This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/28/council-apologises-over-unlawful-removal-of-child-from-mother
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Council apologises over unlawful removal of child from mother | Council apologises over unlawful removal of child from mother |
| (6 months later) | |
| Family court judge says Gloucestershire council acted with ‘degree of subterfuge and immediacy’ that was plainly wrong | |
| Louise Tickle | |
| Fri 28 Jul 2017 14.49 BST | |
| Last modified on Fri 28 Jul 2017 15.20 BST | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Gloucestershire county council has apologised after it unlawfully removed a young child from its mother and placed it in foster care without giving the mother or father any notice of its intention to do so. | Gloucestershire county council has apologised after it unlawfully removed a young child from its mother and placed it in foster care without giving the mother or father any notice of its intention to do so. |
| The action was in contravention of a care order that the council’s social workers had recommended to a court, which stated that in the event of the child being removed from its mother it should go immediately to live with its father. It took six weeks for the mother to get the child, who was breastfeeding when removed, restored to her care. | The action was in contravention of a care order that the council’s social workers had recommended to a court, which stated that in the event of the child being removed from its mother it should go immediately to live with its father. It took six weeks for the mother to get the child, who was breastfeeding when removed, restored to her care. |
| At a hearing at Gloucester family court on Friday, the judge Stephen Wildblood described the council’s actions as unnecessary, disproportionate and deeply traumatic for the mother. | At a hearing at Gloucester family court on Friday, the judge Stephen Wildblood described the council’s actions as unnecessary, disproportionate and deeply traumatic for the mother. |
| He said the child, aged under two, had been taken from her care with a “degree of subterfuge and immediacy” that was “plainly wrong”. Unusually, he relaxed reporting restrictions in the case, after an application by the Guardian and the BBC. | He said the child, aged under two, had been taken from her care with a “degree of subterfuge and immediacy” that was “plainly wrong”. Unusually, he relaxed reporting restrictions in the case, after an application by the Guardian and the BBC. |
| On 1 June, having taken her child to a contact centre to spend agreed time with its father, the mother was informed by social workers that she should immediately attend a meeting at the council’s offices. There she was told of the council’s actions, in the presence of a police officer. No legal advice had been taken by social workers as to the legality of the summary removal. | On 1 June, having taken her child to a contact centre to spend agreed time with its father, the mother was informed by social workers that she should immediately attend a meeting at the council’s offices. There she was told of the council’s actions, in the presence of a police officer. No legal advice had been taken by social workers as to the legality of the summary removal. |
| Wildblood lambasted Gloucestershire’s children’s services for failing to consider alternative arrangements that might have kept the child with either the mother, father or other relatives. A paternal aunt had been approved as a foster carer but instead the child was placed with strangers. | Wildblood lambasted Gloucestershire’s children’s services for failing to consider alternative arrangements that might have kept the child with either the mother, father or other relatives. A paternal aunt had been approved as a foster carer but instead the child was placed with strangers. |
| Wildblood also criticised the council for failing to observe its legal duty to give both parents 14 days’ notice of any intention to remove the child. “In my opinion it is clear that the local authority acted in a way that was contrary to case law and in breach of the article 8 rights of both parents and the child,” he said. It was plain, he said, that the local authority itself had significant doubts about the legality of removal “but no legal advice was sought at the time”. | Wildblood also criticised the council for failing to observe its legal duty to give both parents 14 days’ notice of any intention to remove the child. “In my opinion it is clear that the local authority acted in a way that was contrary to case law and in breach of the article 8 rights of both parents and the child,” he said. It was plain, he said, that the local authority itself had significant doubts about the legality of removal “but no legal advice was sought at the time”. |
| The mother, in her early 20s, was described as vulnerable due to her family history. The parenting concerns on which the council workers based their decision to remove the child without notice did not approach anything like the level required for such a measure to be justified, the judge stated. “This was not an emergency.” | The mother, in her early 20s, was described as vulnerable due to her family history. The parenting concerns on which the council workers based their decision to remove the child without notice did not approach anything like the level required for such a measure to be justified, the judge stated. “This was not an emergency.” |
| Gloucestershire children’s services department was recently rated inadequate by Ofsted, with multiple failings identified in its previous senior management team. “None of the mechanisms that should have kicked in against wrongful removal did so,” said Wildblood. He said management failings in the case included lack of rigour and scrutiny by senior staff and the independent reviewing officer charged with oversight of the child’s care plan, and inadequate record-keeping by professionals of their meetings and decision-making. | Gloucestershire children’s services department was recently rated inadequate by Ofsted, with multiple failings identified in its previous senior management team. “None of the mechanisms that should have kicked in against wrongful removal did so,” said Wildblood. He said management failings in the case included lack of rigour and scrutiny by senior staff and the independent reviewing officer charged with oversight of the child’s care plan, and inadequate record-keeping by professionals of their meetings and decision-making. |
| In a statement filed the day before a hearing on 14 July at which the child was reunited with its mother, the guardian appointed to represent the child’s interests in court said she was “deeply saddened by the behaviour of this local authority towards the child and towards this vulnerable young mother”. | In a statement filed the day before a hearing on 14 July at which the child was reunited with its mother, the guardian appointed to represent the child’s interests in court said she was “deeply saddened by the behaviour of this local authority towards the child and towards this vulnerable young mother”. |
| It is expected that the guardian will issue an application on behalf of the child for damages under the Human Rights Act. | It is expected that the guardian will issue an application on behalf of the child for damages under the Human Rights Act. |
| Wildblood pointed out that the multiple mistakes made by the local authority came to light only because the mother, without any entitlement to legal aid at that point, made her own application to the court to have her child returned. “The very basis of the original care proceedings was that the mother is an emotionally fragile and socially vulnerable woman,” he said. “Therefore, for her to have faced the issues that arose on her own is manifestly unsatisfactory.” | Wildblood pointed out that the multiple mistakes made by the local authority came to light only because the mother, without any entitlement to legal aid at that point, made her own application to the court to have her child returned. “The very basis of the original care proceedings was that the mother is an emotionally fragile and socially vulnerable woman,” he said. “Therefore, for her to have faced the issues that arose on her own is manifestly unsatisfactory.” |
| The mother issued a statement saying that while she was “relieved and extremely happy that my child is back in my care”, it had been “an incredibly distressing and traumatic time”. She added: “While the local authority has accepted its failings, I hope that no other family suffers in the way my family has.” | The mother issued a statement saying that while she was “relieved and extremely happy that my child is back in my care”, it had been “an incredibly distressing and traumatic time”. She added: “While the local authority has accepted its failings, I hope that no other family suffers in the way my family has.” |
| Gloucestershire council said it apologised “to the court unreservedly that in our attempts to safeguard the welfare of this child, members of our children’s social care team breached the terms of a previous court order. | Gloucestershire council said it apologised “to the court unreservedly that in our attempts to safeguard the welfare of this child, members of our children’s social care team breached the terms of a previous court order. |
| “We also apologise to the child and the parents for our actions in this case and for any distress caused. This should never have happened and we have updated our policies and put in place safeguards, including ensuring that the assistant director or other senior officer will have oversight of all cases where action to remove children who are subject to care orders are being considered.” | “We also apologise to the child and the parents for our actions in this case and for any distress caused. This should never have happened and we have updated our policies and put in place safeguards, including ensuring that the assistant director or other senior officer will have oversight of all cases where action to remove children who are subject to care orders are being considered.” |
| There will be an independent review of the case. | There will be an independent review of the case. |
| Child protection | |
| Local government | |
| Family law | |
| Children | |
| news | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |