a trial that was fair.

“We are all familiar with the aphorism that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. But justice can equally be denied if inappropriately accelerated,” the President said.

Lord Justice Munby added that two fundamental principles were in play: a parent facing the removal of their child must be entitled to put their case to the court, “however seemingly forlorn”; and there is the right to confront one’s accusers. A parent who wished to give evidence in answer to a local authority’s care application “must surely be permitted to do so”.

The President said he agreed with Lady Justice King that there could, in principle, be care cases where the final order was made at the case management hearing.

“But, unless the decision goes by concession or consent, it will only be exceptionally, in unusual circumstances and on rare occasions, that this can ever be appropriate,” he added.

Re H…. was such a case, but the particular and unusual facts which there justified a summary process need to be borne in mind. Re H is not and must not be treated as justification for any general principle, let alone for proceeding as the judge did in the present case.”

The Family President said: “Quite apart from the fact that such a ruthlessly truncated process as the judge adopted here was fundamentally unprincipled and unfair, it also prevented both the children’s guardian and the court doing what the law demanded of them in terms of complying with the requirements of the Children Act 1989 and PD12A.”



This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

2 thoughts on “#UK #CoA slams Judge Dodds for “unprincipled” approach to #FinalCareOrders!

  1. I am in HHJ Dodds’s court this week with a very specific issue regarding conflicting expert witness reports involving paediatrician, including an unregistered paediatrician’s report conflicting with other expert witness reports. Unfortunately in my efforts, as an unwilling litigant in person, to get my child the support he desperately needed I submitted a ” bin full of paper. I too have had the sharp edge of his words.
    However the integrity of our judges, indeed the integrity of our courts are dependant on the honesty and professional delivery of expert and professional witness statements. When therapist reports clash and disagree with paediatrician reports and Cafcass reports clash with child a psychologist reports, who is to be believed?. In the past two years I have fought a running battle with these “experts” and very recently my son has started to respond to his therapy. However throughout this process AWM has lost over two hundred therapy sessions available to him. To make matters worse I am a foreign national and I think in my mother’s language when I’m under stress. Despite reminding the court of violations of my human rights and violations of my children’s rights, for more than a year I got no where. Because I wasn’t seeing the boys at the time I was unaware of how they were doing. After multiple application for the inherent jurisdiction of the court and prior to that, many many FOIA requests a therapy hearing was granted. I even wrote to Human Rights Watch abroad. The fortunate judge doesn’t know how big my bin of paper is and the therapy I acquired for AWN was only a twelve week ” intensive program”. Since then, no reports have been forthcoming. The one and only report to date states a “servere condition”. This issue is now heading to UNICEF, ECtHR and more “bins of paper”.
    Without the child care professional’s support in getting AWM the therapy recommended by LCH therapists more than two years ago, in the mum v dad arena, for the first time I’m coming out of my with robust action against the people that are instrumental in the denial of therapy for my child. HHJ Dodds’s court support staff have tried to turn this trial into a residence issue. The application to this high court is for intensive therapy, not residency, my boys are mere babies and need mum more than ever. I doubt that the guardian or the children’s solicitor have even read these reports. How a trial for intensive therapy can be turned into a child custody trial I shall never know. HHJ Dodds did the “decent thing” at the beginning of this trial and increased my contact fourfold. Despite the media and his occasional caustic remarks, for now I still trust His Honour. His Honour’s issues, if I may venture, are a result of the poor support he has in court, with bad reports contradicting themselves, its no wonder our Judge is out of sorts. Let see what he does this week with our children.
    ps I make no apology for my bins of paper


    • We make no bones that this judge is a disgrace because of his terrible attitude and hope he will be impeached. There really needs to be a full public inquiry into his errant ways from serving at the Bar, because in fact as head of chambers in Preston he was one of the social engineering pioneers of the junk science of so-called expert reports – a dirty lawyer who then degenerated consequently into a bent judge. Let us know how you get on with your case. Have you tried Appealing him on the basis of errors of law and fact and perhaps even judicial bias? Best wishes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.