header-logo header-logo

Adoption row rumbles on

11 June 2009
Issue: 7373 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Official solicitor controversy could go to European Court of Human Rights

The controversy over the adoption of a three-year-old child with disabilities whose mother was judged to lack the intelligence to cope, could be referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

The woman, known as “Rachel” in newspaper reports and “RP” in the court report, has been backed by John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who also acted, along with the woman’s brother, as her “McKenzie Friend” during the court hearing.

Hemming, who is campaigning for mother and child to be allowed to live together, came in for severe criticism by Lord Justice Wall at the hearing last year, in RP v Nottingham County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 462, over his allegation that the expert clinical psychologist was biased in favour of the local authority.

Wall LJ said: “I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it.”

Rachel’s daughter was discharged from hospital into the care of foster parents, and has never been in the sole care of her mother. Rachel was represented at subsequent hearings by the official solicitor, on the recommendation of an independent clinical psychologist, owing to the difficulties she had in understanding information.

Rachel later argued that she was unaware that she was being represented by the official solicitor until after the placement order, however, Wall LJ judged“wholly untenable any suggestion that RP did not know that the Official Solicitor was acting on her behalf. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary”.

Elspeth Thomson, partner, David Gray solicitors and cochair of Resolution’s children’s committee, says: “In my experience the information the Official Solicitor gives to parents is good. I can’t see a situation where the European Court of Human Rights is going to say the Official Solicitor should not
be appointed to look after the interests of parents without mental capacity.”

Issue: 7373 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll