Hi, I have a question regarding evidence in Family Courts. I would like to know how it is possible to prove that a child is at risk of neglect or emotional harm. Take for example the case of a child taken directly from the hospital. These are someone's first children and they are taken directly from the hospital and placed in 'care' for the reason of being at risk of neglect.
How would it be possible to prove that a child, who has never been neglected, would be at risk of neglect? Assessments can be undertaken and opinions given but unless there is actual evidence that a child has suffered neglect how would it be possible to 'predict future harm'. Given that no other child has ever been neglected it would seem that it would be next to impossible to prove such an allegation.
Could someone more knowledgeable on these matters please enlighten me to how it is possible to prove such an allegation. Perhaps I am missing something but I just cannot see how it is possible to prove such a thing.
Also is it really true that a child can be forcibly adopted on the basis of being 'at risk of neglect or emotional harm', even if the neglect and harm alleged is not immediate but could potentially happen years in the future? Does this really happen in the UK?
Thanks,
Proving a child is 'at risk'
-
Suzie, FRG Adviser
- Posts: 4256
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:57 pm
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
Hello newdad
Welcome to the discussion boards. My name is Suzie and I am an adviser at Family Rights Group.
You are right that it is not possible to prove without any doubt that neglect or harm to a child will definitely happen in the future. Clearly, however, when there is reasonable reason to believe that this may be the case, there must be a process to protect children and safeguard their future.
It is the responsibility of the family court to analyse all available information, including the assessments and opinions of relevant professionals, in order to ascertain that a child is likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to the care likely to be given to him if the order was not made. Only if the court is satisfied that this threshold is met can a care order be made.
Once the above threshold is met, a plan must be made about what is in the child’s best interests. You are right that this plan might be for the child to be adopted, even if this is against the parents’ wishes. An adoption can only go ahead without a parent’s consent if the court has decided that the parents’ agreement should be dispensed with and has granted a placement order.
I hope this answers your questions to an extent. You may find it helpful to read our advice sheets about care proceedings and adoption for further information.
Best Wishes
Suzie
FRG Adviser
Welcome to the discussion boards. My name is Suzie and I am an adviser at Family Rights Group.
You are right that it is not possible to prove without any doubt that neglect or harm to a child will definitely happen in the future. Clearly, however, when there is reasonable reason to believe that this may be the case, there must be a process to protect children and safeguard their future.
It is the responsibility of the family court to analyse all available information, including the assessments and opinions of relevant professionals, in order to ascertain that a child is likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to the care likely to be given to him if the order was not made. Only if the court is satisfied that this threshold is met can a care order be made.
Once the above threshold is met, a plan must be made about what is in the child’s best interests. You are right that this plan might be for the child to be adopted, even if this is against the parents’ wishes. An adoption can only go ahead without a parent’s consent if the court has decided that the parents’ agreement should be dispensed with and has granted a placement order.
I hope this answers your questions to an extent. You may find it helpful to read our advice sheets about care proceedings and adoption for further information.
Best Wishes
Suzie
FRG Adviser
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
In common law,in more serious cases ( i.e. those which might call for removal of children), if there are no facts which demonstrate serious neglect has occurred in the past ,it cannot begin to be argued in court, solely on the views and suspicions of child-protection professionals, that children be removed from home because of a ‘risk’ that neglect may occur in the future. That legal principle appears to be overlooked in lots of cases. Especially when respondent solicitors do not argue a case properly.
The operative legal principle (although I am not a lawyer) is:-
(Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563) that where there is an allegation of particularly serious harm more evidence would be required to show a civil court that it had probably occurred than would be the case of an allegation of less serious harm. Evidence must be shown on the ‘balance of probabilities’ based on facts to the civil court rather than suspicions.
The proposition is that ‘more serious harm’ is more likely to entail care-plans which demand removal. Although less serious judgments and protective orders may be issued, removal should not be sanctioned solely or to a considerable extent on the basis of trust in the good faith and professional judgment, opinion and/or suspicions of social workers and / or Guardians and other experts.
. For one, professionals often hedge and encourage the issue of protective orders in the light of previous systemic blunders which have drawn heavy public criticism.
. For another, when giving advice experts, whilst fully aware an application is for a protective order, are not privy to all allegations or care-plans, do not necessarily envisage permanent removal and thus do not examine and report on issues with necessary regard to factual detail which the common law principle demands in cases of ‘more serious harm’.
. The above principle proclaims that ‘severe neglect’ should be proven to have probably occurred based on an investigation of facts before it can be argued that there is a real risk on the balance of probabilities that children will be likely to suffer significant harm in the future. Severe neglect is less likely to occur in reality thus unless any likelihood it occurred is supported by facts that it probably occurred, it cannot be argued there is likely to be real risk of significant harm.
Thus ,whilst it may be argued that a care order is necessary ,the care plan should not advise remopval of children just because of so-called risk.
A Court must establish the facts of a case with exactitude before making judgments especially before removing children from parents. Whether or not professionals still hold suspicions is inconsequential. Under the above citation there MUST BE FACTS on which to begin to argue or establish on the balance of probabilities that there is a real risk of future significant harm to the children warranting either interim or long-term removal.
Please note this is just an ordinary parent repeating how I understand the law .A judge can interpret it in any way he or she wishes apparently and order removal whenever ! The family courts are extremely bewildering!
The operative legal principle (although I am not a lawyer) is:-
(Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563) that where there is an allegation of particularly serious harm more evidence would be required to show a civil court that it had probably occurred than would be the case of an allegation of less serious harm. Evidence must be shown on the ‘balance of probabilities’ based on facts to the civil court rather than suspicions.
The proposition is that ‘more serious harm’ is more likely to entail care-plans which demand removal. Although less serious judgments and protective orders may be issued, removal should not be sanctioned solely or to a considerable extent on the basis of trust in the good faith and professional judgment, opinion and/or suspicions of social workers and / or Guardians and other experts.
. For one, professionals often hedge and encourage the issue of protective orders in the light of previous systemic blunders which have drawn heavy public criticism.
. For another, when giving advice experts, whilst fully aware an application is for a protective order, are not privy to all allegations or care-plans, do not necessarily envisage permanent removal and thus do not examine and report on issues with necessary regard to factual detail which the common law principle demands in cases of ‘more serious harm’.
. The above principle proclaims that ‘severe neglect’ should be proven to have probably occurred based on an investigation of facts before it can be argued that there is a real risk on the balance of probabilities that children will be likely to suffer significant harm in the future. Severe neglect is less likely to occur in reality thus unless any likelihood it occurred is supported by facts that it probably occurred, it cannot be argued there is likely to be real risk of significant harm.
Thus ,whilst it may be argued that a care order is necessary ,the care plan should not advise remopval of children just because of so-called risk.
A Court must establish the facts of a case with exactitude before making judgments especially before removing children from parents. Whether or not professionals still hold suspicions is inconsequential. Under the above citation there MUST BE FACTS on which to begin to argue or establish on the balance of probabilities that there is a real risk of future significant harm to the children warranting either interim or long-term removal.
Please note this is just an ordinary parent repeating how I understand the law .A judge can interpret it in any way he or she wishes apparently and order removal whenever ! The family courts are extremely bewildering!
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
In my experience it all depends on who you get, one social worker will view a case differently to another as will judges, & in these cases they don't have to prove anything, 'grounds of probability' is not the same as criminal court where it needs evidence ' beyond reasonable doubt' my last case for eg judge stated it was POSSIBLE that my daughters injuries were an accident on grounds of probability decided they were 'none accidental' now because of that ' finding of fact' they have taken my son at birth stateing ' I may fail to protect at SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE' you can not PEOVE your innocence of future POSSIBLE actions.
It's sad but it's the law we live with.
Good luck xx
It's sad but it's the law we live with.
Good luck xx
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
dear mama R, You are right but in theory the social workers and Guardians statements of honest,professional opinion has to be made after a bona fide and fair examination of FACTS following legal guidelines right throughout a case .In many cases they do not conduct themselves according to procedure and present only their own biased opinions preferring to conceal the TRUE facts and to present opinions based on uninvestigated conjecture and scandal-mongering hearsay evidence!
In most cases they have to produce a core assessment which is supposed to be based on facts and supposed to be an 'in-depth examination of them.Sometimes they don't even do it ;other times they do it but do not include parents in the procedure; sometimes they do it and send it in too late,after decisions have already been taken.
I don't know about your personal case but many,many parents complain that social workers twist the truth and tell outright lies in statements as do Guardians.These distortions are then allowed to pass by the Judge on the grounds that they are honest professional opinion at the time when they were sworn on oath and presented to court.
Surely such professional opinion is impossible without an honest ,professional examination of the facts according to correct procedure.
It has been found before in the civil courts that where professional evidence does not tally with the
FREELY AVAILABLE FACTS that evidence is fraudulent and I believe that where professionals fail to act according to procedure and examine the facts properly ,in effect it is a wilful attempt to establish fraudulent evidence.
As far as I can see your case,in serious cases like yours which might require removal, they cannot argue on the balance of probabilities which you mention that a child will be at serious risk in the future unless there are FACTS which prove it has happened in the past.Such serious abuse is less likely to occur in reality therefore on the balance of probabilities it cannot be said it is a serious risk.They cannot say ,for example, that you are unbalanced,drink,take drugs and you have a criminal record for theft therefore in their opinion it is likely there is a risk you will harm your child.They have to show FACTS which prove you have caused serious harm to a child in the past,I presume!
As you say the law is hard to understand and the Judge seems to be able to decide the facts as he or she wants. Obviously he or she can't be right when procedure isn't followed and fraudulent evidence is given to her by the very ones she trusts the most! Did your solicitors do a good job for you ?Or did they roll over.Please tell us what happened in Court.
In most cases they have to produce a core assessment which is supposed to be based on facts and supposed to be an 'in-depth examination of them.Sometimes they don't even do it ;other times they do it but do not include parents in the procedure; sometimes they do it and send it in too late,after decisions have already been taken.
I don't know about your personal case but many,many parents complain that social workers twist the truth and tell outright lies in statements as do Guardians.These distortions are then allowed to pass by the Judge on the grounds that they are honest professional opinion at the time when they were sworn on oath and presented to court.
Surely such professional opinion is impossible without an honest ,professional examination of the facts according to correct procedure.
It has been found before in the civil courts that where professional evidence does not tally with the
FREELY AVAILABLE FACTS that evidence is fraudulent and I believe that where professionals fail to act according to procedure and examine the facts properly ,in effect it is a wilful attempt to establish fraudulent evidence.
As far as I can see your case,in serious cases like yours which might require removal, they cannot argue on the balance of probabilities which you mention that a child will be at serious risk in the future unless there are FACTS which prove it has happened in the past.Such serious abuse is less likely to occur in reality therefore on the balance of probabilities it cannot be said it is a serious risk.They cannot say ,for example, that you are unbalanced,drink,take drugs and you have a criminal record for theft therefore in their opinion it is likely there is a risk you will harm your child.They have to show FACTS which prove you have caused serious harm to a child in the past,I presume!
As you say the law is hard to understand and the Judge seems to be able to decide the facts as he or she wants. Obviously he or she can't be right when procedure isn't followed and fraudulent evidence is given to her by the very ones she trusts the most! Did your solicitors do a good job for you ?Or did they roll over.Please tell us what happened in Court.
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
Hi my first case (my daughter 8yr ago) was as you said, no core assessment done, lies & personal opinion given as facts & everything decided on probability, my solicitor was rubbish didn't put up a fight at all. I accutally apparently had good assessments but never saw them & was personally had never had any dealings with ' the system' & didn't know how things worked I now know there was alot more that could of been done to carry on fighting. This time I have a fantastic solicitor & despite there yet again being lies in the reports I am able to provide proof that it's lies, I have no criminal record of any kind, I've never taken drugs, I used to drink socially but have been TT for 4yrs now, I've suffered depression on & off since my daughter was removed but stoped taking medication when pregnant & I'm now having talking therapy & EMDR instead & coping well my parenting assessment is completely positive as are the contact reports, I'm doing the freedom project (domestic violence was not an issue but I'm doing anything & everything available, mellow parenting, baby massage ect ect, final hearing is 3rd oct I'll update with outcome.
My advice to anybody is do EVERYTHING possible do not give up & if LA are not doing their job properly point it out, your childs future depends on their reports MAKE SURE THEY ARE ACCURATE
Good luck to anybody fighting LA xx
My advice to anybody is do EVERYTHING possible do not give up & if LA are not doing their job properly point it out, your childs future depends on their reports MAKE SURE THEY ARE ACCURATE
Good luck to anybody fighting LA xx
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
dear mama R, BE VERY CAREFUL TO WATCH YOUR SOLICITOR no matter how marvellous you may think they are! I must warn you of that! We showed ours written evidence that social worker statements were untrue but they refused to use it whilst advising us that we should do all we could to cooperate with CS.They advised us that were we to argue the truth of the statements it would be held against us in court and it would be said we would not acknowledge concerns.Have you had advice from Suzie at the FRG yet.This is newdads thread.Have you started one yourself?
The legalities I have written about may be confusing and Suzie will put things clearer to you.You should cooperate all you can but how you can be expected to do so if they ignore you,I don't know.i
The legalities I have written about may be confusing and Suzie will put things clearer to you.You should cooperate all you can but how you can be expected to do so if they ignore you,I don't know.i
Re: Proving a child is 'at risk'
Thanks for the advice, yes I have a post ' is there any hope' sorry to newdad for hijacking xx
Who is online
In total there are 7 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 7 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 318 on Fri May 28, 2021 9:04 pm