(DIR) Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Soul of Adoption
(HTM) https://soulofadoption.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
(DIR) Return to: Adoption in the Media
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42--------------------------------------------------
John Hemming MP's psychologist comments 'outrageous and unfounde
d', says judge
By: Montraviatommygun Date: March 10, 2011, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
John Hemming MP's psychologist comments 'outrageous and
unfounded', says judge
By Joshua Rozenberg
Last Updated: 11:16AM BST 15/05/2008
An MP made "outrageous" allegations against the integrity of a
consultant clinical psychologist, the Court of Appeal has
decided.
Lords Justices Thorpe and Wall dismissed as "unfounded" a claim
by John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley,
that the expert was "in the pay of" a local authority that was
seeking to take a child into care.
"Mr Hemming's allegation that [the psychologist] is part of an
'evil' system only warrants comment because it comes from a
Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible
public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make
serious allegations when they are based on evidence," Lord
Justice Wall said.
"I am astonished that somebody in Mr Hemming's position should
have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the
public domain. I reject it unreservedly."
The story begins two years ago, when a woman of 21 gave birth to
a premature baby, born at about 27 weeks. The mother had not
realised she was pregnant until shortly before the birth. Her
baby, known as KP, was born with "very many serious medical
conditions" requiring skilled management.
The mother, referred to as RP, has a "significant learning
disability". According to the psychologist, RP's limitations
"are too extensive to allow her to parent KP successfully on her
own".
And the father? He "does not play any part in the proceedings,
or in the life of KP," the judge laconically recorded. A man of
about 65, he does not appear to have cohabited with the mother
at any stage and they "do not appear to have any form of ongoing
sexual relationship".
Nottingham City Council began care proceedings when the baby was
about four months old and still in hospital. The local authority
was granted interim care of the baby by the City's magistrates
and, at the age of six months, KP was discharged into the care
of foster parents. She has remained in foster care ever since.
Ahead of the magistrates' hearing, the mother was assessed by a
clinical psychologist – whose identity is also protected by a
court order. The psychologist concluded that RP's difficulties
in processing information would make it very difficult to
understand and act on advice from her own solicitor.
So the Official Solicitor, Alastair Pitblado, was called in. As
I explained in a column last November, it is his job is to seek
justice in the courts for those who cannot speak for themselves
and who have nobody else to represent their interests. A very
lengthy explanation of this role is annexed to the court's
judgment .
RP said she had a close and loving bond with her daughter and
there would be no risk of significant harm to KP if the baby
were to live with her. The mother thought the local authority
had not given her a chance to acquire parenting skills.
But Mr Pitblado told the court that RP did not have the capacity
to give or refuse consent to a placement order. The Official
Solicitor decided that, in her best interests, he could not
oppose the local authority's application.
Judge Butler, QC, sitting in Nottingham, agreed last year that
the baby should be placed for adoption, dispensing with the
mother's consent "because she is incapable of giving it".
It is at this point that Mr Hemming seems to have entered the
stage. Acting with RP's brother, the MP told the Court of Appeal
that RP did not know that the Official Solicitor had taken over
the case from her own lawyer; that the Official Solicitor should
never have been appointed; that the clinical psychologist had
"given the appearance of bias"; that the placement order had
been made in breach of RP's right to a fair trial; and that she
had the mental capacity to conduct the proceedings.
Mr Hemming is highly successful at designing and marketing
computer programs for businesses. According to his website, he
is "one of the world's leading internet technical experts".
Although he is not a lawyer, he and RP's brother were treated as
"McKenzie friends" – lay people who are allowed to sit with a
litigant-in-person and who were originally meant to whisper
advice while the litigant addressed the court. In this case,
however, Mr Hemming was allowed to address the Court of Appeal
directly at a hearing in March.
RP's own solicitor had acted for her before the Official
Solicitor was appointed. The same lawyer was then retained by Mr
Pitblado. At the hearing two months ago, Lords Justices Thorpe
and Wall read through the Nottingham lawyer's file and found
that the local solicitor had explained the position to the
mother on a number of occasions. In any event, once the local
solicitor had formed the view that RP might not have the
capacity to give proper instructions it was the solicitor's duty
to seek a professional opinion on the mother's capacity.
Having examined the Nottingham solicitor's file, the appeal
judges expected Mr Hemming to acknowledge that RP did indeed
know that the Official Solicitor had been acting for her.
"Not a bit of it," said Lord Justice Wall. "In a nutshell, Mr
Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in [the local
solicitor's] file had been made up: in a word, fabricated."
Mr Hemming pointed to discrepancies in file notes, which he
found "very strange".
Lord Justice Wall had no hesitation in rejecting the MP's claim.
Any suggestion that the local solicitor had interfered with the
file could be dismissed out of hand.
"I find it not only unacceptable but shocking," said the judge,
"that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so
serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my
judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position."
Lord Justice Wall then turned to Mr Hemming's allegations
against the clinical psychologist, quoting them not from
anything he had said in court but from articles the MP had
posted on one of his websites.
Describing the procedures in RP's case as "evil", Mr Hemming
said they meant that "the local authority's expert can say
someone is incapable of instructing a solicitor so the adoption
case goes through 'on the nod'".
More generally, the MP likened expert evidence in family cases
to "witching courts where the witch finder says 'she's a witch'
and then the state dunks her".
Lord Justice Wall said those remarks implied that experts such
as the clinical psychologist were "in it for the money" and
happy to manufacture evidence.
These comments are not only wrong and ill-informed, said the
judge. They also had no foundation in the evidence presented in
court. "That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again
strikes me as an abuse of his position."
Referring to the psychologist, Lord Justice Wall said she was
jointly instructed by all parties in the normal way. The judge
firmly rejected allegations that she was biased. As he asked,
"what was in it for her?"
In rejecting Mr Hemming's criticisms as "ill-informed and
tendentious", Lord Justice Wall accepted that the family justice
system was far from perfect. Changes were needed, with greater
transparency to combat inaccurate criticism. On this occasion,
however, "the system has operated properly".
The Official Solicitor's appointment was the only proper course,
the court held. Nottingham had considered RP's position
carefully. Social services had done what they could. "While RP's
love for her daughter is not doubted, her capacity to care for
her independently is seriously deficient."
And Mr Hemming's advice to RP had been entirely adult-focussed.
"Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP."
But the MP remained unrepentant. "What is most important is that
RP herself has still not had a trial," he told me. "I may not be
a lawyer, but I believe that all people have rights and that of
"hear the other side" and the right to a trial is perhaps one of
the most important."
While continuing to allege that changes had been made to the
case files – an allegation for which the court had found there
was "absolutely no evidence" – Mr Hemming accepted that the
alleged changes "were made without malice and indeed that was
quite unimportant in terms of the case as a whole".
The MP also stressed that Nottingham did have a say in choosing
the psychologist. "Given that the local authority was part of
the decision-making as to the appointment of the expert, this
results in an apparent bias on the appointment of the agent."
Mr Hemming said that RP would be asking the law lords for
permission to appeal against the court's ruling. He was seeking
new evidence. As far as he was concerned, the case was not yet
over.
(HTM) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/rozenberg/1956703/John-Hemming-MP's-psychologist-comments-'outrageous-and-unfounded',-says-judge.html
*****************************************************