K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195 (02 September 2014)

[Legal Beagles]

On 3 June 2014 Her Honour Judge Marshall sitting in the Family Court at Swindon removed two young men, aged 14 rising 15 and 12, from the day to day care of their mother. The older boy, who I shall call A, was placed with foster carers under an interim care order made pursuant to section 38(1) of the Children Act 1989 [CA 1989] and the younger boy, who I shall call B, went to live with his father pursuant to a child arrangements order made in accordance with section 8 CA 1989. The young men were separated for the first time in their lives in the sense that they were separated from their day to day carers, their mother and her married partner, and also from each other. The judge suspended any contact between the boys and their mother for three weeks and gave directions relating to a pre-existing request for a section 37 CA 1989 report from the local authority. The proceedings were timetabled to return to the judge with the completed section 37 report on 27 August 2014.

More...

[PAWS]

Re: K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195 (02 September 2014)

I will be the first to admit that I do not understand all the legal language in this case but I am appalled. Just like a recent thread on here (pregnant woman’s mother threatens to take her daughter to court to gain access to grandchild) this is a classic example of the damage selfish parents can inflict on the children they insist they love. A father claims to love his sons but his actions have so distressed them both, left them so shaken that they will probably need professional help for many years to come. In fact one of them actually wet himself when the authorities barged into his home and dragged him away from his mother and brother.
I have never seen better proof that the father’s actions were not inspired by any recognisable paternal love but spite, bitterness and selfishness. What a F***ed up world.

[Amethyst]

Re: K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195 (02 September 2014)

Completely agree with you Paws. Its a quite sh*tty world out there.

[Johnboy007]

Re: K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195 (02 September 2014)

What I think is morally wrong, is splitting the two brothers up.
At such a young time in their lives, when trying to understand the 'adult world'. They need the strength of each other to help them from the obvious trauma this will cause.
The eldest being palmed of with a foster carer, and his younger brother going to live with his father is so wrong.
If the father couldn't manage both boys, then they should both have gone to a foster carer together.
I can't even begin to imagine what is going through their minds.
Fear, uncertainty, all types of emotions that are difficult enough for adults to cope with.
What this will do to their future is frightening.
I have seen kids that have been separated from their parents, and it caused them to run wild.
But to be separated from your brother, has got to be mental cruelty of the worst kind.

[leclerc]

Re: K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195 (02 September 2014)

What I think is morally wrong, is splitting the two brothers up.
At such a young time in their lives, when trying to understand the 'adult world'. They need the strength of each other to help them from the obvious trauma this will cause.
The eldest being palmed of with a foster carer, and his younger brother going to live with his father is so wrong.
If the father couldn't manage both boys, then they should both have gone to a foster carer together.
I can't even begin to imagine what is going through their minds.
Fear, uncertainty, all types of emotions that are difficult enough for adults to cope with.
What this will do to their future is frightening.
I have seen kids that have been separated from their parents, and it caused them to run wild.
But to be separated from your brother, has got to be mental cruelty of the worst kind.

From what I have read in the judgement, neither parent was putting their children first and that this was quite a messed up case. I think they agree on one point which is that the children should not have been split up and that their voices were not being heard by the judge ie the Gillick Competant. Furthermore, from my reading of the case, it appears to suggest that both parents were of means to look after the children but their own bitterness was getting in the way and that perhaps, a short term period in foster care was a solution.

The splitting up of any children from each other at any age, imho, is an abhorrent thing which is justified by those that think they know stuff as being "in the interests of the child". Hogwash imho.

We are likely to see a lot more family cases going to appeal due to the current government policy instigated by Michael Gove(who had a successful adoptive placement). The judiciary and the government are at odds over family law issues presently.