By Ruth Green
“Given the findings against me, I’m always going to be under the microscope and the local authority will try and find anything to get me out of the family home,” the mother says despondently on the witness stand.
This feeling – a curious mix of paranoia and frustration – is a sentiment I come across all too often in family court hearings. During a break in proceedings, the father tells me outside the hearing room: “The courts don’t believe parents, and I want everyone to know that.”
Many parents who have had children removed from their care view the system – the local authority, social services, the courts and the childcare protection system as a whole – as corrupt. But this is the first time I’ve seen this spelled out so clearly both inside and outside the courtroom.
The court hears that the parents regularly record professionals, often without their consent. They did this on the day they brought their son, let’s call him Daniel, to see the GP after they allege he fell and injured his genital area.
When asked by counsel why she recorded the appointment without asking the GP, the mother’s answer is revealing: “I didn’t feel I was safe or that I would be believed.”.
By the mother’s own admission, her paranoia and lack of faith in professionals stem back to her own upbringing after experiencing years of sexual abuse by her father, who told her she’d “never be believed.” Although he was later convicted and served a custodial sentence, the mental scars of the abuse have lingered.
A family court later found that she sexually abused her older son – not Daniel. She’s undergone at least 25 EMDR (eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing) therapy sessions to treat the unresolved trauma from her childhood, as well as helping her process both the court’s findings and her grief following the deaths of two of her children. Although she continues to deny she abused her older son, she now accepts that court’s findings. Further sessions had been recommended by professionals but have so far not been facilitated by the local authority.
In this case, the mother tells the court that she and the father made covert recordings of the social worker and other professionals because they did not trust them to tell the truth. “They snip parts of conversations and make parents look like they’ve done something and take things out of context,” she says. “You’re being open and honest, but then they write it in a way they haven’t said, and it puts [parents] in a light in the family court that they aren’t.”
The father admits he’s had a chequered past, including drug addiction and time served in prison, but says that’s “all behind” him now. He says the local authority is lying about what content appears on their phones and is concerned about who the judge will believe. While the mother tells the court she hopes their son will return home, even under a supervision order, the father shares no such illusions.
The evidence from the family’s social worker highlights inconsistencies in the parents’ accounts of how the boy’s injury occurred. There are other allegations of dishonesty, including the father lying about a verbal exchange during a chance encounter in public with a previous judge who presided over their case. The father also created a Facebook profile under a false name, alleging that the social worker and her team manager were perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Evidence from one witness – a neighbour and friend of the father – who claims he was to blame for internet searches on the father’s phone for pornographic material, including incest, also does little to allay concerns about the parents’ truthfulness. The witness claims he often “borrowed” the father’s phone at anti-social hours, either by knocking on their door or by passing the phone along a long pole between their balconies.
Outside the court, both parents take me aside to tell me they support journalists reporting on the family courts. “These courts don’t believe families, and the sooner people know that, the better,” says the father. “Unless you’re a professional, you’re not believed,” the mother adds as she fiddles nervously with her wedding ring. “I don’t know how to say it any other way than it’s corrupt,” she says. “There needs to be another word to describe the feeling that the system is always pitted against you.”
Medical professionals tell the court that the parents’ explanations for the cause of the injury are not consistent with the evidence. After reviewing video evidence of an incident at the playground, a reenactment of the child falling at home, multiple photos and videos of the injury and hearing statements from the mother, father, social worker, and child’s guardian, HHJ Singleton KC concludes that she is unable to determine which parent is responsible.
She acknowledges that there is a “great deal of love and affection in the household” and recognises that both parents have overcome “traumatic” pasts – the mother at the hands of her abusive father and the father in a dysfunctional care system – but says Daniel’s care plan at home was always going to be “high risk” given their family circumstances. Additionally, she says the support system that had been in place around them had crumbled away, putting considerable pressure on both parents, particularly the father.
“It’s fair to suggest that the parents remain in a constant battle with the local authority and there needs to be an open and responsible relationship between parents and the local authority,” says HHJ Singleton KC. She denies the request to discharge the care order. The father leaves the court, quickly followed by the mother.
Daniel remains in the care of his foster carer while the local authority considers next steps, including potential adoption. The parents may feel like the system was never stacked in their favour, but on a day like today, it’s hard to see how such deep-seated distrust can ever be overcome.
Published on 21st April 2025
This is part two of a two-part series. For the previous post visit our main family court blog page
If you’re a journalist or legal blogger and are interested in being paid to contribute to our Family Court blog please email info@righttoequality.org