G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

[Legal Beagles]

More...

[leclerc]

Re: G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

This one is a tough one. A child is taken into care with her two siblings yet(for most councils as she was 8 years old means that they are on the borderline age of where adoption is appropriate ie 9 or 10 years old).

The difficult issue here is contact between the child and her younger siblings as opposed to contact with her father and older sibling. In this country where we have closed adoptions, contact between siblings can be irrevocably cut off because it might allow details of where the adoptive siblings are which go contrary to the closed adoption orders that seemingly are in place here.

Clearly this judge has asked them to reconsider the effect of all scenarios on the child in long term foster care. It is almost as though the child has to decide whether she wants to know her younger siblings via direct contact or merely throw that away for direct contact with her father and older sister. She is not allowed to choose both

[PAWS]

Re: G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

I think this one was posted up before in the earlier stages of the case? It appalled me then and it appals me now. There are so many issues here that one does not know where to start. Text book social work, violent and selfish parents, ignorant authorities. All doing what they want whilst claiming to know what is best for these children.
These siblings have lived in fear. The only constant in their lives was each other. Adversity tends to unite and so they were probably closer and more dependent on each other than many other siblings. To split them up is downright cruel. How can someone do such a sadistic thing? Text book social work does not work and parents who abuse and use children as weapons are criminals and beneath my contempt.
Have we come any distance from packing off childrento Canada and Australia? These siblings may never see each other again! I do actually approve of closed adoption laws as this avoids biological parents simply dipping in and out of a child’s life whenever it suits them. Believe me this is not easy but far better than hokey cokey parenting just when a child needs stability, normality and security. But to split siblings up when they are not babies and have forged bonds is draconian. I would go so far as to say it is evil.
These children have been let down by their parents, their social workers and now the law. They have never know the sanctuary of a secure home and that is an utter disgrace.

[leclerc]

Re: G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1173 (15 August 2014)

PAWS, the problem is that there are not enough places for the children that are taken from parents and since Baby P et al, social workers are taking more and more action against parents which leads to the politicised line of "protecting more and more children from harm". I would ask the question as to whether the action is protecting or exacerbating the harm and whether or not austerity measures, meaning that there is less and less money to be able to help(yet surprisingly thousands and thousands of pounds to be able to litigate and pay private foster carers), are meaning that taking the legal route is the soft option nowadays.