A family court judge has published a recent judgment he handed down to highlight the success of the Resolutions Model in reuniting parents with their children in child protection cases.
Judge Baker, who oversaw the case, J (A Child) (Resolutions Model), said he wanted to raise awareness of the Resolutions Model of risk assessment in cases where parents disagree with findings that they caused injuries to their child.
Lancashire County Council had made an application for a care order for Jane (not the child’s real name) the day she was born after the court had found that the parents’ first child, Amber (not the child’s real name) had suffered non accidental injuries which it believed had been caused by the parents.
However, Judge Baker said the parents may be able to care for Jane using their family and support network to build a protective and supportive ring around Jane to ensure her safety.
The judge approved a plan in which Jane and her mother Beverley were supervised when together, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, following the mother separating from the father.
The plan saw five family members and a close family friend working in shifts, with small periods of unsupervised contact being gradually introduced into the routine.
The periods were extended, and family members’ roles in supporting Jane’s health and safety were revised through planned and unplanned observations and family meetings, developed in cooperation with local authority staff.
The judge congratulated Lancashire County Council and the Children’s Guardian, Peter Morey, for being flexible and offering support to the family, which he said had resulted in a very strong care plan for Jane. Baker congratulated the mother, saying in the judgment that he was “very impressed” with the way she had changed.
Judge Baker said the Resolutions Model could work in cases where, “In the right set of circumstances, the fact that a parent denies causing an injury need not rule out the possibility of that parent resuming care of or involvement in the care of that child.”
Though rarely used and little known, the Resolution Approach is a model which the family courts should be increasingly implementing, as a compassionate and sophisticated way of supporting families in need.
The model is unique in that it is used to work with parents who deny causing injuries to their children and explores the possibility of returning children to parents’ care using family support networks to make sure the child is not at risk.
This recent case is not the first time the Resolutions Model has been used to great success. A case in 2017 saw parents reunited with their 2 ½ year old child following a two-year fight through the family courts. In that case, the child was taken to hospital with several injuries, and a subsequent family court hearing held that the injuries had been caused by either the mother or the father. The parents said they had not intentionally caused the injuries.
The parents’ lawyers then asked the court to implement the Resolutions Model, which provided the parents with tailored professional support and an extensive family network to help with care needs for the child. The parents engaged with the process and were reunited with their child.
It’s worth noting that local authorities and social work staff were initially hugely resistant to the use of the Model in both cases, and that the legal teams were responsible for pushing the Model through in each case.
We very much hope this is the start of a smarter, more humane approach to families in need of support, and one which should be extended not just to cases with suspected non accidental injuries, but to all cases which feature child protection concerns.
Further Reading:
- Family Court judge issues ruling to highlight successful use of “Resolutions Model” (July 8, 2021)
- Case: J (A Child) (Resolutions Model) [2021] EWFC 58
- Successful Reunification of Child to his Parents Using the Resolutions Approach (2017 case)
- Rehabilitation – A Postcode Lottery?
Researching Reform 
Both the police and LA can know when one parent admits to injuring their child and both parents can get judged by the community who automatically jump to the conclusion it was caused deliberately.
BUT this is not always the Case and the parent who didn’t cause the injury, can be looked down on just as bad.
Ones need to keep an open mind though first, because Criminal Court can clear the parent who caused the injury with a finding said injury was not a deliberate one. But it won’t necessarily result in them not been considered a schedule one offender for physical injury or at least that’s what the LA could tell the other parent.
Early intervention is vital and extremely important to support these families who are not always well supported in the interim because family and friends don’t necessarily realise the pressure the parent left holding the child is under and LA’s can prioritise their seasons greetings party and not check in on the family leaving them feeling rather unsupported while the parent’s head is already all over the place.
Decisions can get made to eradicate the accused out of the picture entirely or almost entirely removing their PR where say one parent is not registered on the child’s birth certificate or are not married. But then interestingly the LA can still get anxious they could show up at Family Court; because the non-accused parent can be given the life sentence being pursued through Family (secret) Court instead, by the time lack of early intervention support leads on to a nervous breakdown for the non-accused parent left with next to none/no support.
Then the non-accused parent gets asked how they think said injury could ‘have’ happened making it theory based and the LA will likely say, yes that’s how we think it happened too and the said parent won’t necessarily be in the right kind of mind early on to realise if they search the type of injury or alleged injury caused, that things don’t tally up. For example a spiral fracture happens from a twisting action and not an object hit against it. Injuries can go on to be proved as accidental rather than non-accidental and through Criminal Court but they’ll know.
The same non-accused parent might request further tests done to check for the possibility of previous potential injuries where a dye can be injected into the foot, to show if there were any previous breaks in the child’s bones and wait to see xray results, to be told sorry, we’ve been sent the wrong child’s xray. The same parent will say, are you going to get the correct ones? to possibly be told no (probably because really there were no previous breaks to be used)
Xray results won’t necessarily be sent into Family Court. Any parent who retains full PR can make a Subject Access Request for them from the Radiology department for Xrays at the hospital their child was at.
The accused parent could be put on probation still then the non-accused parent can have proceedings brought against them through Family Court by their LA with a false/partly falseThreshold stating a lie-
That said injury was NAI or non accidental injury and the same parent won’t have necessarily had to attend Criminal Court where injury was caused by the accused parent. I’d advise them to still attend if they can knowing what all this can lead up to-
A potential life sentence for them and their injured child and siblings, should it reach as far as forced adoption and that’s because mh illness affects so many adoptees into adulthood. The non-accused parent of causing physical harm often spends the rest of their life grieving while the adoptee’s grieves for the natural family they could have had, the natural family members who have passed over they didn’t get to meet/or never got to meet again can deeply traumatise them further while their natural parent is left in turmoil too.
Did you know parents, that with dv or domestic violence, you could have had a disagreement with your spouse and someone outside your family home could make a one off drunken threat towards one of you.
Then if the police get called by you/anyone and although the police see there is no breach of the peace committed within your immediate household, the police can say there’s no need for statements, nothing to see here so we’ll just log it in our diary notebooks it won’t be going anywhere?
Then I’d advise you to make a Subject Access Request to every place involved with you, any public authority be it police, your Council, doctors, hospital, counselling, dentist, Caffcass, Paediatricians, mh hospital because even if you’ve provided evidence police got things wrong you’d like amended then the police version is still been passed on elsewhere concerning your personal data and although you could have completed an Opt Out form/letter stating you wish to be informed first if your personal data gets shared, it’s not always been respected which is a breach of confidentiality especially when no one got physically hurt.
If there’s reason to believe you could be at risk of harm/or at risk of causing harm then information can be passed on then, but it needs to be justified? It also does not mean you should not at least first be consulted about it.
I feel positive in a way things are moving in the right direction re no evidence with this blog post re none of the parents proved to cause injury, but I’m also concerned there could be parents who say they haven’t who have.
I also believe non-accused parents are getting a more raw deal who spoke the truth what happened to the best of their first hand knowledge when years ago, they wouldn’t have been pursued through Family (secret) Court and would have more likely got to keep their child home permanently alongside their other siblings like some of us got to keep home with us Xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Parents are often condemned for not accepting the fact finding decision that they had caused injury to their child. Out of 100 such cases 49 of those parents could be right not to admit non existent guilt since only a 51 percent likelihood was sufficient to condemn them.
Strictly speaking persuasions by the judge and sets of lawyers for parents to admit guilt on oath when none exists in order to be more favourably looked on by the court is an incitement to commit perjury by the learned ,judge,the barristers,and the social workers making them all accessories to perjury and all criminals………..
No wonder they want to keep their criminal activities secret.!
Maybe this resolutions model could help if used widely but with all the profits made by the fostering and adoption agencies depending on a steady flow of available children I reckon their influence will see the “resolutions model” swept quietly under the carpet .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely commendable My Lord. Thank you.
LikeLike
Pingback: Family court judge ignores genetic disorder, removes baby from mother in deeply concerning case | Researching Reform
Pingback: Family court judge ignores genetic disorder, removes baby from mother in deeply concerning case | Researching Reform