In a recent children law case, Mr Justice Keegan ruled contrary to both the guardian and Local Authority’s recommendations. The Judge ordered the half-brother and sister, named as ‘EF’ and ‘GH’ respectively, be placed with GH’s biological father, ‘CD’, and his partner, rather than be separated.
Mr Justice Keehan said the social worker and guardian, as well as a parenting assessor, had “fallen into error” in their evaluations, and had mistakenly been guided by a non-existent ‘right’ of children to live with their biological parents. Too little thought had been given to the likely emotional and psychological harm the children, aged four and three, would experience if they were separated.
Serious Errors By Leicestershire County Council And Guardian
After EF and GH were removed from their mother, positive assessments were carried out on both of the half-siblings’ fathers and their partners. Mr Justice Keehan said, the assessor did not take sufficient account of the potential short- or long-term harm that EF and GH might suffer if placed separately. “She took the view that the consequences of separation could be ameliorated by regular contact,” the Judge said. “This is a serious omission.”
The approach adopted by the social worker was that EF should be cared for by his natural father and GH should be cared for by her natural father. However, the Judge deemed this approach to the siblings being separated to be a serious omission. Mr Justice Keehan found it “almost inconceivable” that CD, who had initially cared for both half-siblings as his own, would overlook their needs. He added that CD’s partner was “obviously keen” to develop a better understanding of what she and CD could do to meet EF’s needs. He therefore placed both EF and GH with CD and his partner.
Contradictory Evidence By The Guardian And Lacking In Logic
The guardian supported the Local Authority’s position but Mr Justice Keehan stated in the guardian’s report that her analysis of potential consequences was much too shallow.
When the guardian gave evidence, she claimed that having listened to other witnesses there was a “gap in the evidence” around the issue of whom the children should reside with in the long-term and asked for the case to be adjourned so an independent expert could be consulted. Mr Justice Keehan ruled out the guardian’s own evidence when it came to making a decision on the children’s arrangements, on the basis that it was “contradictory” and lacking in logic. He dismissed her call for an expert report as “unfathomable” and likely to cause “unconscionable delay”.
How Can Nelsons Help?
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article and would like further information, please contact our expert Family Law team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.