Posts Tagged ‘Ridley & Hall Solicitors’

Newer Entries »

Nigel Priestley to address Campaign Meeting in Parliament

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldNigel Priestley, Senior Partner at Ridley & Hall Solicitors has accepted an invitation to speak at a campaign meeting at the House of Commons, hosted by Stephen Twigg MP.

Grandparents Plus is organising a national day for members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Network on Thursday 28th October.

He will share a platform with Lynn Chesterman from the Grandparents Association.

Anne Begg, Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and DWP Minister Steve Webb have also been invited to speak as well as a number of other representatives from family groups and grandparent carers themselves.

The purpose of the day is to highlight family and friends carers as a group who may be disadvantaged by welfare changes and cuts in children’s services.

He has been asked to cover topics that include the recent legal victories he has won on behalf of Kinship carers.

Commenting he said “ There is a risk that local authorities may use the budget cuts as an excuse for not putting in place proper support for family and friends carers. With local authority budgets under pressure there is a fear that kinship carers could lose out.”

For further information about the day and the organisation please see http://www.grandparentsplus.org.uk/

For more information, please contact:

Nigel Priestley, Ridley & Hall Solicitors, Queens House, 35 Market Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2HL    

Tel: 01484 – 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lawyers support Jane Tomlinson Appeal in Leeds 10k corporate challenge

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010
Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421

The Jane Tomlinson Appeal was set up by a very determined Yorkshire woman to help children’s and cancer charities across Yorkshire, the UK and the globe.

Before her death in 2007 Jane Tomlinson CBE raised £1.85m through a series of incredible physical challenges. Ridley and Hall entered a team in the Leeds 10k and joined the Corporate Challenge to raise funds for the Appeal. For some of us the training and then the run was quite a physical challenge!

Congratulations to all of our Leeds 10K finishers – and thanks are due to  the staff at Ridley and Hall who baked cakes sold and bought dresses and sponsored the runners. With their help, it made a fantastic day to remember for all of us.

Ridley & Hall Solicitors run Leeds 10k in support of the Jane Tomlinson Appeal

British running legend Paula Radcliffe MBE started this year’s run, finishing the last 100m with three-year-old daughter Isla. Even James Cook who lead our team home couldn’t keep up with her – and the rest of us hadn’t a hope!

Tags: , , , ,

Victory for Christian foster mother struck off after Muslim girl converts

Monday, July 12th, 2010
Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

A foster mother with 10 years’ experience has won her legal battle after she was struck off when a Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity, it has emerged.

The foster carer had been banned by Gateshead Council for failing to prevent the teenager from getting baptised, even though the girl was then 16 and had made up her own mind to change religion.

The carer, a churchgoer in her 50s who has fostered more than 45 children, brought a Judicial Review against the Council after she had exhausted every other available remedy.

Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner of Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield set out the background:

  1. 1. ED was highly regarded by Gateshead Council

As a foster carer ED was subject to annual reviews between 1999 and January 2008 they were overwhelmingly positive.  She was regarded as an effective and skilled carer.  She had demonstrated particular expertise in caring for older adolescent children many of whom came into care with behavioural and other difficulties.   She was also involved in training other foster carers. She sat on working groups within the local authority’s support networks for foster carers.

One report on her said “ED has a good awareness of discriminatory issues and is an excellent advocate for the children in her care.  She is able to challenge issues appropriately if she feels it is in the best interests of the child.

2. Gateshead knew about her faith background:

She is a practicing Christian and a member of the NCLC in Newcastle.  This fact has been known to Gateshead throughout the period of her registration as a foster carer.  She has always practiced her faith openly.  Much of her social life and her leisure time is spent socialising with friends from her Church.  She regularly attends activities arranged by her Church.  At no time up to January 2008 was she told that her faith or her association with the Church needed to be curtailed or restrained in the context of her professional duties as a foster carer.

