Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Hi Steven,

Yes, I'm aware of the right to free legal representation (non-means, non-merits legal aid) in these cases, hence my earlier comment.

The MF role is an empowering one, enabling a competent lay LIP to represent themselves. Your client clearly wasn't a suitable client to begin with, IMHO.

As you say, it's not fair to identify particular cases (though I'm not sure anything identifiable has been put into the public domain here that would enable identification of your client).

Without knowing more I cannot gainsay what you've said, but can I say that, IMHO, it is precisely the language you use that gives MFs a bad name: "forced adoption", "trampled all over legal rights". I'm sorry to say that, but it's quite emotive language that you use and if you use that in front of the client then it's no wonder she was so emotional.

Why was it such short notice? She should have had, even abridged, at least five clear days' notice. Perhaps the MF's time would have been better assisting her in getting formal representation and an advocate??

You say "rubber stamp", but unless I'm misunderstanding the parameters here, your client actually needed to obtain leave as a preliminary to even oppose the making of an adoption order (care and placement orders having previously been made). In addition, she would have received notice of the proceedings in good time to obtain "professional" representation.

MF

Your details

Cancel