A father fighting a local authority in the family court narrowly escaped jail for contempt of court yesterday.
We may only identify him as ‘EL’ and his fourteen-year-old son as ‘J’ on instruction from Judge Richard Scarratt, pursuant to rules designed to protect the secrecy of the family courts.
[At the time of writiing, we were not aware we could name the father under rules covering ‘committal proceedings’ (sending people to prison) in the civil courts. But we shall not correct it. The article stands.]
Father posted notes and pictures
The judge said EL posted notes, an image and the name of his son, identifying him as a child in care.
He also had a picture of himself and his son on Twitter and has posted tweets identifying ‘ J’ and his school. Another post identified a contact centre and its manager.
These activities contravened a reporting restrictions order in the case made by Mrs Justice Theis in September 2015.
It was never stated in evidence or in the submissions of Mark Chaloner, barrister for Medway Council, precisely how any member of the public could actually identify the son from this information. Nevertheless, Judge Scarratt decided the case was proven.
Local authorities fear the light
But His Honour criticised Medway Council for seeking (in vain) to have the case heard in private. ‘Only in rare cases should committal proceedings be heard behind closed doors and this is not one of them’, said Judge Scarratt.
EL’s supporters were consequently in court. Many of them were also parents of children unjustly, they told this reporter, in the care of local authorities.
Attempts such as that by Medway Council to hold the case in private only strengthen the public’s view that local authorities are ashamed of what they do in the family court.
Suspended sentence in family court
When it came to sentencing, His Honour was clearly conscious that if he sent EL to prison it would hand the father a publicity coup. A fine would also run of the risk of non-payment and consequent committal. So he handed down a suspended sentence of 56 days and told EL to behave himself for a year.
EL and J are only allowed to meet for a couple of hours four times a year, in the ‘contact centre’. The father says Medway Council have not always kept to that ‘care plan’. Mr Chaloner, who acted decently throughout, undertook to make sure Medway would arrange a meeting this month. Judge Scarratt demanded a report next month on that matter.
Father’s campaign will continue
EL is clearly not going to let things rest. He set up a new protest on the steps of Canterbury Combined Court immediately after the hearing. His campaign will continue, he told this reporter, until his son is returned.
Jer 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
