Here we go again!!

Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:11 pm

Re: Here we go again!!

Postby nanaJ » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:32 am

Cellbar, I am so sorry to hear this.

If you have always been upfront about moving abroad from the outset and the court took this into account when making the SGO, then I believe you are on safe ground.

The courts are generally suspicious about those who wish to relocate to another part of the country or indeed abroad if they think it is being done to frustrate contact with the parents or former partner. However, it seems to me that as they do only have limited undefined contact, it is certainly not being frustrated and you have been upfront.

However, the delay could possibly mean that further contact is awarded to the parents in the meantime. A contact order is often attached to an SGO.

I am as baffled by these applications as you are. I always understood an SGO was meant to safeguard the holder against regular applications to the court, which we have to suffer as RO holders only and SGO's were meant to be the step between RO's and adoption. I am beginning to question the real benefit of these orders, other than you have overall PR.

I would speak to the advice line or even try and get some legal advice. I know it is expensive, but it may give you a picture of current thinking at the moment in the Family Courts. You could still remain a litigant in person but they could perhaps draw up an argument for you put forward in court.

I am sure that others on the site will watch your case with some interest. I know how hard it is, please keep your nerve and I wish you the best of luck.

User avatar
Help 1870
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:54 am

Re: Here we go again!!

Postby Help 1870 » Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:24 pm

These contact issues and SGO seem to e cropping up more and more. The SGO prevents parents from applying to have their children back (as with RO) or applying for other orders such as prohibited steps or specific issue, but not contact. Im assuming that because the parents retain PR that gives them the right to argue over contact matters.

Celbar, whats the Guardians take on all of this? If a guardian has been appointed then you would have assumed for continuity that the same one that dealt with the previous case was approached.

Does the agreement (and its not an order, just an agreement) specifically state face to face contact? If it doesnt specify how often and for how long then I would have thought the responsibility lies with you to set this.

I cant see how or why they would increase contact if the family was intending to move abroad, it wouldnt be in the childrens best interest to increse the relationship only to remove it later.

How many times in what time period have they asked for an increase? Ask about a section 91 (14) order, the worst they can say is no.

Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:48 pm

Re: Here we go again!!

Postby Cellbar » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:43 pm

No guardian has been appointed as it is classed as private law - they are doing a simple 'safeguarding and risk assessment' for a report for the Court hearing. It is CAFCASS who are doing this, but do we have to have them involved?

We have reservations about this though because they want to do CRB checks etc again - my argument is we have an SGO, we have already been through all of this and don't want it all over again! What happens if we say no to it? We are not a 'posed risk' so why should we? We have done nothing wrong and all they want is increased contact, it feels like we are under the microscope yet again!!

We are the only ones who make life difficult...
Grandparent Carer with SGO

User avatar
Help 1870
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:54 am

Re: Here we go again!!

Postby Help 1870 » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:56 pm

Originally posted by Cellbar

they want to do CRB checks etc again - my argument is we have an SGO,

On you??? Id refuse point blank. You have jumped through hoops to prove yourself suitable to have the permanent, full time care. Insisting you go through another CRB is just rediculous, and a complete waste of time and resources. If its the Guardian suggesting this then Id be making a complaint to CAFCASS, You arent the ones who are under scrutiny here, you already have been and passed.

I know it might seem a waste of time, but have you contacted the SW who dealt with the case, or you should at least have a support SW through the adoption and fostering team.

SS should be involved to some degree, if only to provide details to the court of the previous case to help them make their decision.

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests