With the publication of the Leveson Report, and the Prime Minister and his deputy opposing each other over its implementation, I thought readers might be interested in gaining greater insight into the situation from the perspective of a pending family law case. Totally coincidentally, it is called C v C (L Intervening) and I cannot imagine that it will ever be reported or commented upon outside of this blog.
The facts seem to be that C and C formed an uneasy partnership a couple of years ago, bringing their various offspring to the relationship. Some of these have since left the House and one, Nadine, was curiously found living in a jungle in Australia. Indeed her father sought to explain that with reference to her being expelled, as I understand it, from a children’s tea party.
C and C have also had two children of their own. Following the modern convention for giving children completely bizarre names (only this week media reports have referred to Chlamydia and Hashtag), they named them Gutterpress and Freepress. An act in itself which raised the eyebrows of the Director of the local Children's Services Department (known only as L).
C and C are struggling to keep their lively brood in check. There is a complete mismatch of parenting skills with scopes for dispute and hostility growing within the House. C and C, it is argued, are both losing control and it is feared that the situation will worsen.
Children’s Services have been actively involved with this family for some time. L is recommending that Gutterpress be removed under a care order so that Freepress can flourish, albeit with a supervision order in place . C and C are in agreement as to the removal of Gutterpress but there is a clear gulf between them as to how exactly Freepress should be supervised. Having agreed to follow the recommendations of L unless completely bonkers, there is now concern as to why there should be any dispute.
Urged on by Freepress, however, her father is standing firm. A case conference has failed to resolve matters and now court proceedings have been instituted. L has intervened so that his report can be considered in full, but we can expect this case to roll on for some time.
In the meantime Nadine has been returned to the UK and placed with foster parents pending a meeting next week to assess whether or not she can be reunited with her family.