Case should be reheard after couple has been acquitted

"A family court judge has ordered the fact-finding hearing of a case where parents had their child adopted be reheard after the couple were acquitted of criminal charges of causing injuries to their child."

"The chief of the family courts, Sir James Munby, ruled that a new fact-finding hearing was necessary for the parents of a child, referred to as X, who was born in 2012, and has been living with his adoptive parents since 2014."

"The unnamed local authority had concerns after a series of injuries on X were identified, and a judge found the case against the parents proved. The judge later refused the birth parents leave to oppose the adoption, and made an adoption order in 2015."

No case to answer

"However, at a subsequent criminal trial, “the expert evidence had expanded both in volume and, very significantly, in its ambit, but at the date of the hearing before the judge in the family court this new evidence was not to hand”."

"Prosecution against the parents was later abandoned, and they were acquitted “on the basis that there was no case to answer”."

"The birth parents then launched an appeal against the original fact-finding decision in care proceedings. The appeal was supported by the child’s guardian and the adopted parents. However, the adoptive parents said they would oppose any application to undo the adoption order..."

The rehearing will happen in October 2016.

------------------------------------

It`s always a good idea not to jump to conclusions about what may happen to a family in the future; especially before all the evidence of what happened in the past has been tested in court.

Warrant issued for man whose son was placed for adoption

"A man whose son was placed for adoption could be jailed after social services bosses complained that he harassed staff and placed material on the internet identifying the youngster."

"One of Britain's most senior judges issued a warrant for the arrest of Matthew Newman after analysing complaints by lawyers representing social services officials at Gloucestershire County Council during hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London."

"Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court - and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales - concluded that Mr Newman breached orders and was in contempt of court."

"He made findings against Mr Newman in a ruling published on Monday - and also issued a warrant for Mr Newman's arrest on Monday."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3559196/Top-judge-issues-arrest-warrant-man-son-placed-adoption.html#ixzz4766A03Ly

Everyone in family court case must stay secret

"A judge has decided that the identities of everyone involved in a family court case she oversaw must stay secret - including the lawyers."

"Local authority social services bosses asked Recorder Susan Jacklin to make decisions about the futures of three children at a private family court hearing in Bournemouth, Dorset."

"She has ruled that neither the children, the local authority which launched proceedings, nor the solicitors and barristers involved can be identified."

" `The anonymity of the children and members of his family must be strictly preserved,` she has explained in a preamble to her written ruling on the case. `The names of solicitors and counsel have been excluded in order to protect the anonymity and privacy of the children.`"

"Family court judges normally analyses case involving children a private hearings - although journalists can attend. They almost-always anonymise children in rulings but local authorities are often identified and barristers and law firms involved routinely named."

"A politician who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system said the judge's decision not to name lawyers was `nonsense`."

" `How could anyone possibly identify a child by knowing the name of a barrister? Sherlock Holmes would struggle. If that was the case half the barristers in half the courts in England would have to be A.N...` said former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. "`It's secrecy for the sake of secrecy.`"

"Nearly three years ago Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said there was a 'pressing need' for 'much more transparency' in the family justice system. He said the public had a right to know 'what is being done in their name'."

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-mp-criticises-judge-for-family-court-secrecy-ruling-11364049677633#