Welcome to another week.
The Court Of Protection has often raised concerns for the secretive way in which it conducts its business. With far reaching powers like the ability to compel individuals to undergo abortions, surgery and even detain those considered to be mentally impaired in places like hospitals, it is a court with an enormous amount of influence on day-to-day living.
Google “Court of Protection Problems” and a lot of items come up, including an article from The Guardian which explains why the Court Of Protection carries out much of its work behind closed doors. The piece explains that many of the cases the Court hears are private and involve families who would prefer not to let the world in on their personal affairs.
But every now and then a case crops up which blurs the boundary between right to privacy and public interest, and raises questions about the judges who make such draconian orders. The case of Kathleen Danby, a grandmother facing jail for hugging her grand-daughter is one such case. The case began with a contact order which effectively banned Ms Danby from seeing her grand daughter, Janine, who was placed in care. Ms Danby defied this court order in 2014 by hugging Janine, an event which was caught on CCTV by social workers, and subsequently saw Ms Danby go to jail. Ms Danby faces jail again, after her grand daughter ran away from her care home recently, and tried to make her way to Ms Danby.
Whilst we don’t know the reasons for the order banning contact (the article explains that Ms Danby lives near Janine’s father, so perhaps there are concerns in relation to his conduct), we do know that Janine is 20 years old, an adult in the eyes of the law. Ms Danby is 74 years old, and clearly not deterred by jail time.
No one has yet questioned how Janine was able to run away from her care home not once, but twice. We already know that there are huge numbers of children running away from care homes in England, a phenomenon which continues to place children at risk of exploitation and other forms of harm.
So our question then, is just this: Do you think the Court Of Protection is handling this case in the best way possible, regardless of what the facts may be, or is it unfair to judge without all the information?
Researching Reform 
Natasha this grandmother is not the first to be sent to prison nor will she be the last, it is amazing that stepparents have more rights then grandparents, as we know the family courts love to break up families, and grandparents have no rights they cannot even be party to the court proceedings unless they pay a lawyer and I know of many grandparents who have used their life savings just to have contact with their so loved grandchild, one of these days the courts or better still the stupid judges will wise up and listen to the kids voices, but then this so called Britain is so corrupt it is and will always be the same DO AS YOUR TOLD and goodbye grandparents or go to jail.
LikeLike
The court of protection is a disgraceful organisation that 1:- Robs the elderly of their savings and properties to pay lawyer’s fees and 2:- RetainS children after a care order expires in order to place them with expensive care homes that make huge profits by charging exhorbitant fees !
SOLUTION? Any person detained for lack of capacity should have the right to their own medical specialist to judge their capacity independently of the court system and that decision should be sufficient to release that person if capacity is affiermed in the report.
LikeLike
I think we need to know the facts on both sides before arriving at a conclusion. While we may not yet know the full facts of this individual case due to Family Court secrecy rules, we DO know the facts of the immense risks cared-for children face in UK: 2,000+ children and babies disappear from social-worker records each year another 10,000+ run away, only 1%-2% reaching any level of higher education, a cared-for child has a vastly increased risk of ending up addicted to drugs and/or in trouble with police; despite being only 1% of the child population, cared-for children make-up one 3rd of prison & young offenders units. Sexual, emotional, physical abuse and neglect are an equal risk and with a very high percentage being ignored or dismissed as “unproven” by authorities when children do pluck up courage to report abuse.
All such known risks as listed above and fully recorded in various officially accepted reports, need to be taken into account and weighed against risks posed in the family home; damage-limitation needs to be the new mantra when making decisions about removing children against their will from parents & family with whom they have strong emotional bonds. The severing of these bonds has a very deep and damaging emotional impact i.e. a cared-for child will abscond to be with the people they love and love is something cared-for children most commonly cite as “missing” from care.
Sometimes minor problems at home are compensated by the fact of love; is it fair to deny a child their natural right to family-love & emotional bonds for sake of protecting them from minor or future risks in the family home? Dr Mai Stafford leaves us in NO doubt that children who are overly controlled and denied rights of choice are likely to grow up severely, depressed and emotionally crippled with a permanent sense of grief.
How will the young lady mentioned above feel when Grandma passes away? Clearly, authority actions in preventing her from meeting with her actually, non-abusive gran, have merely, strengthened her desire to be with gran. Given the present climate of risks and known abuses cared-for children face, we can only feel suspicious of authority actions in preventing this ‘child’ & grandparent’s contact; are authorities afraid that gran might be informed about abuses etc.?
The system is rigged to protect abusers of cared-for children and that’s a FACT we can no longer ignore and especially not from a care-system in which 180+ babies under age 1 literally, VANISH in any given year. Isn’t even ONE ‘vanishing’ baby enough to worry about? The truth is a child can die while in care and barely an eyebrow raised. Present methods of protecting children in Britain are draconian in the extreme and this needs to change.
LikeLike
They don’t vanish. That’s not what the figures say. Their cases are closed with no follow up and insufficient explanation.
Many of us were fucked up well before we were in care.
It is interesting how all these campaigns for children seem to miss the authentic voice of people who have been there. I’m sick of stupid flat earthers and conspiracists in general believing they have the right to speak for me, and children who are where I was all those years ago. Really, really sick of it.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
The horrible thing is.. this is happening during a time when there is a “Pilot Transparency Project” going on. What total disgrace! I just had my inhumane, diabolical and living death share dished out on me 2 weeks ago {in the CoP}. What does the President {Munby J} think he is doing and who is he fooling with his so called “transparency” none sense??? No blood-hungry Judge is listening to him. They do as they are told to by the incompetent LA’s and corrupt solicitors.
LikeLike
what you say is correct as for Munby he is just another front man to shut up the plebs and steal and sell their kids that’s why grandparents have no rights its control
LikeLike
I know the reasons. The young woman sees her siblings and her mother. Some of the cases are on Bailii.
Not everything printed by the papers is the whole story.
My view, the young woman needs to be left alone by her grandmother and also her father if they can’t behave. They’ve done enough damage and they’ve been doing it for many years.
LikeLike
Without knowing the facts no one is qualified to give judgement, but one thing is certain, we have a system that is not fit for purpose and until it is rectified, nothing will, or can improve. Meanwhile, the victims suffer..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Without knowing the facts no one is qualified to give judgement, but one thing is certain, we have a system that is not fit for purpose and until it is rectified, nothing will, or can improve. Meanwhile, the victims suffer.
LikeLike
No. Grandmother’s should not go to jail! After all many criminals with more serious crimes escape jail.
I don’t know the full story but where you have an ageing lady in prison to make a point, it can’t be good, she could even die as a result. The granddaughter would feel dreadful should such a tragedy occur.
The granddaughter is an adult who appears to have voted with her feet and run away to be with her grandmother. Surely the authorities should be flexible enough in their decision-making to devise a plan to ensure she is happy and safe but living with her grandmother until such time as she can no longer care for her.
We treat children who have gone into care much more differently than if they were just the child of a divorcing couple. A judge would consider a parent alienating their child if he/she prevented contact with the other parent when divorced and this would be frowned upon but when local authorities prevent contact with a child in care and their family members the effect on the child is dismissed. The best interests of the child is often transmuted to the best interest of the foster parents or the LA.
LikeLike