When I agreed to serve as a magistrate in the Family Court, I thought that I would be dealing with babies and young children whose lives were in serious danger. I expected to hear about broken bones, filthy clothing, sexual abuse – and parents taking so many drugs that they were unable to care for their offspring.
The sad truth, of course, is that too many children are living with abusive parents – and it is quite right that we should do all we can to protect them and to remove them from danger.
What I witnessed during my short time on the Family Bench, however, were cases where babies and young children were removed from families who, although not perfect, could probably offer their children a safe and decent home, were they to receive some help and support.
In each case, these were families living in deprived areas. They were young parents, with little money and limited education. They lived the kind of life that people tend to live, when money is scarce and the neighbourhood is somewhat rough. Life can be stressful in these circumstances, and a young child can add to that stress. It’s not surprising, therefore, that tempers can flare and voices can be raised. In terraced houses with thin walls, on estates where the police are often called to investigate disturbances, these disputes can result in a knock on the door, with social services summoned when the presence of a young child is detected (and domestic violence is a possibility). And so begins the road to purgatory for these young parents.
If the home isn’t clean and tidy; if there are safety concerns (such as no stair-gate, or a sharp object within reach of a small child); if the kitchen bin is overflowing – then the child may be removed and placed into foster care. Of particular concern to the social services is any evidence of the use of drugs, including cannabis. Undoubtedly, class A drugs (such as heroin) should be a cause for concern, but is it defensible for the use of cannabis to be legal in California, Holland and Spain, while being used as evidence to support the enforced removal of children from families in the UK?
In these circumstances, the matter is referred to the Family Court which issues an ‘application’ (made by social services), which triggers a six-month period, culminating in a final hearing. From this point, the parents are supervised by social services. They are sent on courses about parenting and drug rehabilitation. They have meetings with social services officials; and they can have limited, supervised contact with their child.
During this time, social services keep a record of everything they see. If the parents are late for a course; if they argue with the social services officer, or misunderstand the instructions given to them; if they use cannabis or get drunk; if they get upset during contact with their child; if they get into trouble (which can happen when you live in a rough neighborhood) – it is all recorded as evidence. And in court, everything on that record can be presented as evidence that ‘the parents are not prioritising the needs of the child‘ (even though the child is in foster care!) I fear, however, that this focus on every misdemeanor tends to miss the wood for the trees. And in the cases I saw, too much emphasis was placed on the parents’ relationship with social services, rather than on their relationship with their child.
In the meantime, the six-month deadline for court decisions makes it more difficult to try to help keep families together. There is not enough time, for instance, to help mothers with post-natal depression to overcome their problems.
If I expressed any doubt in the retiring room about the case against the parents, I would be told that it would be ‘very unusual’ for the Court to disagree with social services, especially if the Children’s Guardian (appointed to represent the child) was of the same view. I found this advice to be inappropriate. We were told, in effect, to attach more weight to one side’s evidence than the other. And in my experience, too many magistrates were willing to do so.
In an adult court, magistrates are encouraged to have an open mind. They must listen to the evidence from both sides and make their own decisions. That is how it should be in the Family Court. After all, what is the point of asking magistrates to hear these cases if they are simply expected to rubber-stamp recommendations made by social services?
Further evidence of a biased culture revealed itself through frequent, negative comments made by court officials about the child’s family. ‘I wouldn’t trust her with a flower-pot, let alone a small child‘ I was told by my legal adviser, after we’d heard evidence from a tearful mother.
In addition, it is surely inappropriate for frightened mothers, desperate to keep their children, to be rigorously cross-questioned in court, just like those accused of rape, murder and assault are cross-questioned. I cannot see how this can be the best way to deal with these sensitive cases.
In any case, do magistrates understand enough about these complex issues in order to properly assess the evidence presented by social services (who may be too risk averse, following tragic cases such as the death of Baby P)? And do lay magistrates really understand the impact of adoption? Probably not.
And, as we know, adoption is not a cure-all. As the BBC reported recently, more than a quarter of adoptive families are in crisis – and adoption can go terribly wrong. The case of Matthew Scully-Hicks, who was jailed for 18 years for murdering his adopted eighteen-month old daughter, shows this all too clearly. This process is not fit for purpose.
Huw Onllwyn Jones is a retired civil servant from Cardiff
Comments