Radio Tatras International Ltd 1 Northumberland Avenue Trafalgar Square London WC2N 5BW, UK http://www.rti.

fm skype: rtipoprad ~ e-mail: studio@rti.fm FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Radio iPhone, Android and Windows8 http://audioboo.fm/tag/rti Podcast NEW http://www.spreaker.com/user/rti_radio 11 January 2013

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.

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 and Samuel Boor, to represent her in the Court of Appeal in relation to the care proceedings instituted by Surrey County Council 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 November 2012, ordering that there had been insufficient evidence before the court of first instance to rule the grandmother out as the 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 been fixed 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 local authority, pending receipt of information from the Slovak Republic on the health, emotional and education facilities that would be put in place for the boys once they were in the Slovak Republic. The Court of Appeal also ordered that information should be provided as to the involvement of the Slovak courts in carrying out the orders of the Court of Appeal and to monitor the children's welfare in the grandmother's care once they had entered the Slovak Republic. A further hearing was 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 clear intentions, the transition plan of the boys from the foster parents' care into the grandmother's care should begin with the objective that the boys should be in the Slovak Republic in their grandmother's care by 14 December 2012, but in any case in time 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 to draft. Attempts were made to return the matter to the court because of this, but this proved impossible as it was necessary to reconvene the same court that had heard the case on 9 and 16 November 2012. The earliest date that could be fixed for the next 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 acting for them pro bono. The local authority refused to embark on the transition plan before the hearing fixed for 14 December 2012 and made it clear that 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 had not considered it necessary as the local authority was intending placing the children with them for adoption under the placement 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 extremely speedily and in great detail.

Broadcast Centre, 80-88 Collingdon Street, Luton LU1 1RX Incorporated in England and Wales Company No. 5323653

Radio Tatras International Ltd 1 Northumberland Avenue Trafalgar Square London WC2N 5BW, UK http://www.rti.fm skype: rtipoprad ~ e-mail: studio@rti.fm FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Radio iPhone, Android and Windows8 http://audioboo.fm/tag/rti Podcast NEW http://www.spreaker.com/user/rti_radio

The first hearing in the High Court of the foster parents' application for a residence order was heard on 7 December 2012 when it was adjourned until the outcome of the hearing of 14 December 2012 was known. The grandmother had issued a cross 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 the grandmother, despite the Court of Appeal's orders of 9 and 16 November 2012, on the basis that it did not consider it in the children's best interest to be placed in the permanent care of the grandmother and that it still intended appealing to the Supreme 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 and refusal 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 placement orders made by the court of first instance to the local authority, made a residence order in favour of the grandmother, ordered that the local authority should begin immediately to implement to transitional arrangements so that the children leave the UK for the Slovak Republic not before 31 December 2012, but not later than 4 January 2013, and permission was granted to the grandmother to remove the children permanently from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, provided that the transition plan had been completed. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, as was a stay of the Court of Appeal order. 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 to inform 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 the children 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 by QCs. Despite the Court of Appeal having decided that the appeal should be allowed, the local authority was intransigently opposed to the children being placed in the grandmother's permanent care and had used a range of tactics to obstruct the decision of the Court of Appeal including serving documents unreasonably late, failing to respond to correspondence and 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 it was 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 the grandmother, 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 in the Slovak republic but also in this country. The Slovak Ambassador was present at all hearings and the Central Authority of the Slovak republic was legally represented as a result of public and political concern about the case. A media injunction had been ordered by the Court of Appeal. All of these factors added to the complexity of the case making it extremely difficult for an unrepresented party to manage and conduct a case with so many competing and sensitive issues. sensitive

 

Broadcast Centre, 80-88 Collingdon Street, Luton LU1 1RX Incorporated in England and Wales Company No. 5323653

Radio Tatras International Ltd 1 Northumberland Avenue Trafalgar Square London WC2N 5BW, UK http://www.rti.fm skype: rtipoprad ~ e-mail: studio@rti.fm FaceBook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Radio iPhone, Android and Windows8 http://audioboo.fm/tag/rti Podcast NEW http://www.spreaker.com/user/rti_radio

What secured 100% release and return of the children to grandmother and Slovakia As a result of Dr Telensky's funding of the grandmother's representation in the proceedings, the following was achieved by engaging one of the best Q.C. (Queen's Counsel) Steven Bellamy  The local authority's tactical approach to frustrate the Court of Appeal orders of 9 and 16 November by its inaction and obstructiveness were exposed as such at the hearing of 14 December 2012, and as a result of which the Court of Appeal was extremely critical of the local authority's conduct of the case and gave very explicit directions for the orders to be made and for the transition plan leading to the children's placement in the grandmother's permanent care. The Court of Appeal decision of 16th November was not unanimous. Lady Justice Black's dissenting judgment was that new evidence produced by the local authority at the hearing justified the return of the proceedings to the High Court for a further welfare decision as to what was in the children's best interests. It was necessary for the grandmother's QC to resist this application of the local authority and the foster parents in the course of the hearing of 16th November. If the application had been successful it would have delayed resolution of the proceedings by many months and by which time the children's attachment to the foster parents would have been even stronger and exponentially weakened the grandmother's case. Legal representation by a QC and experienced legal team gave the grandmother "equality of arms" with the other parties , all of whom were legally represented; the local authority, foster parents and children's guardian by QCs for most of the hearings. In a matter as crucial to her as the future of her grandchildren this she would have been severely prejudiced without skilled legal representation herself. The grandmother received expert advice from Steven Bellamy, QC as to the options open to her and the pros and cons of any decision she was to make in relation to the proceedings. In the context of her understandable distrust of the local authority and the welfare authority of Slovakia, this was effective in ensuring that the decisions she took in relation to the proceedings were those most likely to achieve her objective. Liaison between all parties and particularly with the Ambassador of the Slovak Republic and the legal representative for the Slovak Central Authority to keep them fully informed of the position and to address crucial issues in the process as well as vetting all the documentation sent from Slovak Central Authority. The grandmother's aim to have the children placed in her permanent care and for her to be able to return to the Slovak Republic with them as soon as realistic was achieved when, despite the clear decision and intentions of the Court of Appeal, this aim could very easily have been derailed, particularly with the foster parents securing pro bono representation form the 16th November onwards. It is quite clear that without Dr Telensky moral support of the mother as well as grandmother and his substantial funding of the legal team (4 solicitors and QC) the children would remain in the UK. We all thank Dr Telensky for his generosity and support which led to a successful return of the children (Samko and Martin) home. Dr Telensky attended all the court hearing and all the conferences at Councillors Chambers. He engaged several of his staff to help the mother and grandmother. He rented a substantial house near the foster parents so the transition of children could take place. We were surprised that the Slovak Central Government didn’t provided or funded the grandmother. We estimate that Dr Telensky spent 60,000 EUR to get the children home. We have been told that Dr Telensky is now helping other Czech and Slovak children to get back to their parents so they can return eventually home. Thank you Dr Telensky 4 th January 2013

Naomi Angell Dinesh Thakerar Legal Advisors

Reproduction in part of whole requires the express permission, in writing, of the authors, Dr. Jan Telensky and/or Radio Tatras International Broadcast Centre, 80-88 Collingdon Street, Luton LU1 1RX Incorporated in England and Wales Company No. 5323653

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful