Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
21Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
119922740 Note on Slovak Children Case

119922740 Note on Slovak Children Case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by Leigh G Banks

More info:

Published by: Leigh G Banks on Jan 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Radio Tatras International Ltd
1 Northumberland AvenueTrafalgar SquareLondon WC2N 5BW, UK http://www.rti.fm skype: rtipoprad ~ e-mail:studio@rti.fm FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Radio iPhone, Android and Windows8http://audioboo.fm/tag/rti PodcastNEW http://www.spreaker.com/user/rti_radio 
 
Broadcast Centre, 80-88 Collingdon Street, Luton LU1 1RXIncorporated in England and Wales Company No. 5323653
 
11 January 2013
Note on case of Re B for Dr. Jan Telensky
I have had conduct of the case of Re B on behalf of Eleonora Studencova, the maternal grandmother of Martin andSamuel Boor, to represent her in the Court of Appeal in relation to the care proceedings instituted by Surrey CountyCouncil against the children's mother and father.
Background
At the point that I began representing the grandmother, orders had been made by the Court of Appeal on 9 November2012, ordering that there had been insufficient evidence before the court of first instance to rule the grandmother out asthe boys' permanent carer, that her appeal should be allowed and that a residence order should be made in her favour,replacing the orders made by the Judge at first instance in favour of the local authority. A further hearing had beenfixed for 16 November 2012 to progress the matter in the hope of perfecting the orders.
At the hearing of 16 November 2012, the Court of Appeal continued the care and placement orders made to the localauthority, pending receipt of information from the Slovak Republic on the health, emotional and education facilities thatwould be put in place for the boys once they were in the Slovak Republic. The Court of Appeal also ordered thatinformation should be provided as to the involvement of the Slovak courts in carrying out the orders of the Court of Appealand to monitor the children's welfare in the grandmother's care once they had entered the Slovak Republic. A further hearingwas to take place as soon as possible to review the information to be received from the Slovak Republic and, if satisfactory,to make the residence order in favour of the grandmother.It was implicit but not specifically set out in the order of 16 November 2012 that, in the light of the Court of Appeal's clearintentions, the transition plan of the boys from the foster parents' care into the grandmother's care should begin with theobjective that the boys should be in the Slovak Republic in their grandmother's care by 14 December 2012, but in any case intime for Christmas.It proved impossible to agree the terms of the order that the Court of Appeal had left counsel for the parties for the parties todraft.Attempts were made to return the matter to the court because of this, but this proved impossible as it was necessary toreconvene the same court that had heard the case on 9 and 16 November 2012. The earliest date that could be fixed for thenext hearing was 14 December 2012.At the hearing of 16 November 2012, the foster parents were for the first time represented by Solicitor and Counsel actingfor them pro bono.The local authority refused to embark on the transition plan before the hearing fixed for 14 December 2012 and made it clearthat it fully intended appealing to the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal did not reconsider the order that they had made.The foster parents issued an application for a residence order on the basis that they had not previously done this , as they hadnot considered it necessary as the local authority was intending placing the children with them for adoption under theplacement order that had been made by the court of first instance.The children's guardian supported the local authority and the legal representative of the Central Authority of the Slovak Republic supported the grandmother's position and provided the information requested by the Court of Appeal extremelyspeedily and in great detail.
EXCLUSIVE:
The following report was issued to RTI for broadcast. The report is from the UK legal team, totally financed by Dr. Jan Telensky,which represented the Slovak family who at the time had spent over two years attempting to regain control of their two Slovak children from
the UK’s Social Services.
 
 
 
Radio Tatras International Ltd
1 Northumberland AvenueTrafalgar SquareLondon WC2N 5BW, UK http://www.rti.fm skype: rtipoprad ~ e-mail:studio@rti.fm FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Radio iPhone, Android and Windows8http://audioboo.fm/tag/rti PodcastNEW http://www.spreaker.com/user/rti_radio 
 
Broadcast Centre, 80-88 Collingdon Street, Luton LU1 1RXIncorporated in England and Wales Company No. 5323653
 
The first hearing in the High Court of the foster parents' application for a residence order was heard on 7 December 2012when it was adjourned until the outcome of the hearing of 14 December 2012 was known. The grandmother had issued across application for the striking out of the foster parents' application for a residence order.By the hearing of 14 December 2012, the local authority was still firmly opposed to the children returning to thegrandmother, despite the Court of Appeal's orders of 9 and 16 November 2012, on the basis that it did not consider it in thechildren's best interest to be placed in the permanent care of the grandmother and that it still intended appealing to theSupreme Court once the order of the Court of Appeal was perfected.At the hearing of 14 December 2012, the Court of Appeal were extremely critical of the local authority's intransigence andrefusal to implement the transition plan, which had resulted in it being impossible for the children to be in the Slovak Republic in time for Christmas. The Court of Appeal allowed the grandmother's appeal, set aside the care and placementorders made by the court of first instance to the local authority, made a residence order in favour of the grandmother, orderedthat the local authority should begin immediately to implement to transitional arrangements so that the children leave the UKfor the Slovak Republic not before 31 December 2012, but not later than 4 January 2013, and permission was granted to thegrandmother to remove the children permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, provided that the transitionplan had been completed. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, as was a stay of the Court of Appealorder. An expedited transcript of the court's judgment was directed.The local authority left court on the basis that it would be applying to the Supreme Court forthwith for a stay of the Court of Appeal order of 14 December 2012. Late on the evening of 16 December 2012, the local authority e-mailed the parties toinform them that it had changed its mind and would not be appealing to the Supreme Court.The transition plan began on 17 December 2012 and was completed by 31 December 2012. It was so successful, that thechildren left the UK for the Slovak Republic in the grandmother's care on 1 January 2013.
Why was it necessary for the grandmother to be represented in the Court of Appeal proceedings?
The reasons why it was necessary for the grandmother to be legally represented were:-
 
The Court of Appeal was very keen that the grandmother be represented.
 
The grandmother does not speak English and would struggle to understand and best promote her position in the Court of Appeal proceedings, where all other parties were legally represented, the local authority and the children's guardian byQCs.
 
Despite the Court of Appeal having decided that the appeal should be allowed, the local authority was intransigentlyopposed to the children being placed in the grandmother's permanent care and had used a range of tactics to obstruct thedecision of the Court of Appeal including serving documents unreasonably late, failing to respond to correspondenceand lack of willingness to progress the proceedings and the transition plan, despite the clear directions of the Court of Appeal.
 
In the face of the above, the grandmother was extremely distrustful of agreeing to anything as she was suspicious that itwas in reality a tactic of the local authority to frustrate her case and prevent the children's placement in her care.
 
The proceedings had become extremely complex, with many parties, including the Central Authority of the Slovak Republic, with either party or intervener status in the proceedings. As such, it would be extremely difficult for thegrandmother, who is unable to speak English, to conduct the process on her own behalf and best promote her position.
 
The case had become very high profile both nationally and internationally as a result of media exposure particularly inthe Slovak republic but also in this country. The Slovak Ambassador was present at all hearings and the CentralAuthority of the Slovak republic was legally represented as a result of public and political concern about the case. Amedia injunction had been ordered by the Court of Appeal. All of these factors added to the complexity of the casemaking it extremely difficult for an unrepresented party to manage and conduct a case with so many competing andsensitive issues. sensitive

Activity (21)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Leigh G Banks added this note
Read this ...
Leigh G Banks added this note
Telling the truth ...
1 hundred reads
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this
Leigh G Banks liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->