Source: https://butlincat.com/2013/01/13/the-musa-case-letter-from-the-mp-21-nov-12/
Timestamp: 2020-01-18 18:11:59
Document Index: 580032776

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 2', 'ART 22', 'ART 2', 'art 8', 'art 22', 'ART 2', 'art 3', 'art 6']

THE MUSA CASE – LETTER FROM THE MP 21 NOV 12 | VICTIMS OF THE STATE
← MAURICE KIRK APPEAL – 7 JAN 12
VIDEO – HOLLIE GREIG AT THE BBC, + VIDEO LINKS →
THE MUSA CASE – LETTER FROM THE MP 21 NOV 12
Posted on January 13, 2013	by butlincat
NOTE: I am told to contact D. Lammy, MP, the representative for where the Musa parents were living before being imprisoned. Lammy has never communicated with this supporter, or any of them, even when he told the MP numerous times that X Musa had been sexually abused whilst in care, or that no contact visits had taken place with the parents and the child for over a year, or that the child was effectively missing. This supporter finds these actions, or non-actions of this so-called MP completely unacceptable for somebody who is meant to represent his consituents, especially those victimised by certain government departments as the Musa famiy has been.
From: emily.thornberry.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: FOR THE ATTENTION OF MS. E. THORNBERRY, MP – CHIWAR MUSA
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:52:49 +0000
Thank you for your email. Ms Musa has been in touch with the office already but Emily is unable to offer any assistance as she is not the couple’s Member of Parliament. Emily has advised her that as her home constituency was not in Islington she cannot make any representations on her behalf – if she was living in Haringey before going into prison, her MP would presumably have been Lynne Featherstone MP or David Lammy MP, so Ms Gusa will need to contact them for assistance or she should contact the MP for her last address. Holloway Prison is in Islington North, so the local MP for the prison is Emily’s colleague Jeremy Corbyn MP.
Senior Caseworker for Emily Thornberry MP
From: butlincat . [mailto:adamski2012@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 01 October 2012 08:03
To: THORNBERRY, Emily
Subject: FOR THE ATTENTION OF MS. E. THORNBERRY, MP – CHIWAR MUSA
From: J. Graham 09/2012
To: Emily Thornberry MP
I must tell you of the gross irregularities surrounding the imprisonment of CHIWAR MUSA in Pentonvile prison, London. His prison number is A2793CJ. He has been there since November 28 2011, spending 259 days on remand there before receiving a 7 year sentence on August 14 {along with his wife Gloria} completely unjustly after a trial lasting over 6 weeks at Wood Green crown court.
There are far too many irregularities to list here within the case and trial, but the attatched articles might help that I have sent in a recorded delivery letter that was posted on Monday 1 October to your Barnesbury St. address. What is very serious and most concerning is that ALL VISITS ARE NOW BEING STOPPED to Chiwar Musa, for some reason known only to the authorities. THIS IS AS HIGHLY IRREGULAR AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND WE SUPPORTERS ASK YOU TO PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHY THE LAW IS BEING BROKEN IN THIS WAY REGARDING HIS PRISON VISITS. The entire MUSA case needs a thorough honest investigation whereby this man and his wife Gloria Musa, a bishop in the Evangelical Church of Africa are victims of gross miscarriages of justice. PLEASE investigate the illegalities surrounding the visits not being allowed regarding Chiwar Musa. I have written MANY TIMES to the governor of this prison BUT NEVER TO I GET A REPLY, and neither do many other government departments and figures reply, such as the Independant Monitoring Board and the Prisons Minister Mr. N. Hardwick – but answer only in the standard rhetoric that they cannot help for some obscure reason to questions not only from myself but from many other supporters too.
Ms. Thornberry, I have no reason to lie or joke or hoax about anything I an saying here. I am writing because what I, and many others, have seen and see happening to these 2 Nigerian visitors here the Musas, and what has happened to them and their 7 children is absolutely shocking. The case is based on lies much of the time – fabrications, manufactured allegations – and blatant lies. I did not realise such practices went on in this country, but I had a most rude awakening after hearing about this case, and numerous others. Being born and raised in Tottenham, and attending the Stationers Company’s Grammar School in Mayfield Rd, Hornsey, I was shocked at what I learnt was happening in the very place I grew up in. Im sure if you were to look at this case you would be shocked too – please do not listen to the councils version of things – if you listen to the truthful account of things it will break your heart. At the trial due to either a grossly incompetant defence legal team, or a team that was under orders from those in “high places” much vital evidence was completely ignored and not mentioned at all in the trial.
There is, for example, missing time – 3 months worth in what is supposed to be the daily records kept by a certain care family of one of the Musa children that has never been accounted for and was never produced in the trial at all as it should have been. The witness was sent away by the judge – aborting her giving of evidence to produce this missing 3 months of records but this was never followed up and produced in the court – due to the lack of duty from all concerned – from the judge down. The medical records that were supposed to be produced concerning the baby – a main subject of the trial – has still never been produced. These are just 2 gross irregularities in this trial which resulted in the Musa parents receiving the lengthy sentence they did. These examples with a whole lot more irregularities made the trial completely unjust.
A court employee whistleblower herself after the trial told us the jury was not picked as it should have been, and the judge himself did not admit affiliations to organisations that supporters think he should have done, thus making him unfit to preside over the entire case. Indeed, the defence team barrister asked the judge to recuse himself at the beginning of the trial but of course he ignored this.
The jury also had members in it who had unacceptable affiliations too, viz. one female member was an employee of a neighbouring borough who was employed in child services – child services were very much at the root of the Musas case having had 7 children removed by them under originally totally dubious allegations which were disproved straightaway, but more equally dubious allegations were then produced to keep the children from their once happy home. The borough this employee worked in and the borough – Y – who brought the case against the Musa parents were closely affiliated too, making this jury member unfit to serve – nevertheless the objection to this jury member was completely ignored by the court. All official complaints about characters within the case = “guardian solicitors”, social workers etc are all conveniently ignored by regulatory bodies of the government – for example the eldest child X Musa did not see her parents on contact visits for 18 months or so after she told them that she had been sexually molested in the new care home she was placed in in Erith, Kent after April 8 2010. All details about this abuse is known and when the parents complained to the council all contact visits were stopped – which went against the very court orders the court made, was against all parties Human Rights, and was against the “Childrens Charter” promoted by the government which actually promotes contact between removed children and their parents.
I have sent 4 official complaints about the “guardian solicitor” Jonquil Houghton’s breach of court orders and unprofessional conduct to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority but each time they have ignored my complaints each and every time. After being ignored so many times I then officially complained to the Legal Ombudsman about both the “guardian solicitors” unprofessional actions in not following all the guidelines etc regarding the contact visits as it was her professional duty to do, and the actions of the SRA but the Legal Ombudsman told me that they would be taking no action and their department was “closed” to me so I neednt bother writing any more. The emails sent to the SRA and Legal Ombudsman are attatched and below which show the utter contempt shown me and the utter flouting of the law concerning contact visits regarding the removed Musa children. The other Musa children all befell the same fate of the contact visits lapsing also – 4 of the children did not see their parents for months as they should have as the council simply did not keep to their obligations in allowing the visits between the children and their parents for at least 6 months before the Musa parents were imprisoned on the most dubious of charges on the 28 Nov. 2011.
The Chief Constable of Dorset refused to answer my notifying him of serious sexual crimes against the eldest Musa child, then 9 years old at the time – blocking my emails after the 1st one, and ignoring my Royal Mail recorded delivery letters also.
These items just mentioned are the tip of the iceberg regarding irregularities within this shocking case and I ask you please as a representative of us – the people – that you please do something about this shocking situation. I have scores more irregularities I can readily inform you of – all serious and all being totally ignored by the authorities, police, judiciary and other agencies – all archived along with the outrageous enactments undertaken in H.M. Prisons – hence my writing to you about the unacceptable situation of all visits being denied to Chiwar Musa, as well as mail and emails not being delivered by Royal Mail and the “emailaprisoner” service that users pay for to send emails to prisoners – both Chiwar and Gloria Musa have not received numerous communications we have sent them. It is an outrage. Other supporters for these Musa parents have their own grievances too that need to be heard.
J. Graham Mckenzie friend for the Musa family and concerned citizen. ==================================
Attatchmens: 1} Reply from Legal Ombudsman – Michelle Busst 30 Jan 2012
2} Letter to Legal Ombudsman 30 Jan 2012
3} Letter to Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning the actions of “guardian solicitor” to the MUSA children 11 Jan 2012
4} Letter to J. Houghton, “guardian solicitor” to the MUSA children 03 Jan 2012
5} Letter to S.R.A. 09 Aug. 2011
6} OFFICIAL COMPLAINT re: “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” J. HOUGHTON 29 07 2011
————————————————————————– 1} From: Michelle.Busst@Legalombudsman.org.uk To: butlincat75@googlemail.com
Subject: Your complaint Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:42:22 +0000
Your complaint about Y Council Thank you for your email dated 30 January 2012. The Legal Ombudsman investigates customer service complaints about members of the legal profession. For us to consider a complaint, the lawyer in question must have provided you or the person you represent with legal services. In your email you have confirmed that Jonquil Houghton was providing legal services on behalf of Y Council. As they did not provide you or the person you represent with any legal services directly, we are not able to investigate your complaint. In these circumstances we would normally direct your complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as this body is responsible for dealing with the conduct and discipline of solicitors. We understand that you have already contacted them but are unhappy with the service you have been provided. The Legal Ombudsman is unable to look at this complaint as we do not look at complaints about the approved regulator. I must remind you that your case with the Legal Ombudsman is closed and we ask that you do not continue to contact us regarding this matter. Should we receive anything further from you, we will place your correspondence in your file but we may not respond to you.
Assessment Centre Legal Ombudsman Telephone: 0300 555 0333 www.legalombudsman.org.uk
———- Forwarded message ———- From: butlincat <butlincat75@googlemail.com>
Date: 30 January 2012 20:58
Subject: GUARDIAN SOLICITOR
To: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk, admin@number10.gov.uk, mayt@parliament.uk, lammyd@parliament.uk, ruffleyd@parliament.uk, lynne.featherstone.mp@parliament.uk, andersonda@parliament.uk, blunkettd@parliament.uk, camerond@parliament.uk, picklese@parliament.uk, pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk, clarkek@parliament.uk, coopery@parliament.uk, president@whitehouse.gov, president@po.gov.za, press.int@aljazeera.net Cc: Michelle.Busst@legalombudsman.org.uk
enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk,
And a final word, “Michelle Busst”:
YOU DO NOT TELL A PERSON WHO IS PAYING YOUR WAGES AS A TAXPAYER, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, THAT THIS DEPARTMENT IS “CLOSED” !!
” I must remind you that your case with the Legal Ombudsman is closed ” YOU ARE “REMINDING” ME OF NO SUCH THING, MS. BUSST, AND I MAY REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE EMPLOYED TO INVESTIGATE GENUINE COMPLAINTS, OF WHICH MINE IS ONE, REGARDLESS OF YOUR MANIPULATIONS OF IT!! I HAVE A LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE WITH EVIDENCE THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND THIS DEPARTMENT HAS A DUTY TO HEAR IT AND IT MOST DEFINATLY IS NOT “CLOSED”. AND YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF MY COMPLAINT SO AS YOU CAN FIND SOME LAME EXCUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING!! YOU ARE MEANT TO ABIDE BY THE VERY CRITERIA THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE REGARDING THIS DEPARTMENT AND YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED MANIPULATE COMPLAINTS SO AS YOU CAN BRUSH THEM ASIDE!!! I AM ISSUING A FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING HOW YOU HAVE ACTED. I WISH FOR SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN YOURSELF TO DEAL WITH MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” WHO SEEMS UNABLE TO FULFILL THE POSITION SHE, UNFORTUNATLY FOR THE 6 MUSA CHILDREN, HAS FOUND FOR HERSELF AS I AM NOT HAPPY WITH YOUR INVOLVEMENT!
J. GRAHAM. {bcc’d x 16,734}
YOU ARE MEANT TO ABIDE BY THE VERY CRITERIA THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE REGARDING THIS DEPARTMENT AND NOT ALTER COMPLAINTS SO AS YOU CAN BRUSH THEM ASIDE!!! ##################################################### TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE “LEGAL OMBUDSMAN”:
REGARDING YOUR REPLY TO MY COMMUNICATION – FIRSTLY, MY COMPLAINT IS NOT ABOUT Y COUNCIL AS YOU WRONGLY STATE. MY COMPLAINT IS ABOUT THE IRRESPONSIBLE, UNPROFESSIONAL ROLE THE “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” “JONQUIL HOUGHTON” OF “CREIGHTON SOLICITORS” {details below} HAS BEEN TAKING. AND THE CONTENTS OF YOUR REPLY TO ME, REGARDING MY NOTIFYING YOU OF THE UNPROFESSIONAL, IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR OF THE “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” MENTIONED IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. MAYBE YOUVE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT ON YOUR SITE http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/index.html
YOU YOURSELVES CLAIM:
“We have formal powers to resolve complaints about lawyers. It is a free service. Our job is to look at legal complaints in a fair and independent way – we will not take sides.” yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that I have provided you with a blatant completely truthful COMPLAINT ABOUT A LAWYER and you refuse to do what you say you will do – resolve this complaint!! You go on to clearly say “OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT LEGAL COMPLAINTS IN A FAIR AND INDEPENDANT WAY” WHICH YOU ARE CLEARLY REFUSING TO DO ALSO!!. YOU CLAIM THE REASON YOU WILL DO NOTHING IS BECAUSE THE PERSON I REPRESENT – X MUSA – DID NOT GET SERVICES OF THIS SOLICITOR – THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT. AS “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” FOR THE CHILD IT WAS THIS “SOLICITOR”S REMIT ALWAYS TO HAVE THE CHILDS WELFARE AT HEART, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, LETTING THE CONTACT VISITS BE DENIED BETWEEN THE CHILD AND HER PARENTS SHOWS AN INCREDIBLY LAX UNPROFESSIONAL, IRRESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE FROM THIS PERSON. EVEN THE “CHILDRENS ACT” PUT FORWARD BY THE GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGES CONTACT BETWEEN REMOVED CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS! THIS “SOLICITOR” DID NOT ACT AS A “SOLICITOR” SHOULD AND THEREFORE MY COMPLAINT IS VALID AND YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE AND REPRIMAND HER!! YOU KNOW THIS VERY WELL. THE COURT ORDERS REGARDING THE CONTACT VISITS WERE ALSO FLOUTED, WHICH WAS THIS “SOLICITOR”S RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD ALSO, BUT THEY WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED BY HER FOR OVER 18 MONTHS! THE PARENTS AND THE CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS WERE COMPLATELY IGNORED ALSO. AND YOU CANNOT CONVINCE ME THAT WHEN A CHILD HAS BEEN STOPPED FROM SEEING HER PARENTS AFTER BEING WITH THEM EVERY DAY FOR OVER 9 YEARS IT DOESNT CAUSE UNTOLD STRESS AND UNHAPPINESS WHEN SHE IS REMOVED FROM THEM. THE CONTACT VISITS ARE ESSENTIAL SO THE CHILD ISNT LEFT FEELING COMPLETELY ABANDONED AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR” TO SEE THAT CONTACT VISITS ARE UPHELD, BUT THAT IN NO WAY HAPPENED DUE TO THE INCOMPETENCE OF THIS SOLICITOR. NOT ONLY WITH FAVOUR, BUT ALSO WITH THE OTHER 4 MUSA CHILDREN WHOSE CONTACT VISITS WERE ALLOWED TO LAPSE FOR OVER 6 MONTHS – FOR OVER 6 MONTHS THE MUSA PARENTS HAVE NOT SEEN THEIR OTHER 4 CHILDREN!! ALSO NOTHING WAS DONE BY THIS SOLICITOR AFTER FAVOUR MUSA COMPLAINED OF “INAPPROPRIATLY TOUCHED” – SEXUALLY MOLESTED TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE – WHICH IS TRULY APPALLING.
THIS SOLICITOR HAS NEVER PROTECTED THE MUSA CHILDREN, AS THE CONTACT VISITS LAPSING REGARDING THE 4 OTHER MUSA CHILDREN SHOW ALSO, BUT X MUSA IS A CASE IN POINT AND THIS SOLICITOR SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY AND MADE TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCES.
SHE SIMPLY DID NOT DO THE JOB SHE WAS EXPECTED TO DO, AND A CHILD AND HER PARENTS, SUFFERED UNNECESSARILY DUE TO HER ACTIONS, OR RATHER, LACK OF THEM! ALSO I HAVE FILLED YOUR CRITERIA BY CONTACTING THE LAWYER IN QUESTION – THE EMAIL IS BELOW – AS ARE 2 OF MY 3 EMAILS TO THE SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY WHO HAVE IGNORED MY COMPLAINTS WHOLESALE PALMING ME OFF WITH SOME EXCUSE OR OTHER FOR MONTHS, THUS MY COMING TO YOU!! I HAVE COMPLIED WITH YOUR STATED CRITERIA YET YOU REFUSE TO DO WHAT YOURE THERE FOR!! PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND STOP THESE OUTRAGES I HAVE DESCRIBED FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN!!
Sent: 11 January 2012 02:56:49
report@sra.org.uk; admin@number10.gov.uk; mayt@parliament.uk; lammyd@parliament.uk; ruffleyd@parliament.uk; lynne.featherstone.mp@parliament.uk; andersonda@parliament.uk; blunkettd@parliament.uk; camerond@parliament.uk; picklese@parliament.uk; pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk; cablev@parliament.uk; clarkek@parliament.uk; coopery@parliament.uk; president@whitehouse.gov; president@po.gov.za; press.int@aljazeera.net; emma.finch@parliament.uk; cleggn@parliament.uk; milibande@parliament.uk; haguew@parliament.uk; bellinghamh@parliament.uk; nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu; john_hemming_onholiday@hotmail.com; john.hemming@john.hemming.name; hedleylester@gmail.com; hemmingj@parliament.uk; hoeyk@parliament.uk
To Whom It May Concern at the Solicitors Regulation Authority,
I am writing yet again to tell you of the many irregularities undertaken by the so-called “guardian solicitor” to the Musa children Ms “Jonquil Houghton”. http://www.creighton.co.uk/biogpages/jhoughton.htm
Please see attatched the complaint regarding her appalling professional behaviour, which you have continually ignored, and please note my message to her below which to this day remains UNANSWERED by her which highlights just part of her unprofessional and irresponsible attitude regarding just one minor she is supposed to be a “guardian solicitor” for.
As a British taxpayer and concerned citizen, and McKenzie friend, friend and one of many supporters of the Musa family,I herewith formally ask that you do something about this so-called solicitor. Her actions speak for themselves and are described in my complaint {attd.}.
I, and many other supporters, are sick of this regulatory authority – you – turning a blind eye to the outrageous actions enacted by this person regarding the Musa children she was supposed to be a “guardian solicitor” for. I speak on behalf on many concerned supporters of the Musa family who know how this character has acted so irresponsibly regarding the Musa children and has NEVER had the childrens welfare at heart. We demand something is done about this person practising as a solicitor as it is patently clear she should not be allowed to take part in anything to do with court cases involving children, let alone be dealing with children in any shape or form for the reasons clearly stated not only in my complaint but in my message to her below regarding the missing child Favour Musa, below. Her many misdemeanours are spelt out clearly and concisely in the complaint attatched, and if you do not act regarding this character i will have no choice but to bring charges against you for failing to do the job you are paid to do in regulating rogue and irresponsible solicitors.
4} —– Original Message —–
To: jonquil.houghton@creighton.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:17 PM Subject: X MUSA
To: Jonquil Houghton – http://www.creighton.co.uk/biogpages/jhoughton.htm From: J. Graham, McKenzie Friend to the Musa Family Tuesday 3 January 2012
With regard to Favour Musa, the eldest child of Chiwar and Gloria Musa, as a McKenzie friend to this family I would like to know how your role as “guardian solicitor” has led to a situation whereby this child has not been seen by anyone including and connected to her parents for approx. 18 months now.
As a “guardian solicitor” it is your responsibilty to act always in a childs interests within the framework of the law, but is clear that by her disappearance and all contact visits between this child and her parents not having been enacted for the period I have mentioned something is clearly wrong. This situation having arisen goes against the court orders made regarding the Musa childrens and parents contact visits, British law, the “Childrens Charter” {which actually promotes such contact between removed children and their parents} and both parties Human Rights.
The Musa parents have also not seen their other 4 younger children for some 6 months now either, the contact visiting orders also having been allowed to be completely ignored, as you are fully aware. Can you please tell me how you allowed, and why you allowed, such a situation to occur given that it was your responsibilty to ensure such an appalling flouting of the court orders, laws and rights of the children and their parents should never occur? Also you will be aware that X Musa told her parents on a contact visit that she had been “inappropriately touched” – sexually molested – by a member of a foster family she was placed with at the beginning of her period away from her parents.
Can you please tell me what you did regarding this serious crime against a minor?
######################################################################## 5} From: adamski2012@hotmail.co.uk To: report@sra.org.uk CC: admin@lawsociety.org.uk
Subject: FW: POL/1014821-2011
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:51:14 +0100
Thank you for your response in this serious matter. This solicitor I named, “J. Houghton” of the practice “Creighton and Partners”, London, has committed serious offences, which are detailed in my complaint. I am concerned that my complaint will be covered up as part of the overall conspiracy culminating in a shocking amount of crimes and irregular activities being allowed to pass and continue. And please can you tell me the outcome of the actions I hope you will be taking now I have submitted the complaint.
The person I have complained about is obviously not fit to be a solicitor if crimes are committed as described. For they are crimes and there can be no escaping this. One only has to look at the true events contained within the case of the illegal removal of 6 children from the MUSA family of Haringey to see what I am detailing is no fantasy, nor any kind of hoax or sick joke. I demand something is done about this dubious solicitor, who has conspired with others to break the law.
The attatchments are your response to my complaint, and my complaint re: J. Houghton, solicitor.
————————————————————————- 6} OFFICIAL COMPLAINT IS BELOW CONCERNING THE “GUARDIAN SOLICITOR”
Please find my official complaint attatched re: the solicitor JONQUIL HOUGHTON of Creighton Partners, London. http://www.creighton.co.uk/biogpages/jhoughton.htm . Thank you,
Jonquil Houghton – Associate Solicitor http://www.creighton.co.uk/biogpages/jhoughton.htm
29 07 2011 COMPLAINT JONQUIL HOUGHTON
(CREIGHTON & PARTNERS)
SOLICITOR FOR ‘MUSA’ CHILDREN
I, concerned citizen and friend to the Musa family John Graham, submit this complaint in respect of the conduct of Jonquil Houghton and her fraudulant practices toward the Musa family. She has consistently and continually committed offences which constitute maladministration, malpractice, abuse of public office, breach of Statutory Duty and is bias towards London Borough of Harringey when dealing with the Musa children’s ‘best-interests’. I make this complaint on the basis she has ignored the children’s best wishes (as set out below) and perverted the course of justice. She has also colluded with fraudulant Statements and actions by London Borough of Harringey against our children and Mr and Mrs Musa.
Jonquil Houghton has not followed correct procedures / Court Protocol, she does not appear to have a reasonable understanding of children’s development and the effects of separating them from a parent (unnecessarily, as below). She clearly does not understand the Human Rights Act, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, The Children Act 1989/2004, legislation regarding the filing of papers and Injunctions all of which she has a duty to understand in her capacity to act on the Accredited Children’s Panel of Solicitors. She has colluded with Ms Moise in continuing with a malicious prosecution against the Musa family.
Ms Houghton has had plenty of opportunity to report Ms Moise to appropriate authorities, but has failed to do so – even when there has been blatant evidence of perjury, Fraud (false representation AND failure to disclose information), perverting the Course of Justice. She has – it would appear, colluded with Ms Moise in forgery. Ms Houghton has not met her obligations to report mis-conduct, abuse of position and illegal activities to The Law Society, which leads us to believe she is also party to the corruption in accordance with the Solicitors Registration Authority Guidelines. She has compromised her position and integrity and put the children in grave danger of abuse.
A ‘non-molestation order’, which she (Ms Moise) presented to the Musa parents appears to have been fabricated by Ms Moise; it bears no resemblance to any ‘Non-molestation Orders’ which appear on Her Majesty’s Court Forms website. Ms Houghton has been aware of this, as before it was sent to us, she would also have received a copy. The Barrister’s signature (Ryan Bartholomew) also appears to be fake (it appeared on a page, which has obviously been ‘re-created’ and does not have his name printed underneath the signature, which is correct Court procedure / protocol. Both Ms Houghton and Ms Moise would know a ‘Non-molestation Order’ has no relevance what-so-ever in Care Proceedings unless a family member fears or feels threatened by another family member. Ms Houghton’s and Ms Moise’s actions constitute Injurious Falsehood and Grievous bodily harm; to our family, friends, McKenzie friend and everyone else who has helped us. They have been bullied into not assisting the Musa family, associating with the Musas because they (friends with children) have been threatened with the removal of their child/ren. In fact, some have had to move away from us. This is a violation of their Human Rights (Right to a family life, being protected by the law, living without fear of violence or, harrassment and freedom of association).
As the Musas intend their case to proceed to the European Court of Human Rights, they do not consider Ms Houghton to ‘have sufficient experience and the appropriate expertise to deal with the case in the absence of a children’s guardian’ OR in any capacity as acting Solicitor for any child.
Ms Houghton has failed the Musa children as follows:
1. She has NOT taken their best-interests into consideration at all. The Childrens’ Guardian – only one has been appointed and that was at the initial stage of proceedings; (IF) the Childrens Guardian was genuine, they have only filed ONE REPORT in which the children stated clearly to her they want to come home to us, and in the words of one of our children “I just want mummy to sort it out so we can go home”.
Ms Houghton’s insistant ignoring of this has breached every duty and Convention Right entrusted upon her as a Solicitor / Legal Representative by the Judiciary.
2. Ms Houghton has not continued in a bid to ensure the Musa Children have a Children’s Guardian EACH; it is her duty to ensure they are treated as individuals with individual needs. (Children Act 1989 and Acting in the absence of a Children’s guardian. Acting in the absence of a children’s guardian 25 August 2009)
Thus, both of them ‘represent children involved in public law proceedings in England and Wales. This is known as the ‘tandem model’ of representation’. 4.32
3. Ms Houghton has not ensured the Musa children have individual Social Workers each; which is their right and her duty to ensure same. (Children Act 1989 and Acting in the absence of a Children’s guardian. Acting in the absence of a children’s guardian 25 August 2009)
4. Ms Houghton has not considered making appropriate professional mentoring arrangements.
5. Ms Houghton has NOT clarified issues and plans neither has she attempted to probe and test any ‘evidence’ placed before her by the Local Authority. She has accepted everything they have stated ‘de facto’, without question.
She has not ensured a Care Plan has been written on all of our children, in accordance with the Children Act 1989, Children Act 2004 and 2010 No. 959 Children and Young Persons, England. The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England), Regulations 2010, PART 2 – Arrangements for looking after a child. This is a Statutory duty by all those who represent children / care for children during Care proceedings and is central to all Review, proceedings and decisions with regard to our childrens future.
6. Ms Houghton has not adhered to Court protocol as follows:
a) All of the alleged Orders / hearings we have attended are unlawful and an abuse of public office. Alongside this, Ms Houghton has brought the profession of ‘Solicitor’ into disrepute and the Musaas have stated they will never trust Solicitors in the UK again.
b) Various ‘Orders’ have not been stamped and had the Court Seal – which makes them invalid, unlawful and fake. Ms Houghton has allowed this to go unchallenged.
7. Ms Houghton has abused her authority / power by:
a) allowing the Local Authority Solicitor, Ms Moise, to dictate the Court timetable/s (unchallenged).
b) dictating contents of professionals reports, in collusion with the Court and the Local Authority Solicitor;
c) abused the Musas associates vulnerable children and other families by taking children from loving, caring, ‘good’ homes unlawfully (The use of Orders has been abused), in collusion with the Court, Local Authority’s Solicitor and the Local Authority (even though Ms Houghton KNOWS the evidence being represented as ‘the truth’ is false, perjurous and fraudualant;
d) being party to other criminal activities by various other ‘professionals’, in collusion with the Court and the Local Authority’s Solicitor;
e) perverting the course of justice, in collusion with the Court, Local Authority’s Solicitor and ;
f) fraud by deception – as per point 1 (above) in collusion with the Court and the Local Authority Solicitor and Local Authority;
g) Fraud (dishonesty) – false representation of evidence (filing untrue and misleading statements, knowing them to be false at the time they are/were filed). The Musa children had told the Childrens Guardian (when there was one) they want to come home; Ms Houghton stands back and allows them to be abused by being kept in care – even though she has been party to proceedings whereby His Honour Judge Glenn Brasse has stated in Court (February 2011), the original reasons for the Musa children to be taken into care was based on a ‘fake / false’ alleged letter written by the eldest daughter, X. (This is in collusion with the Court and the Local Authority. Fraud by abuse of her position. (Fraud Act 2006 S.1)
h) brought the profession of Solicitor into disrepute;
i) not had the welfare of the Musa children as paramount in all decisions, along with the Court, Local Authority and the Children’s Solicitor. (Breached the Convention on the Rights of the Child); been negligent in her ‘care’ of the Musa children when she:
…owes them a duty of care, …has breached that duty; and …caused harm to them.
8. Ms Houghton is aware of concerns that three of the Musa children have reported being abused in care, but does not act upon that information. She has breached the Rights of the Convention of the Children by breaching their rights to be heard, given special protection in care, be protected by the law, not be abused sexually or physically. She knows EPO’s have been submitted to Court by Kay Young, and ignored by the Court and Ms Moise, but she has not taken it upon herself to act on them in the best interests of the Musa children. Maladministration, Malfeasance, Nonfeasance and Malpratice.
9. When the Court announced in February 2011 “only the NSPCC or Social Services could apply for an EPO”, Ms Houghton did not challenge this. The information given was inaccurate. Anyone can apply for an EPO, but only the Social Services and NSPCC can apply for a Care Order. It is of great concern to the Musa parents, if she does not realise this as someone who hold a position on the Accredited Childrens Panel. Non-feasance, Misfeasance, Maladministration and Malpractice.
10. Ms Houghton knows and knew we did not understand the Court structure / proceedings; with this knowledge, she set out with malicious intent:
a). on doing harm to the Musa family; b). knowing they have no power by her actions, and that her actions would cause injury to the Musa parents and their children and c). by her actions (as above) she would and has harmed the Musa family. Misfeasance in public office.
11. Ms Houghton has not challenged when ‘reports’ / ‘Statements’ submitted to the Court on behalf of LBH, have not been supported by ‘Statements of Truth’, which, in effect, renders them unlawful and non-enforceable. (see PRACTICE DIRECTION PART 22 & 22.1 Documents to be verified by a statement of truth)
12. There has not been a Witness Statement submitted by Michelle Collins (former Actress of Eastenders), as she IS central to the original referral made to Social Services. The Musa parents have not had the opportunity to cross-examine her either, as she attended Court on 17th/ 18th February. The Musas were notified of her prior attendance when we arrived for proceedings on Monday, 21 February 2011. (8.6). Ms Houghton is bias with regard to who should and should not be called to give evidence.
13. Ms Houghton has assisted Ms Moise to ‘serve’ (unchallenged by her) fraudulant documentation by e-mail to the Musa parents which have not:
a) contained the seal of the Courts, the date stamp of the Courts, the case number(s), the dates of hearings which they (allegedly) relate to; Ms Houghton has not challenged this fact.
b)The name in print of the Barrister who – allegedly – signed the ‘Non-molestation’ order. It looks like it has been copied and pasted from a previous document and it has not got his name printed underneath it for authentication purposes (see ‘Technical Specifications of e-mail). Ms Houghton has allowed this to go unchallenged
14. Ms Houghton has not challenged when Ms Moise has submitted and applied for various Orders on behalf of LBH knowing it to be false and fraudulant. (see in house practice)
15. Ms Houghton has not (IF she has been ‘served’ all the ‘alleged formal’ papers from Ms Moise) constantly and consistently challenged filed documents to Court, knowing them to be false / fake and Fraudulant. By her lack of action, she is encouraging and inciting LBH and Ms Moise to commit fraudulant acts.
16. Ms Houghton knows the Musas are unable to understand the legal process in Court and have difficulties in understanding documentation presented to them. She continually and consistently exploited their vulnerability as ‘non UK citizens’, along with the Judiciary, in their ommission to advise where the Musas could access facilities; enabling the Musas to be given the right to a fair trial (ECHR) / and to understand what was being said to them {the Musas}. As she is a member of the Child Accreditation Scheme, she will be aware of their need for explanations regarding the judicial process. She has not taken the time to ensure the Musa parents understand the process or the reasons / actions of those around them; this is part of the criteria to be accepted on the Accreditation Scheme.
17. Ms Houghton has supported Ms Moise in her submission of Statements in the knowledge they are false; she continues to collude with Children and Families Department of Social Services from London Borough of Harringey and their legal Representative/s. The Care Proceedings, are based on Malicious False allegations; as Ms Houghton is aware and has not acted upon the knowledge to ensure the Musa CHILDREN’s best interests are heard.
18. The ‘Report’; allegedly written by Dr Adesida appears to be a ‘letter confirming the contents of a future report which he intends to submit and not the actual report. If this proves to be the case, the Musas request a copy of any reports / correspondence they have not been party to. The ‘report is not acceptable as ‘evidence’ as it contains hearsay and has not been considered in regard to the ‘hearsay’ rule of evidence. Ms Houghton, should be aware of this?. There has not been a ‘Statement of Truth’ attached to ‘Reports’.
19. Ms Houghton has not followed Court Protocol in ensuring Reports are signed correctly. For example on Dr Adesida ‘report’; the signature was printed by mechanical means (as it stated), but did not appear on our copy of the Form. Neither has any name been printed underneath the signature for authentication to identify the sender. (5.3) Change tracker – Code of Conduct Rule 4.01 (14): Confidentiality and disclosure Introduction (Solicitors Regulation Authority)
20. The Report by Dr Adesida has not included a ‘Statement of Truth’. It is Solicitors and the Courts responsibility to ensure all legal advisors include these as part of the proceedings. (See below: PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 STATEMENTS OF TRUTH 1.3)
Ms Houghton has allowed the following to continue (Malpractice and Maladministration).
