Category Archives: DFJ News

Newsletters and circulars from the local Designated Family Judge, HHJ Stephen Wildblood QC

DFJ News News

Change of event details

Published by:

It has proved necessary to alter the arrangements for the theatre event on 11 January and the conference on 1 February 2018.

The theatre event at St Brendan’s College will now not take place on 11th January 2018. It has been necessary to put it back to 6.30 p.m. on 1st February. It will still take place at St Brendan’s College and tickets that have been bought for the 11th January are valid for that date. There is free parking there. The play, which shows a family that becomes involved in care proceedings, will end by 8.00 p.m. There will be pauses in the play when the audience can ask the actors (including me – I play the judge) questions about the roles that they are playing.

The conference on 1st February 2018 will now start at 4.00 p.m. and will finish by 5.15 p.m. (in order that those who wish to do so can attend the theatre event at St Brendan’s).

DFJ News News

Newsletter from HHJ Wildblood QC – Dec 17

Published by:

1. The main reason for sending out this newsletter is to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and New Year. This has been a very hard year for many people, both professionally and personally. But January brings about the beginning of a new year which, hopefully, will be flood-free at very least. Thank you very much for bearing with the difficulties that we have had in Bristol and for pulling together, as everyone did. For me the flood had two particular benefits. I gained a new nickname – Scuba Steve and also was forced to buy an expensive new suit – £45 from Primark with a £2 tie to go with it.

2. An indication of how hard everyone worked through the dark ages of the floods must be that our timeliness actually improved during that period. I am sure that those whose Christmas cheer lies in statistics will revel in ecstasy, knowing that public law cases took an average of 23.8 weeks here during the third quarter of the year.

3. Events – We have some fairly chunky events lined up for the New Year and I would be grateful for any support that you can give to them. They are all advertised on the family court info website. On 11th January 2018 there is an interactive theatre production at St Brendan’s College theatre, Bristol of a typical family scene leading to care proceedings in which the audience gets to discuss things directly with the actors (who stay in role); you can book to it on ticket source https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/ . On 1st February 2018 there is a conference details of which are at http://www.familycourtinfo.org.uk/news/its-your-local-family-court-what-can-we-do-better/ ; the idea of the conference is to listen to your views about what we could do better as a family court. The public and the press are invited to both events, of course.

4. Re S-F – I have been asked to include in this newsletter the following message from local authorities following the case of Re S-F: ‘The recent case of S-F (A Child) 2017 EWCA Civ 964 (12 July 2017) highlights the need for a local authority to file the Child Permanence Report (a CPR or Annex B) and the Agency Decision Makers record of decision with any application for a placement order. In his judgment Ryder J describes these as disclosable documents susceptible to cross examination. Following this the local authorities in the area are getting increasing demands for these documents to be served on the parents with the LA final evidence. However, according to the Family Practice Rules the report is a confidential document and can only be disclosed to the parties with a direction of the court (FPR Rule 14.13). Given this we need practitioners and the courts to make sure that, at any CMH/FCMH, where an application for a placement order appears likely and directions are given anticipating such an application, the court should also be asked to consider making a direction for the disclosure of the CPR/Annex B report (and the ADM minute) to the parties.’

5. Bundles – I always vowed that, if I ever became a judge, I would not start a case with what some call bundle rage. It is always unnerving for everyone when a case starts on that sort of note and, for parents who face the possible loss of their children, it must appear as though people are focussing on the wrong thing. However, I broke my vow this week and issued a judgment (X Council v A, B and C) which has been circulated. It makes no sense at all to land a bundle of over 1,000 pages on a court at 4.30 p.m. on the last working day before a final hearing for all the reasons that I give in the judgment. PD 27A is there for a reason and simply must be complied with. If you haven’t seen the judgment please get hold of a copy and read it. Every judge and magistrate I speak to tells stories of ridiculous bundles being handed in late. This really does have to stop.

6. I have been asked by Local Authorities to remind all practitioners that there has to be co-operation in agreeing what should go into a bundle. I agree that is so but it does not detract in any way from the responsibility on the Applicant, usually the Local Authority, to produce the bundle (see para 3.1 of the Practice Direction). Further it has been suggested that the court also shares a responsibility for the contents of the bundle; that is incorrect and is not what the Practice Direction says. If the court gives a specific direction about the contents of the bundle the direction must be complied with. However, the court cannot engage in discussions about the bundle’s contents outside a court hearing and should not be expected to. How can the court be expected, as a matter of generality, to direct what should or should not go into a bundle when it has not read the documents?

7. Disclosure Protocol – For the reasons that I gave in the X Council v A, B and C judgment, I am very opposed to local protocols. However, I have been asked to approve a local protocol for disclosure of Local Authority documents in private law proceedings. I have done so but do wish to stress that the protocol is over-ridden by any specific orders that are made in specific proceedings. Orders take priority over local protocols.

8. I wish you a very Happy Christmas. There is a song on Youtube about 2016 that some of you might know. 2017 has had its moments too. 2018 feels as though it’s going to be a better year.
Stephen Wildblood
21st December 2017.

DFJ News

Newsletter from HHJ Wildblood QC

Published by:

His Honour Judge Wildblood QC

Designated Family Judge for Avon, North Somerset and Gloucestershire

1. Gloucestershire CC – Many of you will have read that Ofsted has published a report about Gloucestershire County Council’s Children’s Services. If you haven’t, please can I suggest that you read the executive summary, at least. It can be found by following this link and then scrolling down to the link for the pdf version of the report (The file is called Single inspection of LA children’s services and review of the LSCB as pdf).

2. As you will know, I have published a number of judgments on the Bailii website to ensure that the public were aware of difficulties that are similar to those highlighted in the Ofsted report. I also met regularly with the previous management team to explain and discuss the issues arising from those judgments and other issues of practice. I very much hope that solutions can now be found to the difficulties that have been identified and I am grateful to the new management team for meeting with me on Wednesday to discuss how matters will be dealt with in the future. At the start of this year it was arranged that I should sit for one week in every month in Gloucester and, since early last year, District Judge Woodburn has been hearing public law cases there as well. I hope that the increased presence in Gloucester of judges specialising in public law cases will emphasise further the need for change and encourage it. I have asked that any public law cases that involve significant issues of practice should be listed in front of me; please can practitioners and courts in the area ensure that this occurs.

3. Orders – Getting orders drafted and issued imposes heavy demands on all those involved and the first thing that I would want to say is thank you to everyone for running the system so smoothly in this area.

4. It remains the rule that orders should be submitted to the court for issue within 48 hours of the hearing at which the order is made. This is demanding for solicitors and barristers but the demands would not be any different if we imposed any other timescale (e.g. it would not make any difference if we said 72 or 96 hours). On the whole, orders are sent in within 48 hours but please can I ask you to ensure that you do send them in within that time.

5. If the order includes provision for disclosure by the police or other third parties, please can I ask that a separate order is drafted for that disclosure. The order for disclosure needs to be issued as swiftly as possible following the hearing. If a short disclosure order is drafted and issued on the day of the hearing it means that the police, or other third party, are more likely to be able to provide the necessary disclosure within the time provided by the order. There have been a number of cases in which there has been a delay in drafting the long case management order and, as a result, the disclosure provisions within the long order have not been sent to the police until shortly before, or even after, the dates specified for disclosure. If a separate short order is drafted and sent out immediately that difficulty can be avoided. Where a disclosure order is made please can an email be sent immediately to the police, or other relevant third party, informing them that the disclosure order has been made so that they can begin to collate the material.

6. In a suitable case the judge or magistrates may wish to direct, at the end of a case management hearing, that the order may be submitted to the court office for issue without further scrutiny by the court of the drafting of the order. Plainly, there will be some draft orders which have to be scrutinised by the court before they are approved for issue. However there are some instances where straightforward orders are delayed in issue unnecessarily because they await approval following the drafting by the parties. Where the court does so direct, it will be essential that any email sending in the order should state clearly: ‘the court directed that this order should be issued immediately upon being emailed to the court, without being further referred for approval to the judge/magistrates’. Such a direction will be particularly inappropriate where there are penal provisions within the order.

7. Non-molestation orders need to be issued immediately following their making. It is very important that orders made in Bath or Weston-super-Mare, which are to be sent to Bristol for issue, are sent immediately to Bristol following the hearing. Where a tick box form is used by the judge / magistrates that document needs to be scanned and sent by email by the court staff immediately to the Bristol court office for issue. There has to be liaison between the courts involved to ensure that there is no delay in the issue of orders of this kind. Particular difficulties can arise where orders are made on Friday because it is essential that the orders are issued, sent to the police and sent for service before the weekend. If there are difficulties in relation to this, there must be communication with court immediately.

8. If there are urgent private law orders to be issued, emails containing any draft orders must be marked urgent when they are sent in to Bristol. Orders are issued and drawn up in Bristol, even when made in Weston-super-Mare or Bath (this does not apply to Gloucester, of course). Once issued, the order can only be sent to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitor on paper by post or DX, the order cannot be emailed to the applicant/applicant’s solicitor for issue. In circumstances where the applicant needs a copy of the sealed order immediately (e.g. where there is a prohibited steps order following the retention of a child or threatened removal) the sealed order can be scanned by Bristol and sent to Weston-super-Mare or Bath where it can be printed there. However, the applicant/applicant’s solicitor must arrange to collect the order and must liaise with the court to ensure that an agreed system is in place for that to occur. Otherwise, the only other way in which the applicant/applicant’s solicitor will receive a copy of the order is through the post/DX.

9. It is particularly helpful to the court staff if typed orders can be submitted (i.e. not in manuscript) and can also be produced on the right forms (e.g. on CAP forms).

10. Out of hours hearings – Please can I ask that everyone is familiar with the system for hearings that need to take place outside normal court hours. It is too late to try to find out once emergency has arisen. If you don’t know the system please ask the court office to provide you with information about it.

11. Urgent hearings in normal court hours – if a local authority or other court user knows that an urgent application will be made please inform the court as soon as this is known. In particular, if a Local Authority knows on a Thursday that an EPO application is likely to be made on Friday, please can the authority let the court know on Thursday and not leave it until Friday before setting in hand arrangements and applications for a hearing. It is unfair on court staff and judges where applications are brought to the court in a rush on Friday afternoon without warning (e.g. because police protection powers under section 46 of The Children Act 1989 are due to expire over the weekend). If you do apply late and without forewarning you may well find that your case has to be dealt with under the out of hours procedures.

12. Judges seeing children – we do seem to make little use of the procedure that is available for judges to see children (see page 1530 of the 2017 Red Book for a summary of the guidance about this). When dealing with cases involving children please can I ask you to think carefully about whether it would be beneficial for the child to meet the judge. After all, which of us would like a major decision to be made about our lives by someone upon whom we had never clapped eyes?

13. Theatre – I have been working with St Brendans College in Bristol and we have set up a theatre production group to stage scenes showing some of the social issues with which the family court deals. The first production will be on 6 July 2017 at St Brendans College (doors open at 4 PM and the production will last from about 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM). This will be interactive, or forum, theatre in which the actors will play out scenes on stage and then, with the aid of a facilitator, the actors will discuss with the audience what is happening, ask questions of the audience and take questions from them. The first production will cover domestic violence, the removal of a child from a mother in public law proceedings, a comedy sketch about dysfunctional families and a scene involving a father in prison grappling with indirect contact. If you would like to book into this event please do so by accessing the website: www.ticketsource.co.uk and entering ‘The State v The Family : Drawing the line’ in the box marked ‘Search events’. Tickets are free and I do hope that you will be able to support this event.

14. As ever, thank you to everyone for working so hard to keep our very hard pressed system running as efficiently as it does.

SW
16th June 2017.
Download word version of this document.

DFJ News News

ADOPTION DEBATE – THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS NON CONSENSUAL ADOPTION?

Published by:

His Honour Judge Wildblood QC (Designated Family Judge for this area) will chair a debate about non consensual adoption on :

April 27th at the Bristol Civil & Family Justice Centre from 4.30- 6.30pm

Four barristers will present the arguments both for and against, followed by brief presentations from a diverse panel of experts. The debate will then open to the floor and at the conclusion all will vote.

Speaking for non-consensual adoption : Kathryn Skellorn QC and Zahid Hussain

Speaking against non-consensual adoption : Frances Judd QC and Lucy Reed

The barristers have agreed to assist in the presentation of the arguments for and against non-consensual adoption as a springboard for discussion, and the arguments they present do not necessarily represent their personal views. The barristers were allocated roles in the debate having agreed to participate.

This event is open to all and is free of charge but places are limited and you will need to book your place in advance here, via the UWE website.

We expect demand for this event to be high. In the event that you cannot make it PLEASE email Emma Whewell at UWE (Emma.Whewell@uwe.ac.uk) so your place can be reallocated.

Please read the GROUND RULES for this event – they are what makes it possible for the organisers to run events of this sort and all participants are expected to stick to them.

DFJ News News

Poem Competition to raise funds for litigants / parents

Published by:

His Honour Judge Wildblood QC is running a competition for the best ten poems for children, with the intention of seeing if funds can be raised for the Personal Support Unit and for the provision of early therapeutic intervention for young parents.

If you or someone you know would like to enter the competition please send the poem or poems to Paul Bryson of the Personal Support Unit at Bristol@the psu.org.uk, marked ‘for Paul Bryson, poetry competition’.

Poems can be written by adults or children but should be intended to be read by children aged between five and thirteen. They may be any length and must be the original work of the person on whose behalf they are sent. The closing date is 31st March 2016.

Mr Justice Baker and Ms Helen Andrews (the court manager at Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre) have kindly agreed to judge the poems, after a sift if necessary, and will identify the best ten. We will then see if we can get them published in order to raise funds.

DFJ News News

Designated Family Judge’s Newsletter – June 2015

Published by:

  1. I am sending out this newsletter to ask people please to ensure that they are aware of two things. Firstly, the orders that may be made under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to retrieve children who have gone missing; these are commonly called ‘Tipstaff orders’. Secondly, to give some help in relation to Section 98 of The Children Act 1989.
  2. Under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, orders can be made to assist in retrieving children. Amongst the wide range of orders that are available there are three very specific types of order. They are called collection orders, location orders and passport orders. Each order has two parts. One is the directed to the Tipstaff and directs the Tipstaff to assist in implementing the court’s order. The collection order provides that the child is to be found and placed in the custody of a named person until there is a further hearing before the court (which must take place within three days of the child being found). The order usually permits the Tipstaff to enter premises to retrieve the child and to arrest anyone whom he has reasonable cause to believe has disobeyed or obstructed the order; anyone so arrested must be brought before the court as soon as practicable but in any event no later than the working day immediately after arrest. The collection order also contains other ancillary provisions.
  3. A location order is similar to a collection order but provides for the child to be located, rather than collected. Thus it is a less invasive order. A passport order involves control of passports. All three orders may provide for the surrender of passports and the prevention of applications for further passports in relation to the child.
  4. The Tipstaff keeps draft forms of each of those orders. The drafts may change from time to time and that is why standard draft forms should always be requested from the Tipstaff himself before any such orders are made; they are not held by the court offices and are not for general release. The Tipstaff, Richard Cheesley, can be contacted by the court from the global email address facility or may be reached by telephone – 0207-947-6200. He, or one of his assistants will be available at any time (‘24/7’). There is a brief explanation of his role in Paragraph 7 of PD 12B of The Family Procedure Rules 2010.
  5. These orders can only be made by a High Court Judge (which includes a Circuit judge with High Court authorisation). It is imperative that any orders that are made should be drafted in the correct form. Once made, they are very effective indeed.
  6. Please also ensure that you are aware of the port alert procedure under PD12F, paragraph 4 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010; it is in the Red Book.
  7. As to section 98 of The Children Act 1989, this is the provision that relates to self incrimination in public law proceedings. It does not apply to private law proceedings. A lawyer acting for a client where the issue of self incrimination might arise must give advice to that client about it. I have been asked for some guidance about the possible wording of a warning that might be given. I do so with some hesitation because I need to stress that the guidance that I am giving is not necessarily the correct terminology for all cases and it therefore remains the duty of individual lawyers and courts to consider the case before them and adapt the wording of any warning that is given. However, with that strong caveat, I have attached some possible draft wording that might be used in a public law case.
  8. Please can you consider that wording. If there are amendments that you think should be made to it please inform me. The wording is as follows:

1. I need to explain to you now a rule of law. It is important that you understand what I am saying. If you do not, you should ask me to explain it to you further.

2. As you know allegations are made against you within these proceedings. These are family proceedings and not criminal proceedings and it is not for this court to decide whether you should be convicted or acquitted of any criminal offences. Within these proceedings however, the court will have to decide whether the allegations made against you by the Local Authority are true or not. If those allegations were shown to be true that would mean that, insofar as these proceedings are concerned, you would have committed misconduct of a criminal nature.

3. I have to warn you therefore that, within these proceedings, you are not permitted to refuse to give evidence or file documentation on the basis that to do so might tend to show that you have engaged in conduct of a criminal nature. When and if you give evidence or file documentation, you may not refuse to answer any questions (or refuse to provide documentary evidence) that might tend to show that you or your spouse (or civil partner) have engaged in such conduct either.

4. If you do give evidence that suggests that you have committed criminal misconduct, that evidence would not be admissible in criminal proceedings against you, except in relation to any prosecution against you for perjury. Section 98(2) of The Children Act 1989 states that that is so. If you were to lie deliberately within these proceedings that could lead to you being prosecuted for perjury and what you had said could be put before the criminal court against you.

5. However, it is important that you understand that, if the court gave permission, anything that you do say or file in these proceedings might be released to the police for them to use during their enquiries into any allegations that you have committed any criminal offence (and by ‘any offence’ I am not referring just to perjury). Further, if you were to be prosecuted there could be applications in the criminal court for the prosecution (or any co-defendant) to cross examine you about anything that you had said in these proceedings. It would be for the criminal court to decide on whether they should be permitted to do so.

6. Your lawyers will explain this warning to you further. It is their duty to do so.

His Honour Judge Stephen Wildblood QC

7th June 2015

DFJ News News

Free Family Law Class Postponed

Published by:

UPDATE – This event has been postponed due to lack of interest, but it is planned that it will be run on a future date. Please contact Rebecca Cobbin if you would like to attend when rescheduled.

 

At 4.30 p.m. on 20th April 2015 local family lawyers (Ben Jenkins, Lucy Reed & Judi Evans) will run a conference that is open to members of the public in which he will explain some of the basic law and procedure that is applied by the family court. The conference will be held at the Civil and Family Justice centre, 2 Redcliff Street, Bristol and will end by 6 p.m. It will not be possible for the lawyers to discuss individual cases, of course, nor will they wish to express any opinions about whether there should be any changes in the law. The intention of the conference is to encourage a better understanding of how the court currently operates and some of the dilemmas that it faces. There will be opportunities for discussion and for questions to be asked. If you wish to attend please can you leave your name, the organisation that you represent (if any) and your contact details by emailing the Family Delivery Manager, Ms Rebecca Cobbin on rebecca.cobbin@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.