3. NS’s placement

On 30th November 2007 NS was placed with ED.  She was a Muslim aged 16 years who had been voluntarily accommodated under s.20 of the Children Act 1989 at her own request.  The child had suffered physical abuse from her father and he was undergoing a criminal prosecution as a result. ED was asked to provide a culturally and religiously appropriate environment for the young woman.  This included the provision of Halal foods and assistance to her to obtain appropriate clothing.  NS indicated to her carer that she would choose her own dress and food.  She tended to chose the non-traditional option. 

The child’s social worker was clearly aware of the fact that the child was attending the NCLC.  No issue was raised regarding her attendance at the Church. NS chose to attend the Church. ED offered the young woman alternative arrangements and sought to support her to undertake other activities while she attended Church.  NS had however been exploring her faith for two years before placement and had attended a Christian group at school in years 9 and 10.

On 13th January 2008, NS informed the Claimant that she planned to undergo a baptism at the Church.  Following a discussion with the pastor, both the ED and the pastor advised NS to notify her social worker and to obtain consent from her. Both her social worker and her team manager were told about the baptism and NS considered they had given the consent of the Council to the Baptism.  NS went ahead with the baptism.

 No steps were taken by the children’s services team or the fostering service as regards either ED or the child NS.  It was not raised in discussions or in writing with by either the fostering service or children’s services department of the local authority.

4. Gateshead’s response

1.       On  20th March 2008 at Looked After Child Review NS informed the meeting that she had been baptised on 19th/20th January 2008, ‘with the permission of the social worker although this is disputed’. The independent reviewing officer had not been informed prior to the meeting and characterised this as a ‘massive change to the plan for NS which could have far reaching repercussions for the authority’.

2.      The local authority convened a ‘standards of care’ meeting to discuss the baptism of the child and the Claimant’s role as foster carer.  A document prepared for that meeting by the Team Manager of the fostering service was entitled ‘failure by foster carer to protect the best interests of a vulnerable young person’.  The document records;

i.        That the foster carer should have prevented the baptism

ii.      That she should have steered the child away from the baptism which is described as a ‘hasty action’

iii.    That the social worker and team manager denied giving consent and that ED had failed to contact the fostering service as she was advised to do

iv.    It records that the child had acted in breach of Sharia law and endangered her own safety.

v.      That  ED was indoctrinating children in her care

3.       In early April 2008 ED had requested guidance from the local authority which informed her following the LAC review on 20th March 2008 that the young person NS was to be discouraged from attending a Christian Church  On 20th May 2008, the social worker from the Gateshead’s fostering service wrote to her detailing how she was expected to actively discourage NS from attending Church..  The advice included the following advice:

i.        Do not transport NS  to Church

ii.      Encourage her to visit friends or partake in other activities which a 16 year old would normally partake in

4.      On 30th May 2009 NS wrote to the local authority and made a formal complaint about the way she and her foster carer had been treated regarding her baptism In a letter Gateshead apologised to NS and concluded ‘this issue has not been handled in the most sensitive and consistent manner and would like to apologise on behalf of the local authority’  

5.      Despite the apology Gateshead deregistered ED in November 2008 as a foster carer

Mr Priestley concluded “My client gave Gateshead every opportunity to change its decision. They refused and a Judicial Review was issued. An order was made in her favour by the Administrative Court in Leeds this week.  Gateshead finally accepted they had acted illegally.”

“At the heart of this case is a young person’s right to choose her faith and a foster carer’s right to practice her faith.”

 ED commented:

“I was shattered by the way Gateshead acted. I had worked closely with Social services for 9 years and I felt we had a good relationship. I had chosen to work for them because I thought they had a good reputation for their work with children.

“Gateshead’s actions have had a devastating impact on me. In addition to losing NS, another girl I was looking after was taken back into care.

I lost the farmhouse I rented to look after vulnerable teenagers, due to the loss of income.

I just want to get my life back. I am negotiating with the local authority to see what proposals they will make to restore my battered financial state. I fear I shall never be free from the financial impact of Gateshead’s actions.

“Despite my experiences, I still hope to foster again in the future.  I simply enjoy helping young people.”

