Whilst we take a dim view of some female judges in the lower courts, who seem miserable at their stations and intent on making everyone they oversee miserable too (family law practitioners I see you snickering, you know what we mean), the female judges who make it up the slippery ladder to the higher courts are a different breed altogether.
Mrs Justice Pauffley, a high court judge, has made some rather scathing statements of the family justice system, and so concerning is the state of affairs that even the President of the Family Division is weighing in on this lady’s recent judgement and reinforcing her findings. So, what’s all the fuss?
With more than just a little courage, Mrs Justice Pauffley has condemned the overt practice of social workers being too hasty in taking children from parents without proper evidence.
The High Court judge even goes so far as to say that judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from parents and goes on to condemn family court judges for taking part in what she is calling ‘clandestine arrangements’. Mrs Pauffley found that rulings by family judges were simply ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers.
Clandestine Arrangements
Mrs Justice Pauffley has noticed the practice of judges rubber stamping the wishes of social workers without even so much as checking the information they provide or examining it through a fair hearing. And whilst some may argue that judges rely on ‘experts’ to provide information and guide them on outcomes, the reports provided were never meant to be taken ‘as read’. That has become common practice in our courts and factors such as time pressures and resources are irrelevant here. Breaking procedure is simply not an option.
The case
Why is Mrs Justice Pauffley’s case so important? Other than her direct comment about foul play inside our system, which is an honest breath of fresh air in a system still largely deluded by its own size and pedigree – what’s left of it (think the banks and Too Big To Fail), she has in this ruling reunited a mother with her baby. This is almost unheard of. It takes an enormous amount of courage to make such an order.
Quotes from Mrs Justice Pauffley
What this judge is saying about the family courts and its current murky practices:
- “The practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country”. (Yes, we know, we see it every day in our pro bono work)
- “It is difficult to view the justices as having been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local authority’s analysis of what their findings and reasons might comprise.”
- “Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does not mean it is right. It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”
Sir James Munby has backed the Order, which calls for the end of collusion between judges and social workers.
For her bravery and for reminding the system what law is really meant to be about, we make Mrs Justice Pauffley our judge of the week. Hats off to you, madam.
You can read the full transcript of her judgment, here.
More on Mrs Justice Pauffley:
- This lady gets parents to settle their disputes over a cup of tea – we like her style.
- She has been appointed the Senior Family Liaison judge in the past, in three separate districts.
- The Hon Dame Anna Pauffley DBE was called to the Bar, Middle Temple in 1979 and became a QC in 1995. She was appointed a Recorder in 1998 and became a Bencher in 2003. She was appointed a High Court Judge, of the Family Division, in October 2003 and has been a Family Division Liaison Judge on the South Eastern Circuit since March 2004
Mrs Justice Pauffley
Researching Reform 
I
LikeLike
Is that a sign of your approval of the judge or did you choke on your digestive? You’d be forgiven for doing the latter….
LikeLike
I am told that many judges and legal people have shares in the big adoption/fostering companies how far and wide it goes needs to be researched fully but it is very true same as many social workers have their own out side childrens companies registered, recently speaking with a contact supervisor the money being made is mind boggling with the supervisor telling me she will also be opening a company soley for contacts for kids and families a supervisor for the day gets every thing paid for even if its lunch in the RITZ. There is to much money in the care system and NO JUDGES or who ever will put a stop to the trafficking of kids from home into care, been going on for 100s of years and we all know money talks
Maggie
LikeLike
Thank you, Maggie.
LikeLike
Sorry it cut off ! I wanted to say that some years ago I appeared before Mrs Pauffley as a McKenzie friend .Although we lot the case I confirm that she was courteous and fair throughout.This was most unlike the behaviour of judges,Parker,Harris,Hogg,and Coates, to name a few choice female specimens !
LikeLike
That’s reassuring to know FA, thank you. It sounds like she is a fair person, which we like a great deal.
LikeLike
Judge Pauffley is indeed to be applauded and admired for exposing the wrongdoings in the Court system. In a judgement last year, she spelt out very clearly the requirements which were needed to be satisfied before Care Orders could be considered. (sorry I don’t have the judgement to hand).
