The appearance as well as the existence of collusion?
Arguably, another case of hindering access to justice by self-serving Legal Aid Losers – who are a stain on the public family law profession. Their modus operandi usually features:
(a) excising any mention of requisite safe and good-enough parenting capacity – as evidence – from the court,
(b) suppressing their client’s voice and substituting it with their own voice instead,
(c) omitting (usually at the last minute) wider admissible evidence and testimony (proper scrutiny of) which would rectify errors in the narrowed factual matrix previously rubber-stamped,
(d) brazenly crossing over to bat for the other side at crucial moments at the hearing, and,
(e) undue influence in wrongly intimating parental consent (which categorically is NOT full and informed consent) for their own decision-making causing a manufactured risk of harm.
All of this is contrary to parliamentary intentions over the working of the Children Act together with access to justice ie, ‘effective legal representation’ for parents and families hence proof that ‘good-enough parenting’ is being undermined by lack of good-enough representation. Perhaps it’s time for Parliament to legislate for this now?
Lord Justice McFarlane, “A barrister wouldn’t tell a lie.”
Yet another Family Law case involving parents going through child protection proceedings has made the headlines this week.
In this case, the parents claimed their barrister forced them to wait outside the court room, preventing them from presenting evidence about their child’s treatment whilst in care. An adoption order was made in their absence, and the judgment itself was never given to the parents.
The judgment then appeared on the free legal library BAILII ten months later, whereupon the parents discovered that the judge had been told by their barrister that the parents had in fact elected to stay outside the court room.
The mother subsequently applied to the Court Of Appeal for a fresh hearing, having been denied her right to be heard in the first instance. Lord Justice McFarlane, who was the appeal judge for the mother’s application, listened to the mother’s evidence and then contacted the mother’s…
View original post 461 more words