ED concluded “I am grateful for the backing of the Newcastle based Christian Institute who supported me at what has been a very difficult time in my life. (Contact Mike Judge for comments)

“If other people of faith in positions of responsibility find themselves in a similar situation, they should not be frightened of standing up for what they believe.”

NS cannot be identified for legal reasons. ED does not wish to be identified in case it leads to the identification of NS in the community.

For more information contact Nigel Priestley on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421

Tags: , , , , , ,

Huddersfield solicitor helps grandmother wins 5 year battle with Kent

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010
Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

A GRANDMOTHER who battled for five years with Kent County Council to be paid the same rate as a foster carer for looking after her granddaughter, has won her case in the High Court in London.

The grandmother who cannot be named for legal reasons, fought for the right to be paid fairly for looking after the 15year-old girl since she took over her care at the eleventh hour in 2005 at the request of Kent social services.

The grandmother who has now retired to look after the child was receiving just £63.56 a week for her care – over £80 per week short of the average foster parent who gets around £146.23 weekly. She is now 64 years of age.

Her case was heard before the High Court in London earlier this year. Kent County Council fought the case all the way.

In a landmark decision, Mrs Justice Black gave judgement on 7th May against the County Council. The decision means that the grandmother will now receive the same support as a foster carer. She will also get back payments from the council for their failure to pay the right allowance. She gave leave to the County Council to appeal her decision.

Nigel Priestley, of Huddersfield law firm Ridley & Hall, who represented the grandmother, said: “We’re delighted with the outcome. The County Council argued that they had no duty to the child even though their fingerprints were all over the case. Kent holds itself out as a model authority but it has been left with egg on its face. It put forward the radical suggestion that it had no significant financial duty to a child they had placed with a relative. They denied that she should be treated as a “looked after” child. The Judge rejected this argument.

“This case should not have been necessary. This case is a landmark case for Kent. It has implications for many children Kent has placed with relatives. Many carers will be losing out. That’s why Kent wants to appeal the decision. I am disappointed that Kent wants to appeal. Sadly it shows just how little they value the relatives who are making enormous sacrifices for their grandchildren”

If the decision is upheld by the Court of Appeal it is going to cost Kent a five-figure sum in legal costs and back payments. There is nothing quite like a court case to remind local authorities what they should and should not be doing.’’

Mr Priestley, who specialises in fighting cases for foster carers who look after relatives, said that the child in question had been looked after her mother, but social services had contacted her grandmother just before Christmas in 2004. She was faced with the stark choice – “Care for the child or she goes into care”.

He added that the council then took the “very unusual” standpoint that the grandmother’s care of the child was a private arrangement between the mother and grandfather.

Mr Priestley and his client launched a judicial review to challenge the decision of the authority. The judge confirmed that this was the only action she could have taken to make Kent change its mind.

Unfortunately the grandmother’s situation is not unusual in Kent. According to Mr Priestley, a trustee of the Family Rights Group, because of a shortage of foster carers, “kinship” carers are increasingly being used. However, local authorities are not supporting them. He said: “Grandparents and other relatives are stepping in to care for children because there is a shortage of foster parents and carers.They shouldn’t have to find themselves battling with the local authority for support. “This woman was asked by the local authority to step into the breach and she has to given up a great deal to care for the child.

Mr Priestley added that his client is doing a fantastic job looking after her granddaughter, but she should not have had to seek sue Kent. He said:
“She needed support from the local authority, but she found it lacking. I accept when people say that blood is thicker than water, but the fact is that when you are 58 years old you are not planning to look after a 10 year old child.”

The grandmother said:“I put myself out and expected the local authority to do the same but they did not. When I heard that I had won I burst into tears. It means so much both to me and my grand daughter. Teenagers are very expensive to bring up – every parent knows that.
I’m a pensioner and the money from Kent was the same this as it was when she first came to live with me. Prices have not stood still in the last 51/2 years but Kent’s payments did. I am very sad that Kent wants to challenge this decision – it shows they have no understanding of the financial impact of caring for a challenging teenager has on a pensioner like me.”

The Grandparents’ Association says it is concerned about the number of grandparents throughout the country who are looking after children without support.

Lynn Chesterman, the Chief Executive of the Association, said: “Unfortunately this is all too common. It’s the norm for grandparents to be given no help at all. I want to see grandparents offered the same support as those who look after children in care. Too often, as in this case, they are struggling to cope financially – living on a pension bringing up children and simply not having enough money.”

For more information, contact Nigel Priestley on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Huddersfield solicitor wins battle for Kent family

Monday, April 26th, 2010
Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

A Kent family who came to the rescue of a sister and brother have had their claim for financial support finally settled by Kent County Council.

The family’s solicitor, Nigel Priestley from specialist Family and Friends Solicitors, Ridley and Hall, Huddersfield said :“The children’s story has an uncanny resemblance to “A Series of Unfortunate Events”. The difference is that finally it has a happy ending!

But this ending has only come about after a fierce battle to get Kent County Council to accept its responsibilities.”

The children’s carer who cannot be identified for legal reasons takes up the story.

“K was 14 and her brother R, 11 when their mother died. K had been a child carer for many years prior to her mother’s death due to her ill health. The children were entrusted into the care of their uncle who within a couple of weeks decided he could not look after them.

The family home was sold. There’s now a legal battle as to what has happened to the sale proceeds which were to be used for the children.

K and R were passed from pillar to post in various private fostering arrangements – they went through 7 different placements in 2 years. They lost contact with their extended family then threatened by Kent with Care Proceedings for R they ran off to the coast.

They eventually found themselves living in squalor in a flat with a woman who had a child on the ‘at risk’ register and where K started to suffer domestic violence. She was sleeping on bare floorboards. Kent knew all about this and did nothing.

Miraculously the children were still at school. K passed her GCSE’s and got into 6 Form College.”

Mr Priestley continued the story: “At College K made friends with a fellow student. It was this friend’s mother who finally came to the rescue of the children – but not before an almost catastrophic mistake by Kent CC Social services.”

The carer went on: “This was the point at which I came to know K and started to put pressure on social services to intervene in a greater capacity than they were currently doing. K was then 16, had given up school and was supporting her younger brother by working in a residential care home. Kent CC were actually paying K £50 per week to look after her 13 year old brother.

During that time K’s employer offered both her and R free accommodation in a little cottage on the site of the care home. Social services agreed to the move of both youngsters even though (as they admitted later) they knew that K’s employer’s husband was a section 1 offender, who had recently been released from jail on licence. It should have rung alarm bells for Social Services when K was being offered free driving lessons and flying lessons. R was told he could decorate the cottage as he wished!

At exactly the same time I became aware of this, K informed me that her employers husband was coming into their cottage uninvited. He was subsequently charged with breaching his prison licence.

At that point I brought both brother and sister home to live with us where they now feel they belong and are totally integrated into our family. ”

After Kent refused financial support for the children – apart from the £50 per week they had been paying to K, the carer sought the help of Nigel Priestley.

Commenting on the case Mr Priestley said: “It took 2 years from when the children moved in with their present carers for Kent to accept their responsibilities. It was blindingly obvious to all but Kent that the County Council had significant responsibilities to these two children. From paying £50 per week the Council agreed to pay £330 per week for both children. In addition Kent have made a 5 figure back payment. Kent only acted when threatened with legal proceedings.”

“I am delighted that both children have done well at school and face a much brighter future. But it has come at a significant emotional cost to the children and a significant financial cost to their carer.

“If she had not stepped in it is frightening to think what might have happened to them.”

Their carer concluded: “Mr Priestley did an amazing job for us. But I never expected a 2 year battle with Kent. I have to say I continue to be utterly dismayed by the County Council. There seems to be such little or absolutely no sense of a duty of care towards vulnerable young people in Kent. When I spoke to one of their officials recently I was told that despite the apparent success in terms of the likely education achievements of both K and R, both their schooling and my care of them are against KCC political stance! “

For further information, contact Nigel Priestley on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421

Tags: , , , , ,

Grandparent Carer smashes key Kirklees policy

Friday, March 12th, 2010
Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

After a 4 year battle, a Huddersfield’s Grandmother’s court action has smashed a key Kirklees policy for financial support of kinship carers. His Honour Judge Langan QC sitting in the Administrative Court in Leeds has today ruled Kirklees Special Guardianship allowance policy illegal.

This has a direct impact on all current and future carers with Special Guardianship Orders.

The background (The parties names cannot be identified)

Mrs B is aged 63 years. She has no private means and receives pension credit. L was born on 16 August 2002 and is Mrs B’s grandson. The Social Services Department of Kirklees became involved with L, following concerns about the ability of his mother to look after him. In May 2005 L was assessed as a child in need. In June 2005 he was registered under the category of emotional abuse. In the same month, L’s mother was compulsorily detained under the mental health legislation. L was then placed with foster carers, care proceedings were issued, and Kirklees obtained an interim care order. L was placed with his grandmother under a Special Guardianship Order. There was a 3 year Supervision Order due to the mother’s conduct at contact. The Child has very challenging behaviour.

What is special guardianship?

In December 2005, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduced special guardianship to provide legal permanence for those children for whom adoption is not appropriate. It gives the carer responsibility for all aspects of caring for a child, who will no longer be looked after by the local authority. It is meant to help build a permanent relationship between child and carer and be legally secure but will also preserve a basic link between a child and their birth family. Special guardianship will also be accompanied by a range of support services, including financial support.

Why was it introduced?

The Prime Minister’s review of adoption published in 2000, found children generally preferred the security that adoption gave them over long-term fostering. But it suggested there were older children who did not want to make the legal break with their birth family associated with adoption. It identified the need for an alternative legal status that offered greater security without complete severance from the birth family. However many local authorities across the country are encouraging Kinship carers to apply for an SGO – whatever the age of the child. This was the first Special Guardianship order in Kirklees.

Financial Support

The core element of the fostering allowance which Kirklees would pay if L were with foster carers would be £142.49 a week. The SGOA is set at two-thirds of that rate, so that Mrs B gets £94.99 a week. Whilst child benefit is not payable to foster carers, it is payable to those on Income Support and Pension credit. Mrs B and, because she is in receipt of pension credit, no corresponding deduction is made from her SGOA. Accordingly, Mrs B receives for L £114.99 a week, which is 80.7 per cent of the core fostering allowance.

The judge said “I have come to the conclusion that the submissions which have been advanced on behalf of Mrs B are right. Kirklees’ decision of March 2006, and the policy enunciated in February 2007, to pay SGOA at two-thirds of core fostering allowance, involved a substantial departure from the relevant ministerial guidance. No sufficient justification for that departure has been provided. It follows that the decision and policy were, and the policy remains, unlawful.”

Commenting Nigel Priestley Senior partner at Ridley and Hall who represented the grandmother said: “Special guardianship allowances had been pegged significantly lower than fostering allowances aligned instead to residence allowances. Kirklees argued that it costs less to look after a child under a Special Guardianship order than under a care order. ” The court said: First, on a proper reading of the relevant guidance, which Kirklees should have followed, special guardianship allowance should be set having regard to fostering allowances. Second, that having regard to fostering allowances meant more than a token nod in the direction of fostering allowances before pegging them to something completely different – the amount of the residence Allowance. Third the Judge was scathing about Kirklees Policy. He said “most of the rationale has no logical connection whatever with the decision which it is supposedly supporting: the question is not one of right or wrong, but of simple irrelevance.”

Impact of the decision

Mr Priestley considered the impact would be:

- Kirklees must take immediate steps to align its Special Guardianship Allowance with the Fostering Allowance.

- All those with a Special guardianship Allowance paid by Kirklees must get back payments representing the shortfall in their allowance and start being paid appropriately. They need to get urgent legal advice. 

- This decision linked with the Lewisham decision should have an impact on other authorities across the country.
Kirklees in its response referred to other authorities in Yorkshire which acted in a similar way. Figures which have been obtained by Kirklees from neighbouring authorities throw up remarkable disparities, both in the nature of the scheme operated and in the amounts paid. For example the East Riding of Yorkshire County Council, very similarly to Kirklees, pays fostering allowance at £142.29 and SGOA at £92.62.