A further point that must be made is that judges are the Triers of FACT. In far too many cases, facts are notable by their paucity and judgements are made largely on social worker’s opinions. Opinions of persons with some specialist knowledge which the judge may not have, can be very helpful to judges, but are given far more merit and credit than they usually deserve.
Most often, in my experiences in the Courts, many social workers cannot differentiate between facts and opinions and present a confused and irrational mess, The major complaints of parents are that such `evidence’ by social workers is too often fabricated, embellished, and distorted but it is often impossible for judges to disentangle because of the confusion of facts and opinions.
Some social workers are even prepared to argue that their opinions ARE facts, and some judges allow them to do so.
There appears also to be a vast difference in the application of the evidential standard of à `Balance of Probabilities’ in Care Proceedings which is far, far lower than the application of the same evidential standard of proof to allegations of child abuse and domestic violence in Custody and Contact proceedings. In the latter, the evidence of social workers is often ignored or disregarded yet would have satisfied the triers of fact in Care Proceedings. When comparing such cases, it appears that the evidential standard of a Balance of Probabilities is a moveable feast.
Perhaps judges in Custody and Contact proceedings are applying a Third and much higher Standard of Evidential Proof?.
LikeLike
Many thanks for this, R.
LikeLike
Or simply apply the criminal court guidelines to our family courts………………
LikeLike
I too think this is an important statement of the ‘naked emperor’ variety. If judges simply rubber stamp the ‘wishes’ of others in authority we might as well make those other authority figures the ultimate arbiters (which of course would be widely regarded as quite unacceptable).
There’s official recognition – but as yet no outcry – that something very similar happens routinely in child welfare hearings (typically relating to issues of contact & residence) in the Scottish Courts:
“The bar reporter has an enormously influential role as it is rare for a decision to be made against the recommendation of such a report.”
(Point 4.13 in this 2011 Scottish Govt. Report: http://bit.ly/1fD2N6R)
What makes the situation in Scotland even worse is that bar reporters are mostly private practice solicitors with no formal training or qualifications (in child welfare). Since expert reports are sanctioned infrequently, bar reporters often stray into the territory of making assessments of families and children rather than restricting themselves to: providing an opinion on a technical matter; investigating the circumstances and reporting on them to the court; or preserving evidence.
(Point 9.10 in this 2006 Scot Govt. Report by the Research Working Group on the
Legal Services Market in Scotland: http://bit.ly/1mwL4XT)
More detail on the Scottish Government’s Bar Reporters Working Group, established in 2013 to examine the situation, here: http://bit.ly/1h4MeEs
LikeLike
Thanks EF. This is a new story, so outcry will build up, I would suggest. However, Munby is acknowledging the problem, which I think is a good step forward. This would never have happened five years ago.
LikeLike
Hopefully it gains sufficient momentum to be received loud and clear in Edinburgh.
LikeLike
I hope so too.
LikeLike
It was good to hear Judge Pauffley saying this, and being supported by Sir Munby. I think it’s fair to say that Munby’s recent pronouncements on changes needed to the Family Court system are not yet being reflected ‘on the ground’. I wonder how long it will take before they are, and how long it will take for Pauffley’s reasoned and brave comments to be heeded? How can implementation of these recommendations be speeded up? Judge Pauffley said ‘this must never happen again’, but we know it will. Or am I being too cynical and impatient?
Roger
LikeLike
Hi Roger, I think they’re all fair points. What I would say though, is that momentum is mounting and the more comment on the issues the more momentum we can build.
LikeLike
Will the Full Judgement be available on the Appeal Court website?. It will obviously be immensely valuable in future Hearings.
LikeLike
This is a useful page for more info: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013
I think this is the judgment -I will add it to the post so everyone can read it.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”
“Every judge, unless he is a bad judge, knows that the right thing to do is to apply the oft-repeated saying of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.”
“The judge’s reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by the other party. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.” Mrs Justice Pauffley has now admitted this is happening up and down the country.
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower_01a.htm
“The most serious misconduct by judges is that which is the least likely to subject them to discipline. It is not what they do in their private lives, off the bench, but what they do on the bench in the course of litigation. The obvious image is the judge who runs his courtroom as if he owns it, who looks down from his elevated bench and treats litigants and their attorneys in an imperious and abusive fashion. But even where a judge is, as he is supposed to be, patient and dignified in his demeanor, every court appearance, just like every written motion, involves a judge ruling on a procedural or substantive aspect of a case. And there are judges who, while presenting a veneer of fairness, are intellectually dishonest. They make rulings and decisions which are not only a gross abuse of discretion, but which knowingly and deliberately disregard “clear and controlling law” and obliterate, distort, or fabricate the facts in the record to do so.”
“Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and no-citation rules.”
The fact is parents and grandparents have instinctively known they were rooked! Children have been taken erroneously and put into the care system which will affect them for all of their lives. Parents, siblings and grandparents lives have been shattered!
There are children who would benefit from being removed from their homes but the parents of these children would not be going through the family court but criminal court, as those parents have significantly hurt or killed their child. It was suggested by a Mc Kenzie friend working to support families, that at least a third of the 93,000 children in the care system at present should never be there, another third needed support to get over a crisis and the last third parents were unfortunately incapable of looking after children. That last third does not justify the removal of children in the other two thirds! Remember kids in care have doubled since Baby P!
http://www.avocetisw.co.uk/blog/index.php/message-from-edward-timpson-reported-in-community-care/
Edward Timpson is not helpful. How do you think his message came across?
“He called for a “fundamental rethink” in how children are protected.” I want to support and liberate you to improve faster, get better value for money, do the job you came into the profession to do. But to do this, I need you to demonstrate to me what you have to offer. And looking at the sparks of innovation in children’s services, I believe there are real reasons to be hopeful,” he said.
Examples of innovation the minister cited included the partnership between Kent and the children’s charity Coram, which has boosted adoption rates by 110%.
Timpson did not announce any new money for the improvement programme, but said: “Instead of letting cost pressures blunt our ambitions, we need to dig deep creatively to make the money we do have work harder than ever for those who most need it.”
He called on the sector to “confront head on any systems and structures that are getting in the way of innovation and better outcomes”.
“Ask yourself the question and then tell me: what stops me from doing things differently and better? We need a fundamental change in approach – or rather, approaches – if we’re to really raise our game,” he added”.
In my opinion, he has given social workers carte blanche to remove children, by whatever means, for adoption! I don’t consider it a spark of innovation to boost adoption rates by 110%. Frankly that’s a failure! Those children will not grow up with their families and in a few years/decades we will no doubt hear of those adoptions that failed and of those children who were abused and what they endured. The social workers will not be held accountable, nor will the Judges who rubberstamped the social workers plan for adoption.
Andrew Webb, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, at his keynote speech to the conference earlier in the week, warned that the children’s social care system is “unsustainable” and obsessed with targets.
Edward Timpson and Andrew Webb are focused on what happens to a child once in the system and instead of working with parents to get the children back home as quickly as possible they choose the options of adoption or long term foster care. They fail to look at why are so many kids being taken into care in the first place and they simply accept what social workers say too. It doesn’t take much to work out that something must be seriously wrong if only 22 care orders are rejected out of 10,000 as was the case in 2011!
We have to understand what motivates social workers to want to take children into care. We know there are government targets, they have to accept management edicts, there are time constraints, lack of training, lack of social workers but what really drives it all is fear! Fear that they will be responsible for another child killed on their watch!
Why don’t social workers speak out?
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2009/05/26/whistleblowers-lack-sufficient-protection/
Social workers are gagged by the system, again fearful of losing their jobs and unable to pay their mortgages or support their families.
http://www.pcaw.org.uk/
TV documentaries have highlighted the attitudes and chaos found in some social work departments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7806151/Childs-death-would-not-matter-social-services-official-tells-undercover-reporter.html
“If there’s a Baby P on a closed case there will never, ever be a problem,” she tells the reporter during a private conversation in council offices.
“If it’s closed and we closed it with good reasons at the time and it’s shown in the closing summary that the reasons were good, then it won’t matter.”
http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/431806-undercover-social-worker-channel-4-dispatches.html
Lord Laming recommended a complete overhaul of child protection policies following the death of Victoria Climbie in 2000, who was also starved to death after social workers, police and the NHS failed to raise the alarm.
Despite recommendations the same failures crop up in subsequent deaths as lessons are not learnt! Social workers are criticised and this has a knock on effect of creating an environment to ‘take the child and run’.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/videos/all/undercover-social-worker-low-morale
Reading between the lines maybe child social workers who have a conscience do not like what they are being asked to do!
The bad, lazy Judges who accepted the Local Authority arguments should be dismissed for Judicial Misconduct! They obviously have no integrity and are morally corrupt and not fit to judge others. They are supposed to be unbiased but their actions have thrown the Judiciary into disrepute. Both the local authority and these judges are legally stealing money from the public purse by corrupt means. The parents really didn’t stand a chance! Whilst the parents get legal aid, also from the public purse, this is wasted as their cases were never won! Grandparents who have wanted to look after their grandchildren lose too, as they don’t get legal aid they lose out financially as well as losing their grandchildren! They have never been on a level playing field! Appeal Judges in the High Court rarely overturn the original Judgements from the lower court Judges, despite as we now know for sure, they are simply rubberstamping what social workers want!
Edward Timpson, are you reading this? If you are and looking for sparks of innovation in children’s services, then stop taking the children into care unless a parent has committed a criminal act against the child. Return as many children in care as possible to their homes, or to grandparents, as quickly as possible, offering support if necessary. Change social work to a role of support with targets of family preservation. Those options alone are much better than what is currently happening. Currently all the public purse money wasted is supporting the rich lifestyles of the legal profession with no successes for families whose children have been taken on little more than the opinion of a social worker and a Judge who is in bed with him/her! (Or should I say “cahoots?”)
LikeLike
> It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”
But of course we know it will happen again because there will never be any punishment for doing it. Time and time again it will happen until the punishment comes (which it never will).
LikeLike
Yes, it will probably happen again. But it’s out in the open. The whole world knows. And families who are in court and know it’s happening may feel more courage to speak out. The President of the Family Division knows too, and he’s backing the judgment which calls for a stop to the practice. Let’s see how this goes. And let’s keep the momentum on it, and not throw our hands in the hair and give up, just yet.
LikeLike
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9399122/More-than-75-judges-disciplined-for-misconduct.html
This was in 2010. What has happened since?
LikeLike
Perhaps this latest judgment? Perhaps, had it not been for scrutiny of the system for a period of years, the likes of which the system has never seen before, we would never have gotten to this point? Worth a thought.
LikeLike
Yes Natasha, it’s good that Sir Mumby and Mrs Justice Pauffley have spoken out. Its a tragedy that its taken so long for the corruption to be aired. It doesn’t help those children who have already been taken, which is why I believe all cases should be opened and reinvestigated and children going home where possible. Its shameful when pressures other than the parents behaviour are responsible for children going into care. People who were unaware of what going on in family courts are having their eyes opened and changes are coming. It would be good if Sir Mumby gave clear guidance and penalties if Judges disobey, as its unlikely that Judges will be sacked although frankly they should be. The Judiciary should be held in high regard but how the family courts currently operate are like an ever festering sore on the face of the Judiciary and people want to squeeze it! Once the pus has gone,. it would be time to clean it and apply balm!
LikeLike
A grandmother who has such a close bonding with her grandchild who was dragged away but begging to stay with his Nan and has done so for 3 years on the last contact the grandmother asked the child aged 12 would you like to come back to live with Nan
REPLY FROM THE CHILD
I cant because I have to get a life. So what are they teaching young kids in care this is a child who begs to be with Nan we are all aware of the saying get a a life.
Maggie
LikeLike
I’m sorry Maggie.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Story of my Twin Boys.
LikeLike
Just a thought… isn’t this perverting the course of justice or fraud upon the court or something just as criminally wrong?
Someone once told me a Court was like the Theatre with those involved, the professionals, were but actors each with their part to play. Well, this truly has brought the Court down to a show, put on for the benefit of the parents, to make them believe that everything was above board, that they stood a chance of getting their children back, when all the time they were really just playing a part, making the right noises until the Judgement which had already been decided! Everyone simply went through the motions!
Formal complaints from parents and grandparents about how the Judge could make his findings have patently been ignored but should now be reopened in the light of this and should be taken seriously by the disciplinary body. This has not just come out of thin air and many would have been known what was going on and how long its been going on. All the Judges involved should themselves be subjected to a formal Judicial misconduct disciplinary and those Judges involved should be ousted from the Judiciary and the cases they dealt with must be reviewed!
What these Judges have done is unforgivable and a line should not be drawn under the matter just because what was known has now been confirmed. Let’s not forget the families that have been destroyed over their machinations! I’m angry and they are not off the hook!
LikeLike
One day, Dana, Maggie, Natasha, and all those who have had their lives permanently scarred by the system, there will be a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ committee, where some of us will be able to confront those who took our children away and get truthful answers and the chance to forgive. Things are moving, creaking forward, just keep up the momentum, keep fighting and keep hoping. All bad things come to an end.
Roger
LikeLike
Pingback: Judge of The Week: Mr Justice Treacy | Researching Reform
Hi Roger, I wish I could say I could be forgiving but no, in this instance its too life changing to be forgiving to those who still perpetrate crimes against the family!
LikeLike
So simple, so simple, there should be no punishment without crime ! Children should never be taken from parents unless a parent has been charged (temporary care in that case) or convicted of a crime against a child or children (foster care or care by relatives in that case).As Dana says most of the worst crimes against children are perpetrated by the judges !
LikeLike
Pingback: SOME DARE CALL IT ANARCHY: when unauthorised judges use the Court of ‘Protection’ to cover up crimes, steal and lie | Len Lawrence - Poisoned Air Pilot
Pingback: … the practice of judges rubber stamping … | Working Group On Bar Reporters
Pingback: Are Family Law Judges Fit For Purpose? | Researching Reform
Unfortunately, what Mrs Justice Pauffley is not, is consistent. Whilst her flamboyant, somewhat cavalier attitude can sometimes be a breath of fresh air, she has made some glaring errors too. For example, a complainant should not have to explain to a High Court judge, sitting in an international jurisdiction case, that Russia and Latvia are different countries. Nor too, should the same complainant have to explain the difference between a fully signed member of The Hague Convention and a partially signed one! Even more shocking, was the direction to the Clerk that he should ‘Google it’
LikeLiked by 1 person
what does get missed out is that every judge is given to read enormus bundles of a case written by the ARMY of experts starting with the social workers cafcass the kids lawyer all of the psycos GP letters the NSPCC it really is an ARMY, so from which bundles does the judge take as gospal, if I was a judge in a court every day for five days a week with so many cases. then ask your self how can any judge read thousands of papers and make a judgment, well they may just take their mates veiws who just maybe the cafcass, and the rest of the statements all binned, an investigation into the judges is needed then sack them. And no one other then I know of the corruption of the family courts, and as I was told
ALL EVIDENCE IS IRRELIVENT WE ARE IN FAMILY COURTS NOT CRIMANAL COURTS, SO MUCH FOR THE BRITISH LAW AND THE CORRUPT JUDGES I would not trust one, and as I was defrauded of now nearly half a million pounds the judge said it is a disgrace what happened to Maggie Tuttle but the case was out of my hands.
LikeLike
Maggie, solicitors don’t read the bundles so what chance of judges reading them? I know mine took his cues from the local authority barrister, who by coincidence was an upcoming QC and Court Recorder! They all knew what the outcome would be regardless of what was said, was they ignore what they don’t want to hear!
LikeLike
Pingback: Have you been defrauded by family court judges, lawyers and experts working in suspected collusion to create deliberate conflict for cash? | Civil Rights in Family Law Florida
I fail to see how a judge so completely lacking judgement as to force return a little girl back into the hands of her murderer, can possibly be nominated as ‘Judge of The Week’
What on Earth are you people thinking?
LikeLike
Pingback: … the practice of judges rubber stamping … [#2] | Working Group On Bar Reporters
Pingback: Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) in Berne, Kingston-upon-Thames, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Westminster and Hampstead – psychassessmentblog
Pingback: Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) in Berne, Kingston-upon-Thames, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Westminster and Hampstead | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE