Blog Entries
Little b****r, I’ll kill her’: What drunk mother said after toddler climbed out of window and fell off roof Tags: Child abuse.

Little b****r, I’ll kill her’: What drunk mother said after toddler climbed out of window and fell off roof

  • Child then found by postman wandering the streets
  • Had drunk four double Bacardi and Cokes before falling asleep on sofa

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 12:24 PM on 24th July 2011

Drunk: The woman admitted drinking four double Bacardi and cokes before her daughter fell of the roofDrunk: The woman admitted drinking four double Bacardi and cokes before her daughter fell of the roof

A mother got so drunk after putting her 18-month-old daughter to bed she fell asleep and failed to wake when the girl climbed out of a window and fell off the roof

The child used a toy box to climb out of the window, before falling from a sloping roof and cutting her face.

But when the 39-year-old mother was eventually told by police what had happened, her reply was ‘Little b*****r, ! I’ll f*****g kill her!’

St Albans crown court heard that the youngster had crawled out of the flat in Harpenden, Herts in the early hours of March 18 this year.

Her mother told police afterwards that she had downed three to four double measures of Bacardi and coke at 10.30pm after putting the girl to bed.

She fell asleep around on the sofa around midnight before her daughter toppled off the roof sustaining facial injuries, cuts and bruises.

The court was told on Friday that the child was found wandering in the street in temperatures of between -2C and -3C by a postman.

He discovered her at 3.50am on his way to work.and took her to the sorting office where police and an ambulance were alerted.

She was taken to Luton and Dunstable Hospital for treatment.

When police eventually managed to trace the mother they struggled to wake her.

She eventually opened the door and was told what had happened and her reply was ‘Little b*****r, ! I’ll f*****g kill her!’

Andrew Sakarny prosecuting said a pool of blood was found at the point where the child had fallen onto the ground below

The child is now staying with her grandmother in a flat nearby in an arrangement approved by social services.

Her mother has daily access to her daughter and eventually hopes to have her back with her

Philip Sutton Defending told the court ‘She is in need of help more than punishment’ .

He added ‘This was a piece of neglect which fortunately did not result in far more serious consequences, either because of the fall or because she wandered out into the street’

He said she was not an alcoholic but someone who was a heavy drinker ‘from time to time’.

Passing sentence Judge Donald Moss acknowledged the mother had an ‘unhappy background’.

He said ‘This happened because she was careless rather than because she was evil.’

He told her ‘There but for the grace of God your daughter might have been really seriously injured or even worse.

‘If she had fallen on her head it could have been appalling.’

He said he wasn’t sure why she had said what she said to the police when they knocked at her door.

Adding: ‘I can’t believe you meant it in earnest.’

He gave her a 12 month community order and she will be subject to a three month curfew when she must remain at home between 7pm and 7am.

She will be electronically tagged for the period.

MY THOUGHTS
This case is a mockery to the many parents who have had their children wrongly into care.
The Local Authority have used the kincare clause,by placing the child with an immediate family member, which they are obligated to, but in the majority of cases, where there is very little evidence given to support removing children in the first place, the option is usually foster care.
The Mother, who has committed gross neglect in this case, has been rewarded daily contact.
PAIN are dealing with a case,where the Father has had no contact with his two children for over a month.
The two children were apparently involved in a play fight between the two siblings.
A small mark was noted at school by one of the teachers, who asked the girl how the injury occurred?
The teacher involved Social Services, the children were removed from school on an emergency protection order.
Two court hearings have resulted in the Father having to hand over his passport to the Court,the first hearing was also  heard so that the injunctions could be granted to stop the Father going anywhere near the school, on the first occasion the exclusion was 500 yards from the school, the second hearing was to instigate another injunction.
The injunction in this case, was to prevent the Father from going 200 yards near to the school.
Contact has not been the option at present, DEFINITELY NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN.
PAIN LANDMARK CASE WIN Tags: Social Services system abuse.

Here is a recent article in the Times - the most important newspaper in legal circles. It makes some salient points and reaffirms Brendan Fleming's excellent reputation in Family Law:

 

If We Cut Legal Aid,

Do Families Not Bleed?

 
Camilla Cavendish
September30 2010
 

As a poignant case in Coventry illustrates, slashing legal help for vulnerable people could prove disastrous.

Two days ago, the parents of three children won the right to name the local authority that had tried three times to take those children into care before admitting that it lacked the evidence to support its claims. Coventry City Council landed taxpayers with a £400,000 bill, which Judge Clifford Bellamy, sitting in the High Court, said was a “matter of concern” when the “children were happy, settled and, within the bounds of what is possible in the confines of their overcrowded home, well cared for.”

On the day that the High Court is due to rule on a last-ditch attempt to save the legal aid contracts of 1,100 family law firms, this is a story that shows just how much we need legal aid and how it can be abused.