Reactions to the Judgement

“I am delighted .Everyone knows how expensive it is to bring up children nowadays! An extra £50 per week will make all the difference to me. My grandson is a livewire – he’s on the go all the time. This gives me the chance to get him involved in activities in the holidays – and to buy him the things he needs which as a pensioner I just couldn’t afford. It’s a lifeline – but it has taken me over 4 years to gain this victory” Mrs B (the Grandmother)

“The Grandparents’ Association is delighted with this ruling and are grateful to Ridley and Hall, yet again, for successfully fighting unfair decisions made by local authorities who fail to see that families are giving love and care to children. These children are vulnerable and would otherwise be in the care system. Everyday our helpline is fighting cases where budgets are put before children. We will continue to work with Nigel Priestley and his colleagues until all children in this position are treated fairly.” Lynn Chesterman Chief Executive of the Grandparents Association

“This is a very welcome judgement. Most children on a special guardianship order are being raised by family and friends carers, often impoverished grandparents, aunts and uncles or even siblings. These children are often very vulnerable, unable to live with their parents because of tragedy or trauma. We know from research that they having suffered similar adversities as children in the care system and can have very similar needs. It’s therefore vital that their carers are given the financial and practical support necessary, and that the children aren’t penalised because they are outside the care system” Cathy Ashley Chief Executive of Family Rights Group

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Battling Grandma wins Court fight for support

Thursday, March 11th, 2010
Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Bradford Council is facing a double financial whammy after an order was made in the Administrative Court today in Leeds following a 3 year fight by a battling grandmother. Permission had been given to challenge the Council’s failure to properly fund the care of a child by her grandmother. Leave was granted by His Honour Judge Langan QC to bring a judicial review against the council in October 2009 and the case was listed for hearing on 10th March. Bradford finally agreed the terms of settlement late yesterday afternoon.

Background

The child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, came to live with her grandparents in February 2007. Social Services asked the grandparents to care whilst the mother was assessed by them. The assessment concluded that the mother’s chaotic lifestyle and drug use meant she was having a negative and detrimental effect on the child’s upbringing.

Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner at Ridley & Hall, Huddersfield, specialises in working with grandparent carers, and is the grandmother’s solicitor. He commented,“By April 2007 it was clear to Bradford that the mother couldn’t meet her child’s basic needs. The council started paying towards the child- minding costs. Bradford had legal responsibilities towards the child but, typical of many local authorities, it tried to get rid of these duties. It pushed the grandmother to apply for a Residence Order. They could then have washed their hands of the child. Thankfully the grandmother sought legal advice and the application was stopped. It’s vital first to get the council to accept its’ responsibilities and start talking of how they will support the placement before taking on parental responsibility for a child.”

He went on:“What happened next is doubly shocking. First Bradford stopped paying anything for the child’s support. Secondly when we started writing to Bradford, they simply ignored our letters. We first contacted the council in April 2008 looking for answers and asking for documents. 2 years later I am still waiting. They never even responded when the Judicial Review application was served on them”

“ This case sends a very important message to carers. If the local authority wants them to apply for a Residence Order – stop! Get legal advice! In this case my client was pointed in the right direction by the Bridge Project in Bradford. If the grandmother in this case had done what the local authority wanted her to do, both she and her granddaughter may have missed out on the support she desperately needed. She will now get a significant back payment and a weekly allowance for the child.”

“More than 200,000 children are living away from their parents and being raised full time by grandparents or other relatives. According to a recent study by the charity Grandparents Plus, 93% of children are in the care of relatives due to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol misuse or domestic violence” “I am a Trustee of Family Rights Group. Experience from FRG’s national advice line confirms research studies that family and friends carers are living in financial hardship. A Grandparents Plus’s survey reveals that 66% of family and friends carers are on a weekly net income of less than £300, one in four also cares for an older or disabled relative and 80% describe themselves as “isolated” or “worried”. The grandparents challenging Bradford in this case would certainly fall into this category.”

