Judge blasts Redbridge Council’s ‘litany of non-compliance’ in social services case
Redbridge Town Hall - Credit: Archant
A High Court judge has criticised Redbridge Council social services bosses over their handling of a case involving a two-year-old girl who may be taken from the care of her mother.
Mr Justice MacDonald said bosses at the London Borough of Redbridge had “comprehensively” failed to comply with his directions and the case had been “very significantly” delayed.
He said barrister Paul Pavlou, who has represented the council at hearings in the family division of the High Court in London, had told him that bosses were instigating a review in an attempt to establish what had “gone wrong”.
The judge has complained of a “litany of non-compliance” with directions he had given relating to the management of the case in a preliminary ruling.
He said evidence - including police witness statements - had not been filed in accordance with directions.
You may also want to watch:
Neither the girl at the centre of proceedings nor her mother was identified.
Mr Justice MacDonald said a lower-ranking family court judge had ruled that the girl should leave her mother and go into long-term foster care.
Most Read
- 1 NHS nurse assaulted at east London hospital
- 2 Redbridge parents' group donates six new laptops to families in need
- 3 Restaurant faces losing licence after allegations of illegal club nights during pandemic
- 4 One in 20 may have had Covid-19 last week in Redbridge, Newham and Barking and Dagenham, figures suggest
- 5 Residents furious after car park and lift flooded since before Christmas
- 6 Queen's and King George hospitals appeal for volunteers to support end of life patients
- 7 Restaurant stripped of its alcohol licence
- 8 Covid deaths increase at Queen's and King George hospitals this week
- 9 Growing public support for tougher pet theft sentences
- 10 Double murder accused remanded in custody over ‘brutal’ stabbings
The woman had appealed and Court of Appeal judges had ruled that a High Court judge should review the case.