Morning:
8°c
With a single dessert and just two glasses of wine our bill was kept in check - but the effort of doing so was not much fun
Latest: Gordon Brown apologises for his poor handwriting and for misspelling the name of a dead soldier in a letter to the young man’s mother
More...
'Disgraceful': Judges condemn council that rushed through adoption of a baby girl before her natural father could prevent it
Last updated at 00:22am on 03.05.08
Critical: Justice Thorpe said East Sussex County Council handled a girl's adoption disgracefully
Lord Justice Thorpe said the decision to place the child with adoptive parents 24 hours before the father was due in court to fight for his daughter gave the "clearest inference" that the council was out to "gain its ends by means more foul than fair".
He accused East Sussex County Council of deliberately setting out to prevent the father from being heard in court and, in the process, adding to public mistrust of the secrecy surrounding Family Courts.
In an unprecedented attack on social services, the High Court judge referred to the Government "bonus" system which Rewards local authorities financially for meeting targets on adoption.
He said: "Many assert that councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children that they have placed for adoption.
"When such suspicions are rife, a history such as this only serves to fuel public distrust in the good faith of public authority."
His views were echoed by fellow judges Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Wilson, who called the council's actions "disgraceful" and "an abuse of power".
The judges went on to dismiss - "with regret" - an appeal by the father against the enforced adoption of his daughter, but the two-to-one majority decision was issued with a scathing condemnation of the behaviour of the council.
The child, identified only as J-L, was born in June 2006 after the parents had a casual relationship.
The man did not find out he was the father until nine months after the birth, when the council asked for his co-operation in a DNA test.
The child was living with her mother in a social services unit at the time but in June 2007 the mother left her in the unit and the council recommended she be put up for adoption.
Scroll down for more...
Adoption heartache: The girl, who cannot be named, is now with new parents (pictured posed by model)
The father was served with legal documents about the adoption process but was in hospital recovering from a heart attack and unable to respond.
He made no attempt to challenge the council's actions later when it went to court to obtain care and placement orders for the girl.
But last January, when the father discovered his daughter was about to be adopted, he employed a solicitor to lodge an application for leave to revoke the placement order.
The application was made on January 10 and the solicitor immediately phoned and faxed a letter to East Sussex council informing it about the challenge and seeking assurances that the baby had not been placed for adoption.
The council did not reply and went ahead regardless of the impending case, organising a first meeting between the child and her prospective adopters on January 15 and handing her over to her new parents 24 hours before the father's case could be heard at Brighton County Court.
These actions halted the case because applications for revocation can be made only before a child is placed for adoption.
The appeal ruling said the county court judge "reluctantly upheld that unattractive submission".
Lord Justice Thorpe, who sided with the father, called the outcome "a manifest injustice" and warned of "an evident risk" that other parents "may suffer similarly in future".
He criticised the council for ignoring the solicitors' letter, adding: "The council's failure to answer that letter and subsequent placement on the eve of the hearing give rise to the clearest inference that the council was out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair."
Lord Justice Thorpe was overruled by his two fellow judges who said "with regret" that the words of the Adoption and Children Act were clear and compatible with human rights legislation.
However, Lord Justice Wall said: "The agency, I am satisfied, quite deliberately set out to prevent the father from being heard."
Urging the father to take the case further, he added: "I have come to the conclusion that the only word I can use to describe it is 'disgraceful'. That is not a word I use lightly."
East Sussex County Council insisted it had acted in the best interests of the child.
A spokesman said: "We are pleased the court confirmed that we were legally entitled to do what we did.
"We are, however, very concerned about the comments made by the court and we will carefully review how we exercised our duties in this case and examine our procedures in light of what the judges have said."
In January social workers in Nottingham were criticised for acting illegally when they removed a newborn baby from its teenage mother.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Munby ordered that Baby G be returned immediately to the 18-year-old because Nottingham Social Services had not obtained a court order for its actions.
The child was later taken back into local authority care after the correct procedures were followed.
Reader views (5)
The people, who are public servants, are probably feeling very smug about their actions. They probably think that the failure of the father to get his child back is a "result". I sometimes wonder how odious people manage to get into positions of power. What has happened to this country, that we have allowed things to become so bad?
Clearly our authorities have no trouble in recruiting our own people with no conscience.
- Stephen, London
Whatever next, these dictatorship social workers taking children away because the parents have a "fattening" packet of crisps in their store cupboard? Something has to be done to curb these "do-gooders" before everyone has their children taken away.
- Fq, London, UK
When social services kidnap a child they always claim it's in the child's best interests. When they finally have to give the child back, that child is permanently damaged from the experience of having been "lawfully" removed from its parents. If people took collective responsibility for all the children in their neighbourhood then we wouldn't need heavy-handed social workers with their police back-up to solve social problems.
- Neil, London UK
In an unprecedented attack on social services, the High Court judge referred to the Government "bonus" system which Rewards local authorities financially for meeting targets on adoption.
He said: "Many assert that councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children that they have placed for adoption.
There it is, for all to read, two very definitive reasons why the secret family court is so wrong and it gives the lie to the SS's claim to try to keep families together.
I hope the father pursues the case and gets the responsible people the sack.
- Les, Essex, UK
Disgraceful? I think what we have here is today's definition of evil.
- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark
