The Petition of a mother living in Birmingham, Yardley
Declares that the mother was betrayed by her barrister Andrew Neaves in care proceedings in Birmingham.
He allowed the judge to conclude that she accepted the need for a care order when she clearly did not.
Also, in cross examining his own client he asked and she responded:
Q. I think in these proceedings you have already made a number of statements, which we see in the bundle and also on your behalf a response to the threshold has been made, which resulted in an agreed threshold document. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And is what you have said in the course of your statements to this Court true and accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. I am not going to take you in detail to your statement. What I am going to ask you about are matters in particular of more recent moment, but before I do I want to ask you first of all about the threshold document that has been agreed in this case. Do you accept that the threshold document contains agreed information before the Court, which illustrates that in the past your parenting has not been good enough?
A. Yes.
Following this District Judge Asokan concluded in her judgment of 26th September 2012 paragraph 21 “All the parties agreed that the threshold criteria pursuant to s.31 of the Children Act 1989 has been met. I am therefore, empowered to make an order in this instance. “
The mother, however, did not agree that the threshold criteria had been met merely that the facts in the threshold criteria were true. The mother takes the view that the threshold criteria do not meet the threshold of “significant harm” as referred to in the Children Act 1989. The threshold criteria referred to accidents that happened to the children, an attempt by a child to open the door of a clothes dryer, an attempt by the young children to leave the house when a visiting Social Worker left the front door open, having a Staffordshire Bull Terrier dog that sat on a child’s torso and having inadequate stair gates.
The mother appealed the decision and HHJ Hindley refused permission to appeal. This had the effect of preventing the case and the malpractice of Mr Neaves from being considered by the court of appeal and was refused on the basis of jurisdiction by the court of appeal on 26th September 2013 reference [2013] EQCA Civ 1158. Furthermore the appeal was considered to be out of time because of a delay in obtaining a judgement. HHJ Hindley argued that because the mother had a barrister at the hearing in court of first instance that it was possible to appeal without the judgement. However, given that the mother's argument is that her barrister undermined her case it would be quite surprising if the barrister had assisted her in putting that argument to an appellate court.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons establishes an inquiry into her case and the general difficulty faced by parents getting their cases considered by the appellate system particularly when victims of malpractice by legal advisors and whether the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be changed to ensure that all cases can be considered at least on paper by the Court of Appeal.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.]