“ Analysis by Family Rights Group shows that many grandparents and other relatives are left to struggle on their own both financially and practically. The vast majority (69%) of local authorities do not have a written coherent approach to family and friends care, and only 10% are committed to providing family and friends carers of children the same level of non-financial support as unrelated foster carers. Who knows what Bradford’s policy is – they simply don’t answer letters to tell us!” His Honour Judge Langan QC warned Bradford that the Council’s failure to engage in “any meaningful correspondence” placed the council “at serious risk of an adverse costs order”. His warning came true. As result of the settlement Bradford have a bill for back pay. They also have to the meet the grandmother’s legal fees. And they must pay her the allowance she was always due.

Commenting the grandmother said, “I am 60 this year. Taking on the care of a child at my time of life is not easy. My granddaughter has had a difficult start in life. Sadly she’s been damaged by her carer’s neglect. She’s a very challenging 5 year old. I love her but I made it clear to Bradford that our financial circumstances would make it difficult to care without their financial support. They turned on the financial tap a little for a short time – then switched it off without telling us why. Now they’ll have to pay. They have avoided having to explain themselves in court. This case could have easily been settled. As a result of the Council’s approach, it will cost the council tax payers of Bradford even more money.”

For further information please contact: Mr Nigel Priestley Ridley & Hall LLP Queen’s House 35 Market Street Huddersfield HD1 2HL Tel: 01484 538421 email: nigel.priestley@ridleyandhall.co.uk  Tel: 01484 538421

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Husband Angry About Local Care Home Neglect

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Ridley and Hall, Huddersfield, Solicitors, Care Homes, Sarah YoungA husband has won damages for his wife over the care she received at a private care home.

Aden House Ltd, which operates Aden House Care home in Clayton West agreed an out of court settlement with Sheila Maddison’s husband, Ken.

Sheila Maddison, 73, suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. She is doubly incontinent, and cannot swallow or do anything for herself. Ken had been his wife’s carer for 37 years when he suddenly collapsed at home on 6th October 2008. He had been feeling unwell but had put off seeking treatment, knowing that Sheila would have to go into a care home if he were hospitalised.

Mr Maddison explains: “I was taken to hospital for emergency surgery and my wife was admitted to Aden House. Her social worker and district nurse made sure that her medical notes and care plan were taken with her. During her 9 days at the home Sheila’s condition, which had been stable, deteriorated badly. On 15th October, when I went to see her, I found her in her room, saturated in urine. Her catheter had been removed and the catheter site was sore, bleeding and had pus oozing from it. The next day when I went to collect her from the home, I found her slumped in a wheelchair just inside the main door of the building, alone. Later on, at home, the district nurse found an abscess behind Sheila’s knee. After being re – catheterised enormous quantities of retained urine were drained; my wife must have been in terrible discomfort. It took myself and a team of district nurses six months to repair the damage.

I did not take this action for financial gain, but to highlight the total lack of safe care either in care homes or NHS hospitals, for people who can do nothing for themselves. I know of many carers throughout the country who find it necessary to spend all day in care homes or hospital wards still caring for their loved ones as they would at home.

Sheila and I would like to thank Sarah for taking on our case when nobody else would”.

Mr Maddison, on his wife’s behalf accepted an out of court settlement of £1,500 from Aden House’s insurers.

Sarah Young, solicitor for the couple, of Ridley and Hall comments: “it seems clear that the staff had no idea about looking after a resident with severe MS. One has to hope that this was a rare occurrence and that Aden House has learned a lesson from this case so that staff at this home now have the necessary skills to care for the most vulnerable people”.

For further information please contact Sarah Young on 01484 538421 Mob 07860 165850 or email sarah.young@ridleyandhall.co.uk
Sarah Young is Managing Partner of Ridley and Hall. She specialises in personal injury and contentious probate.