In 2002, after the couple's second child was born prematurely, Coventry council was contacted by a health worker who was worried that the family were over-using medical services and subjecting the children to unnecessary hospital admissions. This immediately triggered suspicions of “fabricated illness,” a condition in which parents exaggerate children’s medical symptoms. The suggestion was that the parents were more worried than was normal about their premature baby. His name was placed on the at-risk register under the category of emotional abuse.

Yet the parents' attitude was not entirely surprising. One child suffers from serious visual and co-ordination difficulties. One had a hernia and a haematoma, and was almost killed by an overdose of morphine wrongly administered by a nurse. Their GP said he did not view their visits as excessive.

A more relevant concern was perhaps that the house owned by this family is clearly too small for them. The council worried that the house was chaotic and untidy and that the family were in debt. What they needed was support. What they got was, they felt, harassment. The council repeatedly noted that they showed a “marked failure” to engage with social services, and that the children did not have a relationship with their paternal grandparents. “We are still looking over our shoulder,” the mother told me yesterday.

The case against these parents rolled on through the system, gathering more and more nonsense on the way. In the High Court, Judge Bellamy found that social workers had relied on one medical report, compiled for them by an expert, without properly challenging that expert, and without considering the children’s genuine health problems. Only one health professional had ever expressed a concern about fabricated illness six years before the case was brought. Judge Bellamy ordered Coventry Council to pay £100,000 towards the parents' court costs, and has allowed it to be named although the council racked up more public funds resisting this, claiming that “this family could now be identified in their community, and this could cause them harm.” The family wanted the council to be named. They want accountability. They want an apology.

The parents were lucky to have a good Legal Aid solicitor. For most of the case, they and their solicitor stood alone against the council, the guardian ad litem and the children’s solicitor. Their team had to read through 4,500 pages of health and social work records presented by the council an outrageous burden. Far from having his nose in the trough, Brendan Fleming, who acted for the parents, made representations to the court that the medical report was excessively long and wastefully expensive.

The question is now how many solicitors will continue to be able to do such work. This afternoon the High Court is expected to rule on whether the Legal Services Commission (LSC) acted lawfully in awarding new Legal Aid contracts to only 1,300 of 2,400 family law firms. These contracts were due to start tomorrow but have been suspended until November, pending the outcome of the Law Society's judicial review.

The LSC says that its aim is not to cut the budget, simply to allocate the same amount of legal aid between fewer high-quality firms. But there is widespread concern that some experienced childcare lawyers have been left off the list in favour of others that charge knockdown prices. I have watched both at work, over the years. I know whom I would prefer to have on my side in navigating the very complex family justice system.

I find talking to lawyers about legal aid a bit like talking to advocates of the international baccalaureate. The top-line argument is easy to grasp, but the detail quickly becomes opaque. Every change that has been made to legal aid has brought apocalyptic predictions from the legal profession. The introduction of fixed fees two and a half years ago, for example, does not seem to have led to the disastrous short cuts that were predicted. But I suspect that, just as the lawyers have shouted themselves hoarse, we maybe now at a genuine tipping point.

As the Government undertakes yet another legal aid review, there is clearly a risk of cutting to the point where some people who need Legal Aid are denied it or that it becomes, increasingly, a trainee solicitor acting in the Crown Court without supervision.

Money is tight. Kenneth Clarke's Ministry of Justice must deliver two billion pounds of cuts from its nine-billion-pound budget. The legal aid budget is two billion pounds and rising inexorably. Far too many cases seem to come to court that should be settled outside, particularly divorces and custody battles where one parent is using the children as pawns to fight the other.

Yet the family justice system is in a terrible state. Cafcass, the organisation that is supposed to provide children's guardians to the courts seems to be in meltdown. Cases are delayed, waiting for guardians, which can only harm children whose parents really are a danger. Social workers are overwhelmed. If lawyers start to take short cuts then the risk of wrongly removing a child, or wrongly leaving one, can only rise.

Coventry Council treated the Legal Aid budget, quite wrongly, as a limitless pot to pursue a traumatised family. Yet that family could not have defended itself without Legal Aid used wisely by a good lawyer. The Government has no duty to bankroll solicitors. But it needs to tread carefully to make sure that it does not deny access to justice.

Camilla Cavendish was named Campaigning Journalist of the Year 2009 for her work in exposing miscarriages of justice, which convinced the Government to open the family courts to the media in April 2009.

© Times Newspapers Ltd 2010 Registered in England No. 894646 Registered office :1 Virginia Street, London, E981XY

RSS
Search

Recent Comments
"Well done to Nigel Priestley and James Cook, and all at Ridley and..."
In: Ridley & Hall wins Law Firm of the Year 2013
by: alisonegypt

This website is powered by Spruz