Suzanne Moore – Independent Social Worker
The document written by Suzanne Moore, has not attached a ‘Statement of Truth’ and the document is not set out in a ‘Report’ format.
1. Is there a separate Report, we request disclosure and copy of same.
2. Please inform us as to Ms Suzanne Moore’s qualifications and her ability to undertake reports, on behalf of Ms Moise on all our children.
3. Ms Moore is not registered with the GSCC, which is obligatory regardless if she is registered with any independant Social Work agencies. Ms Houghton, has a statutory duty to report other colleagues when she witnesses fraudulant actions by them, but has failed to do so.
None of the ‘Reports’ submitted to LBH have included:
a) an attached ‘Statement of Truth’. b) been signed by the author, this renders them: (b) (i) Unlawful and (b) (ii) Of no authority within the Court proceedings
In accordance with Protocol for Expert Witnesses, the Musas have not had sight or been given copies of ‘Statements of Truth’ with any Witness Statements, neither have the Musas received any Statements of Truth from Experts (as below) with the mandatory wording, accompanying their Reports.
Experts’ reports must also be verified by a statement of truth. The form of the statement of truth is as follows:
“I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.” CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS Practice direction APRIL 2010
21. It has been stated in Court how advanced, articulate and intelligent the Musa children are, so why have their feelings and wishes not been presented before the Court? Ms Houghton has not enabled the eldest daughter, Favour, to be ‘have a voice in proceedings, especially as she could understand the process and be able to give clear instructions.
This is of particular importance as the Musa parents and her siblings have not seen Favour for many months now; and no one will confirm whether she is dead or alive. An Ambassador friend of theirs has not been given access to see her to check she is alive; breaching her right to:
a) not be exploited; b) receive extra protection; c) right to a family life and our right to family life to see her.
It is our opinion, Ms Houghton is not fit for purpose on undertaking the best interests of vulnerable children and should no longer be accredited on the Children’s panel of legal advisors, or represent children at any time in the future.
22. Section 41 of the Children Act 1989 and Rule 4.12 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 make it clear a Solicitor should solely represent the childs best interests alone.
23. It is not within Ms Houghtons remit (as a Childs Solicitor) to make decisions regarding their welfare and recommendations; which she does seem to be doing in the absence of a Children’s Guardian. She has overstepped her remit as a Childs Solicitor by getting too personally involved; she cannot be objective in regard to our childrens ‘best interests’. She has not been making the Court aware of all available options which would be available, but has colluded with Ms Moises’ fraudulant, fabricated proposals.
24. Ms Houghton’s position is to hear the evidence of both the Local Authority and ourselves. In February, the Musa parents left the Court because the Local Authority Social Worker was committing purjury and perverting the course of justice under Oath and no one was challenging this. Ms Houghton has a conflict of interest between loyalty to Ms Moise, a personal friend, and the interests of the Musa children whom she is meant to be representing.
25. Her duty as the Childrens Guardian is to ensure all evidence put before the court at Interim Hearings is sufficient and ‘tested’ before any Interim Care Orders are made. She has agreed to ICO’s being ‘rubber stamped’ by postal representation. This has meant further exclusion of the Musa parents from their children’s lives and their children’s voices not being heard.
26. Ms Houghton has over-stepped her remit whereby she has recommended particular courses of action; which is not within her authority to do so.
27. As our case proceeds to a higher level of Court, Ms Houghton should no longer sit on behalf of the Musa children in any further hearings as she is out of her jurisdiction and expertise.
28. As the Musa children do not have individual Social Workers OR Children’s Guardians, has Ms Houghton visited the Musa children whilst they are in care? The Musa parents have not been informed if she has at all, which is good practice as a childs legal representative. If she has not met any of the Musa children, but has continued to represent them, the Musa parents would like to know why she has not met them to give her a clear idea of their wishes and feelings.
29. The Musa parents are concerned Ms Houghton has not given consideration whether she should refer the Musa children to other legal representative/s or if it would be better for the Musa children to be represented by someone of the same or similar ethnic background and culture.
30. Ms Houghton has not, in accordance with Children and Young Persons, England, The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, considered:
‘(i) sets out how the placement will contribute to meeting C’s needs, and (ii) includes all the matters specified in Schedule 2 as are applicable, having regard to the type of the placement, and (b) ensure that— (i) C’s wishes and feelings have been ascertained and given due consideration,’ PART 2 Arrangements for looking after a child Care planning
31. She has not considered the possibility of the children being placed with a family member or any of the Musa parents friends. One of our friends who is an Ambassador offered to have the Musa children, but the Local Authority opposed this. The Musa parents are concerned why Ms Houghton did not challenge this as it would have been in the best interests of our children. In accordance with ‘The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010’, which allows for this.
a) avoided three of them being abused in care; sexually and/or physically.
b) saved alot of upheaval for them (they had to change schools)
c) made Contact with the Musa parents alot less stressful for them and the Musa parents (the Musa parents have to travel for up to 2-3 hours for each contact session; depending on the public transport and the weather). The Musa parents have had to take a young baby out in the freezing snow for 2-3 hours in the cold to get to contact. Ms Houghton has not taken into consideration the best interests of the Musa baby, who is under a Supervision Order, when making arrangements on where contact should take place.
d) Ms Houghton has never reported to the Court the wishes or feelings of the Musa children, despite them not having a Children’s Guardian, this is of paramount importance.
If Ms Houghton were to see the Musa children, in accordance with ‘Acting without a Guardian’ document, she could have enabled them to understand the process and helped them to:
‘understand the court process, prepare them for court proceedings and explain the outcome of interim court decisions and any appeal’.
32. Ms Houghton has not attempted to get the children moved nearer to Harringey where the Musa parents live to enable them to remain in close proximity with them.
33. It is her duty to continue seeking individual Social Workers and Childrens Guardians for our children, the Musa parents do not know if she is continuing to seek both for our children.
34. Ms Houghton has not considered and provided:
‘advice based on evidence, not personal feelings as to whether the interim care plan and arrangements are both:
* safe, and * suitable for the age and circumstances of the child’. (‘Working without a guardian’ document)
She has over-stepped her position when not ensuring evidence presented at ICO hearings satisfies the test for making an Interim Care Order.
35. It is Ms Houghton’s responsibility to:
‘Check whether contact with parents, siblings and other family members is being properly explored and whether the arrangements are appropriate and safe. In doing so you should establish factors such as:
* frequency * venue * travel arrangements * opportunities for care giving * level of supervision
36. It remains her responsibility to continue to repeatedly request CAFCASS ensure a Childrens Guardian is allocated to each of the Musa children and keep reviewing this position.
‘This includes advising the court at the outset. You may do this by informing the clerk of your view on the level of priority for appointment. In formulating this advice you should consider, together with the other parties, whether there are urgent decisions to be made on any of the following issues:
* separation and placement; * the removal or return of the child including initial risk assessment; * the separation of siblings; * contact including sibling contact; * the need for immediate expert evidence on causation; * the type of placement.
The matter should be brought back before the court as quickly as possible after the first hearing and continue to be an issue for every hearing until resolved. 3.3.1 Welfare issues – CAFCASS should be kept informed of any changes or issues arising that affect your advice on the level of urgency in relation to allocation of a guardian’. (‘Working without a Guardian’ document).
37. Ms Houghton along with Ms Moise, has breached the Musa parents Human Rights to a fair trial and a family life; especially as it has been stated the children have been taken on false pretences. (fake letter).
When the Health Visitor visited the Musa parents just before Christmas she said she had no concerns for the other children, only Favour (which was based on the note which has been acknowledged as fake). This has not been relayed to the Court during proceedings.
38. Ms Houghton has, by her reluctance to challenge various professionals, allowed the Musa children to remain in care unnecessarily and continued to be abused. She is, therefore, guilty of child abuse. As the children’s legal advisor, she could have ensured timetabling of issues which are/were of concern were dealt with and therefore would have contributed to the smooth running of proceedings.
39. Recently, there have been suggestions that another expert witness is required to carry out a psychological assessment on the Musa children. The Musa parents have suggested someone willing to undertake an assessment, but Ms Moise and Ms Houghton have both objected. The person the Musa parents have suggested is independant of Social Services, Ms Houghton and the Musa parents. The person suggested has not been given leave of the Court, despite being objective.
40. Ms Houghton, in collusion with the Local Authority Solicitor, Ms Moise are treating the Musa children as if they already have a Care Order. IF they do, and the Musa parents have not been informed, the Musa parents would like answers to the following:
a) Why the Musa parents have not been informed? b) When a Care Order was granted? c) Has an Independent Reviewing Officer has not been appointed? d) Has a ‘Responsible Person’ been appointed to the Musa children and if there has been i) when was this decision made? ii) Who made it and iii) why were the Musa parents not informed?
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES – EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS Practice direction APRIL 2010
8.6 Evidence – general
(1) No written evidence may be relied on at the hearing of the claim unless – (a) it has been served in accordance with rule 8.5; or (b) the court gives permission.
(3) The court may give directions requiring the attendance for cross-examination(GL)of a witness who has given written evidence. (Rule 32.1 contains a general power for the court to control evidence)
22.1 Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth – (a) a statement of case; (b) a response complying with an order under rule 18.1 to provide further information; (c) a witness statement; (d) an acknowledgement of service in a claim begun by way of the Part 8 procedure; (e) a certificate stating the reasons for bringing a possession claim or a landlord and tenant claim in the High Court in accordance with rules 55.3(2) and 56.2(2); (f) a certificate of service; and (g) any other document where a rule or practice direction requires.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), a statement of truth is a statement that – (a) the party putting forward the document; (b) in the case of a witness statement, the maker of the witness statement; or (c) in the case of a certificate of service, the person who signs the certificate, believes the facts stated in the document are true.
(5) If a party is conducting proceedings with a litigation friend, the statement of truth in – (a) a statement of case; (b) a response; or (c) an application notice, is a statement that the litigation friend believes the facts stated in the document being verified are true.
(6) The statement of truth must be signed by – (a) in the case of a statement of case, a response or an application – (i) the party or litigation friend; or (ii) the legal representative on behalf of the party or litigation friend; and (b) in the case of a witness statement, the maker of the statement.
22.2 Failure to verify a statement of case (1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth – (a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but (b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it. The Judge has the authority to ‘strike out’ Statements which are not signed or are written in accordance with Court Procedure / Protocol. Why has this not been the case with all the Statements put before the Court on behalf of the Local Authority? (2) The court may strike out(GL) a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth. (3) Any party may apply for an order under paragraph (2).
22.3 Failure to verify a witness statement If the maker of a witness statement fails to verify the witness statement by a statement of truth the court may direct that it shall not be admissible as evidence. (1 See rule 22.2(1).CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES STATEMENTS OF TRUTH Part 22 page 5 APRIL 2010)
Convention of the Rights of the Child Article 3: Prohibition of torture -This requires that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an absolute right, breach of which cannot be justified or excused by other factors. Article 5: Right to liberty and security -No one is to be deprived of his liberty except in very specific circumstances and in accordance with procedures prescribed by the law. Article 6: Right to a fair trial – There must be access to a court or tribunal that is independent and impartial. A hearing must be within a reasonable time and there must be a sense of “fair balance” between the parties, with each party being afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case. There must be disclosure of documents to ensure that all parties have all the information available. Every party must have the opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment upon the evidence adduced by the other parties. There is the right to a public hearing, although at present children’s cases are heard in private. There should be a reasoned decision given by the court for decisions reached. Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life – There is a positive obligation on the state to ensure an effective respect for this right. However, this is a qualified right which means there can be interferences with an individual’s family life provided the interference is: a) lawful b) must serve a legitimate purpose c) be necessary in a democratic society and d) must not be discriminatory Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10: Freedom of expression Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination Article 17: Prohibition of abuse of rights
2010 No. 959 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS, ENGLAND The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 PART 2 – Arrangements for looking after a child
4.—(1) Where C is not in the care of the responsible authority and a care plan for C has not already been prepared, the responsible authority must assess C’s needs for services to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, and prepare such a plan. (2) Except in the case of a child to whom section 31A (care orders: care plans) applies(a), or where paragraph (6) applies, the care plan must be prepared before C is first placed by the responsible authority or, if it is not practicable to do so, within ten working days of the start of the first placement. (3) When assessing C’s needs under paragraph (1), the responsible authority must consider whether C’s placement meets the requirements of Part 3 of the 1989 Act. (4) Unless paragraph (5) applies, the care plan should, so far as is reasonably practicable, be agreed by the responsible authority with— (a) any parent of C’s and any person who is not C’s parent but who has parental responsibility for C, or (b) if there is no such person, the person who was caring for C immediately before the responsible authority arranged a placement for C. (5) Where C is aged 16 or over and agrees to be provided with accommodation under section 20(b), the care plan should be agreed with C by the responsible authority. (6) Where C was first placed by the responsible authority before 1st April 2011, the care plan must be prepared as soon as reasonably practicable.
Preparation and content of the care plan
5. The care plan must include a record of the following information— (a) the long term plan for C’s upbringing (“the plan for permanence”), (b) the arrangements made by the responsible authority to meet C’s needs in relation to— (i) health, including the information set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (“the health plan”), (ii) education and training, including, so far as reasonably practicable, the information set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (“the personal education plan”), (iii) emotional and behavioural development, (iv) identity, with particular regard to C’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background, (v) family and social relationships and in particular the information set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, (vi) social presentation, and (vii) self-care skills, (c) except in a case where C is in the care of the responsible authority but is not provided with accommodation by them by any of the means specified in section 22C, the placement plan, (d) the name of the IRO, and (e) details of the wishes and feelings of the persons listed in section 22(4)(a) about the arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (b) and the placement plan that have been ascertained and considered in accordance with section 22(4) and (5) and the wishes and feelings of those persons in relation to any change, or proposed change, to the care plan.
6.—(1) The responsible authority must keep C’s care plan under review in accordance with Part 6 and, if they are of the opinion some change is required, they must revise the care plan or prepare a new care plan accordingly. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these Regulations, the responsible authority must not make any significant change to the care plan unless the proposed change has first been considered at a review of C’s case.
Health care 7.—(1) Before C is first placed by them or, if that is not reasonably practicable, before the first review of C’s case, the responsible authority must make arrangements for a registered medical practitioner to— (a) carry out an assessment of C’s state of health, and (b) provide a written report of the assessment, addressing the matters specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, as soon as reasonably practicable. (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply if, within a period of three months immediately preceding the placement, an assessment of C’s state of health has been carried out and the responsible authority has obtained a written report that meets the requirements of that paragraph. (3) The responsible authority must make arrangements for a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse or registered midwife acting under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner to review C’s state of health and provide a written report of each review, addressing the matters specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1— (a) at least once in every period of six months before C’s fifth birthday, and (b) at least once in every period of 12 months after C’s fifth birthday. (4) Paragraphs (1) and (3) do not apply if C refuses consent to the assessment, being of sufficient age and understanding to do so. (5) The responsible authority must take all reasonable steps to ensure that C is provided with appropriate health care services, in accordance with the health plan, including— (a) medical and dental care and treatment, and (b) advice and guidance on health, personal care and health promotion issues. (a) The persons listed in that section are: (a) C, (b) any parent of C’s and any person who is not C’s parent but who has parental responsibility for C, and (c) any other person whose wishes and feelings the responsible authority consider to be relevant Contact with a child in care 8.—(1) This regulation applies if C is in the care of the responsible authority and they have decided under section 34(6) (refusal of contact as a matter of urgency) to refuse to allow contact that would otherwise be required by virtue of section 34(1)(a) or an order under section 34 (parental contact etc. with children in care). (2) The responsible authority must immediately give written notification to the following persons of the information specified in paragraph (3) (“the specified information”)— (a) C, unless it would not be appropriate to do so having regard to C’s age and understanding, (b) P, (c) where, immediately before the care order was made, a person had care of C by virtue of an order made in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction with respect to children, that person, (d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the responsible authority consider to be relevant, and (e) the IRO. (3) The specified information is— (a) the responsible authority’s decision, (b) the date of the decision, (c) the reasons for the decision, (d) the duration of the decision (if applicable), and (e) remedies available in case of dissatisfaction. (4) The responsible authority may depart from the terms of any order made under section 34 by agreement with the person in relation to whom the order is made, provided that— (a) C, being of sufficient age and understanding, also agrees, and (b) written notification of the specified information is given within five working days to the persons listed in paragraph (2). (5) Where the responsible authority has decided to vary or suspend any arrangements made (otherwise than under an order under section 34) with a view to affording any person contact with C, the responsible authority must immediately give written notification containing the specified information to the persons listed in paragraph (2). (6) The responsible authority must record any decision made under this regulation in C’s care plan.
Department for Constitutional Affairs and Department for Education and Schools (2006) Review of the Child Care Proceedings System in England and Wales, London: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Care planning for looked after children Assessments and experts 4.32 Both a children’s guardian and a solicitor represent children involved in public law proceedings in England and Wales. This is known as the ‘tandem model’ of representation
4.33 The children’s guardian is appointed by the court to act as an independent representative for the child, but Cafcass (or Cafcass Cymru) provide the named guardian for the child and supervise their appointment. It is the guardian’s duty to appoint a specialised solicitor for the child, usually a member of the Law Society’s Children’s Panel. The court also has the power directly to appoint a solicitor in the absence of an appointed guardian.
4.34 The guardian’s statutory duty is to safeguard the interests of the child. They independently represent the child’s best interests and express the child’s wishes and feelings to the court so they can be taken into account in its decisions. In advising the court of their assessment of the child’s welfare interests, the guardian should have regard to the duty of the courts to consider the welfare checklist, consider all options available to the court and whether recommending an order is better for the child than making no order. They are usually expected to attend all court hearings and directions, unless excused by the court.
4.35 The solicitor’s duty is to act as the child’s advocate in court and to present the child’s wishes and feelings. The solicitor will have received their instructions from the guardian in most cases, except when the child’s wishes are in conflict with the guardian’s view of the child’s needs. This may sometimes result in divergence between the guardian and the solicitor, with the solicitor then taking instructions from the child, and possibly the guardian seeking leave to appoint their own separate legal representative. Family Justice Review 2011
4.36 Additional experts will usually be instructed during proceedings to provide expert evidence to the court, including child and adult psychiatrists, psychologists and independent social workers. 4.37 The usual process for selecting experts is that one of the parties to proceedings will request an expert and provide the court with the details of the expert they wish to use and why they wish to use them. The judge will make a decision on whether the expert is required and will make an order for the expert to be instructed. The judge can also order the expert to be jointly instructed, if it is felt that more than one party to the case requires the expert evidence.
4.38 As soon as a child comes into local authority care (via section 20, section 31 or the emergency route) the local authority is subject to various duties regarding the child’s care and carrying out effective corporate parenting. It must: develop a comprehensive and integrated care plan for the child; place the child at the centre of decisions; promote effective care planning; ensure accommodation is provided to meet the child’s needs; and ensure effective reviews of the child’s case are carried out within specified timescales.
4.40 The overriding objective of the care plan is to set out common goals for all the professionals involved with the child. Working with the child, and their birth family where appropriate, the aim is to ensure support for the child’s overall development.
4.41 The plan should set out the current developmental needs of the child – based on information obtained from assessing the child’s needs in accordance with the assessment framework – and establish clear expectations about how these needs are to be met by everyone involved with the child. It includes the seven important dimensions of the child’s developmental needs: health, education, emotional and behavioural development, identity, family and social relationships, social presentation and self-care skills.77
Processes are complex and inefficient
4.77 Another knock on effect of problems in supplying guardians is the additional pressure that this puts on the solicitor for the child. Where the guardian does not have the capacity to undertake the work required this undermines the tandem working model, and leaves solicitors in a difficult situation where they have nominal instructions on behalf of their child client but in reality they are often inappropriately left to make welfare recommendations. The Law Society, call for evidence submission
A guardian is appointed to specified proceedings under s41 of the Children Act 1989 and then appoints the child’s solicitor. The model is also applied in some (rule 9.5) private law cases.
Code of Conduct Rules : Solicitors Regulation Authority
The Children and Young Persons Act 2010 No. 959
General Social Care Council Website
The Regulations of Solicitors – various documents
Fraud Act 2006 S.1
ii Family Justice Review – Executive Summary
Children Panel Accreditation Scheme – Criteria and Guidance The Law Society – February 2011
‘Working without a Guardian’ document.
PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 STATEMENTS OF TRUTH 1.3 ========================================