Tags: , , , , ,

Doncaster Council – Serious Case Review

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Ridley & Hall, Sarah Young, Press Release

PRESS RELEASE
Warren Jobling
4th December 2009

This morning the Serious Case Review (SCR) into the death of 7 year old Warren Jobling was published by Doncaster’s Safeguarding Board. Warren although profoundly disabled, was the bright, bubbly much loved son of devoted parents, Andrea and Ian. Doncaster’s ‘Care to Share’ scheme enabled the family to benefit from respite care, one weekend a month. This was provided by a Council trained and supervised carer at her home. Warren died during a weekend respite stay on 12th April 2008.

Warren is one of the 7 children whose deaths are being investigated by Doncaster Council’s Serious Case Reviews, following the “chaotic and dangerous” situation identified within Social Services.

Warren’s parents remain devastated at the loss of their son. Andrea and Ian still visit his grave 3 times a day, Andrea said “I can’t spend as long there now in the cold weather, but I still light a candle on his grave every evening” . He had a rare condition, Baraitser Winter Syndrome and is only the second person in the country with this condition and the eleventh person worldwide. The Syndrome, like Down’s syndrome, covers a variety of symptoms that must all be present for the diagnosis but may vary significantly in severity between individuals.

Andrea’s solicitor, Sarah Young of Ridley and Hall Solicitors in Huddersfield comments

” Warren’s life expectancy was uncertain, but it is not accepted by the family that ‘the medical view is unequivocally that Warren died of natural causes’ as claimed in the SCR. ”

Andrea is convinced that his death was caused by the negligence of Warren’s carer and there are separate legal proceedings, which will include obtaining medical evidence, which cannot be commented upon at present.

Warren’s death certificate states the cause of death as:

  • Acute ventilatory failure
  • Baraitser Winter syndrome
  • Severe global developmental delay
  • Epilepsy.

No post-mortem was carried out after his death.

In relation to the SCR Andrea and Ian are disappointed at the significant delay from the commissioning of the report in October 2008 to its publication today. They appreciate that the report is not an enquiry into how Warren died or who is culpable, but obviously its publication cannot fail to bring their grief and anger back to the surface again.

The family agrees with the criticism that there was “inadequate monitoring of the service being delivered”. Andrea was devastated to find out that the carer’s social worker could not speak to her after Warren’s death ; “I had no idea that he was the carer’s social worker until he said that he had to support her and couldn’t talk to me anymore. I thought he was a manager. He approved the informal arrangements that we had and I had no reason to think that this was a problem. I felt really cut adrift after Warren’s death.”

One of the most significant proposed changes is that the same standards should apply for children in respite care as those in mainstream foster care. Had this measure been in place when Warren was alive he would have had his own keyworker – who may have taken a more rigorous approach to checking up on his carer than the carer’s own social worker. The carer was recommended for deregistration in September 2008 for failure to comply with agreed procedures.

More widely, the report seems to identify a widespread historic confusion of roles within Doncaster Council that needs to be addressed. Andrea was distressed to receive a letter from the independent author, commissioned to prepare the SCR, on Doncaster Council headed notepaper. The impartiality of independent authors needs to be seen to be a reality. The reorganisation of children’s services in Doncaster is rightly now a priority for the Council.

Andrea’s assessment of the report :“I was shocked at the number of recommendations for changes in the report – but at the same time, I have to be glad that lessons have been learned which may help to protect other children in the future. I must stress that I personally have no criticism of Warren’s school, despite the number of recommendations in the report. I believe that had the other recommendations been in place when Warren was alive, he might still have been with us now. ”

Andrea and Ian still have many unanswered questions and their grief is too raw for them to want to comment further at this time. They hope that the ongoing legal proceedings may in time enable them to reach a sense of peace – for now, they remain in limbo.

For further information please contact Sarah Young on 01484 538421 Mob 07860 165850.

Sarah Young is Managing Partner of Ridley and Hall. She specialises in personal injury. Sarah has an LLM in Personal Injury Law and is a specialist in claims involving head injury. She has a record of bringing the most complex cases to a successful conclusion.

Sarah Young, Ridley & Hall

Tags: , , , , ,

Newer Entries »