State medication of looked after children – without parental consent – has potentially huge implications for the public, especially if the availability of legal aid is in issue. Am I the only one wondering on how many occasions the limits of state intervention into family life could have been breached in this tragic case?
“3. (f) The defendant must be given the opportunity to secure legal representation as he or she is entitled to.”
This is a decision in an application for committal, and is a salutary lesson in the importance of precision in drafting.
London Borough of Wandsworth v Lennard  EWHC 1552 (Fam) (14 June 2019)
The father in the case was aggrieved at the social workers dealing with his child, and as a result of the way in which he expressed his feelings, an injunction was made.
It had this wording, which seems unexceptional and unproblematic and I make no criticism of the drafting here (but we shall see that it becomes very important)
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Mr Neil Lennard is prohibited from behaving in the following ways:
(a) Using offensive, foul, threatening words or behaviour towards Alana Bobie or Grace Okoro-Anyaeche as employees of the applicant local authority working in the Children Looked After Team 2.
(b) Sending offensive, foul or threatening communications, emails or messages to…
View original post 2,082 more words