by A girl has been removed from her mother’s care in Wales after it was claimed the child was “severely malnourished”. The mother broke down in tears when the allegations were heard in a family court case in Cardiff because she could be allowed more contact with the five-year-old.
During the hearing the judge, Justice Morgan, summarized the history of what she described as a “very unusual situation”. The girl was an infant when the Vale of Glamorgan Council successfully applied for her to be removed from her mother’s care because it was alleged that she was not being fed properly. With the care order the girl was placed with her father and she has been “thriving” ever since, the judge said.
Judge Morgan was not the judge in the original case, but she said she had read the judgment, which found that the council had established “serious allegations” against the mother. The allegations included that the child was “indeed malnourished”. At this point in the hearing – which was held on a video link – the mother began to shout at the judge: “I have evidence against all this that you have not even thought about. I am not making another judgment on these lies.”
READ Next: A horrible accident left me with brain damage, then private investigators started following me and now I’m ruined
READ Next: The brothers destroyed the man’s life in the barbarous pub as they beat each other to his girlfriend
When the judge warned her she would be deported if she didn’t stop interfering, the mother angrily responded: “I’m not a 10-year-old. Nobody’s going to look at my evidence.” After another warning, the judge resumed her summary of the original case, which concluded with findings that the child had “lost a significant amount of weight” to the point that “she was within a very short period of time after for her to be permanently affected in her growth and weakness. in its development”.
At this, the mother started shouting again: “She has never lost weight. It has been medically proven that she has never lost weight.” She was then kicked out of the video conference, although her solicitor Rachel Vickers remained on the link. Mr Justice Morgan moved on to talk about an application made by the mother last year for the care order to be withdrawn.
That request was unsuccessful, said the judge, who explained that a “serious incident” had occurred before that situation. This allegedly involved the mother shouting at a social worker, intimidating her and refusing to let her go during an argument about lack of contact with her daughter. The mother denies this.
Since then, another order has been made, renewing the council’s permission to withhold contact between her mother and daughter. The mother has now gone back to court seeking permission to apply for a contact order with her daughter. Miss Vickers said her client was “filled with despair” at the thought of missing any time with her daughter. And the solicitor told the court that it appeared the girl’s father would “support contact between the mother and the child”.
Ms Vickers said the dad had opened “positive lines of communication” with the mother and had recently sent her pictures of the baby dancing, a video of her riding a bike, and a message about her reading skills. “Everyone has been accepted with gratitude [the mum] and she is shared with [the dad] who enjoyed it as well [the child] doing, showing that she is a smart girl,” she said.
The solicitor said: “The mother does not know whether the local authority are aware of the father’s recent contact with the mother or, if they are, whether they support it or against him. corresponding videos to share with them [the child] from her, for example, of the mother reading. This was not done because although it had happened before, successfully and happily, the attitude of the local authority was always that all contact must go through.
“The mother also knows that she does not know what it is [the child’s] The answer would be a contact from her given the time gap since she last saw her mother. The mother is afraid that some of the father’s recent contacts will get him into trouble and he will come out [an end] of all contact by any means. That is not her intention. She would prefer the local authority to see this as it appears — an attempt by the father to move matters forward for good [the child].”
Miss Vickers argued that if permission is not given “it is not clear how matters will be resolved for this little girl who is growing up in the care of her father without any input from her mother”. But the judge said she was struck by the results of the previous judgment that the dad had a “vulnerability” to the mother’s “persuasive” personality.
Before the hearing, the mother had written the following in a statement: “Regardless of what application this is the court needs to know that [my daughter] should never have been taken from me. The decisions that have been made are wrong and she should not be subject to intervention from the local authority which has done nothing but harm her and causes parental separation when it was not needed, wanted, justified or warranted.
“I have said this time and time again, I have extensive evidence to support what I am saying here – I tried to appeal but after the abusive events where my daughter was forcibly taken from me, that was impossible. That evidence is here to be seen by anyone who is willing to listen to what I have to say — a mistake that should never have been made and which I have spent every day since trying to correct.”
Towards the end of the hearing, Ms Justice Morgan said she was “distressed” that the council had failed to give Mr Vickers access to documents, such as progress reports, from looked after children’s review meetings (it that’s when children’s review services consider whether the care plan is meeting the child’s needs). Ms Vickers had been looking for such documents as long ago as last October but she did not find them. “Whatever failures” there are in the relationship between the mother and the council, those documents should be provided, said the judge, who added that it would be difficult for Mr Vickers to properly advise his client about the prospects of her application will be successful. The judge ordered that the documents be sent to Ms Vickers, and the case was then adjourned to a later date.
If you would like a journalist to attend a family court hearing in Cardiff, please email us at conor.gogarty@walesonline.co.uk
