A girl has been taken from the care of a Welsh mother after she claimed the child was "severely malnourished". The mother broke down in tears as allegations were heard at a family court in Cardiff over the possibility of her having more contact with the five-year-old.
During the hearing, the judge, Mrs Justice Morgan, summarised the history of what she described as "a very unusual case". The girl was a baby when Vale of Glamorgan Council successfully applied to remove her from her mother's care because she was allegedly not being properly fed. The care order saw the girl placed with her father and since then "she has flourished", the judge said.
Mrs Justice Morgan was not the judge in the original case, but she said she had read the verdict, which found that the council had found "serious allegations" against the mother. The allegations included that the baby was "indeed severely malnourished". At this point in the hearing - which was held via video link - the mother began shouting at the judge: "I have evidence against all this that you haven't even thought of. I don't want another verdict on these lies."
READ ALSO: A terrible accident damaged my brain, then private detectives came after me and now I'm ruined
READ ALSO: Brothers destroy man's life in brutal pub assault after argument with girlfriend
When the judge warned her that she would be thrown out if she did not stop interrupting, the mother responded angrily: "I'm not a 10-year-old. No one is going to look at my evidence." After another warning, the judge resumed her summary of the original case, which had ended with the findings that the baby had "severely lost weight" to the point that "within a very short period of time she would be permanently stunted and developmentally impaired."
At this point, the mother began screaming again: "She's never lost weight. It's medically proven that she's never lost weight." She was then kicked out of the video conference, although her lawyer Rachel Vickers was still on the link. Judge Morgan went on to discuss an application the mother had filed last year to have the care orders revoked.
That application was unsuccessful, the judge said, explaining that there had been a "serious incident" in the lead-up to the case, which allegedly involved the mother shouting at, intimidating and refusing to let go of a social worker during an argument about the lack of contact with her daughter. The mother denies this.
A further order has since been made, extending the council's permission to withhold contact between the mother and her daughter. The mother has now returned to court to seek permission to apply for a contact order with her daughter. Ms Vickers said her client was "filled with despair" at the thought of missing out on time with her daughter. And the barrister told the court it appeared the girl's father "would support contact between the mother and child".
Ms Vickers added that the father had opened "positive lines of communication" with the mother and had recently sent her photos of the child dancing, a video of her on a bike and a message about her reading skills. "All have been gratefully received by [the mum] and she shared with [the dad] her joy at how well [the child] does, which shows that she is a smart girl," she said.
The lawyer added: "The mother does not know whether local authorities are aware of the father's recent contact with the mother or, if they are aware, whether they support or oppose it. The mother has not provided any associated videos to share with [the child] from her, for example, from the reading mother. This was not done because it was something that had happened before, successfully and happily, but it has always been the local authority's view that all contact should go through them.
"The mother is also aware that she does not know what [the child's] response would be to her contact given the gap in time since she last saw her mother. The mother is terrified that sharing the father's recent contact will get him into trouble and lead to [an end] of any contact of any kind. That is not her intention. She would rather the local government see this for what it appears to be: an attempt by the father to advance matters in favor of [the child]."
Mrs Vickers argued that if consent was not granted, "it is unclear 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 findings of the previous judgment that the father had "vulnerabilities" to the "persuasive" personality of the mother.
Before the hearing, the mother had written in a statement: "Regardless of what application this is, the court must be aware that [my daughter] should never have been removed from me. The decisions that were made were wrong and she should not be subjected to the intervention of the local authority who have only done her harm and caused parental separation when it was never necessary, wanted, justified or warranted.
"I have said this repeatedly, I have abundant evidence to support what I am saying here - I have tried to appeal, but after the abuse proceedings where my daughter was forcibly taken from me, that was impossible. That evidence is here for anyone who is willing to listen to what I am saying - to correct a mistake that should never have been made and that I have tried to correct every day since."
Towards the end of the hearing, Judge Morgan said she was "astonished" that the council had not given Ms Vickers access to documents, such as progress reports, from the children in care review meetings (where child assessment services assess whether the care plan is meeting the child's needs). Ms Vickers had requested such documents in October last year but had never received them. "Whatever shortcomings" there were in the relationship between the mother and the council, those documents should be provided, the judge said, adding that otherwise it would be difficult for Ms Vickers to properly advise her client on the prospects of her application succeeding. The judge ordered that the documents be sent to Ms Vickers and then adjourned the case to a later date.
If you would like a journalist to attend a family court hearing in Cardiff, please email [email protected]
