Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Internet Search Engine with ASR Page Ranking Technology
Tell A Friend!

 P:   “This is a copy of the DRAFT appeal. it consists of Judge Orrell's judgement with M's comments and grounds for appeal in brackets. it's only a rough copy, we need to spend a bit more time on it. it should give people an idea of the kind of criminal activity that happens behind closed doors in a family court.   I'll keep you updated as things progress.”

I: “Replaced identifiers, to satisfy a recent court order, with either alternative text or asterisks.

    Summary grounds for appeal: Case ***********

    We seek leave to appeal the judgements and orders of Judge Orrell and Judge Williscroft in this case jointly and severally on the following grounds:

    1. Judge Williscroft's order is void on the multiple counts that:
      a, the order she made was based on a void order and was therefore automatically void;
      b, she admitted that it was on the basis of no evidence;
      c, she failed to establish the validity of the EPO despite it being challenged in evidence by Mr Roberts;
      d, she failed to examine or account for the lack of any evidence of an EPO hearing or judgement in breach of procedure and that
      e, she explicitly refused to take responsibility for her own judgement.

    2. Judge Orrell's judgement contains errors of fact and of logic as set out in our analysis. It is unsound.

3. Judge Orrell's process in creating his judgement is in error in law because he persistently gives greater status to unattested second and third hand written evidence than to counter evidence given in person and cross examination under oath.

4. Judge Orrell owes a debt of honour to Mr Roberts having previously treated him unjustly and is therefore disqualified in this case as any judgement in Mr Roberts favour would have been construed as judging on his own behalf.

5. Mr Roberts was denied a fair hearing in being denied appropriate representation for the final hearing.

6. An unfair hearing as evidenced by the clear bias of the judge in trying to make the local authority's case for them as set out in our analysis of his judgement.

7. Evidence was deliberately withheld by the local authority as set out in our analysis of the judgement.

    8. Judge Orell has invested an incidence of his own imagination with the status of evidence thus contaminating his own judgement.

    9. Mr Roberts was denied a fair hearing as Judge Orrell prevented cross examination of a witness - such cross examination would have shown the witness to be incompetent - and then proceeded to base his judgement substantially on the partial and untested testimony of that witness.

    10. Judge Orrell has made himself both a party and a witness in this case thereby doubly disqualifying him from giving judgement.

    11. Mr Green's inaction has on several counts, as stated in our analysis and witnessed by Judge Orrell, damaged Mr Robert's case through no fault of Mr Roberts, leading to a substantively unfair hearing.

    12. Judge Orrell's claim to know Mr Roberts’ true state of mind reaches beyond arrogance into irrationality further undermining a sound judgement.

    13. Judge Orrell's own behaviour in these proceedings, the mode, pacing and format has been so erratic and at times, so threatening to both litigant and advocate, as to create an atmosphere counter to the rational examination of the facts and not conducive to the certain arrival at a just outcome.   The bounds of due process have been stretched beyond any reasonable definition of that term.

    What follows is a transcript of the judgement interspersed with our analysis in brackets thusly [analysis].

    This should be read in conjunction with the judgement as originally written in order both to comprehend the original flow and subtleties of the text of the judgement and to ensure that any corrections to spelling or grammar that we may have accidentally introduced are not credited to the original author.

    Analysis of judgement: Case **********

    Roberts vs. Staffordshire County Council in the matter of Baby Roberts, child of Paul and Asha Roberts.

    1. This is the final hearing of applications for a care order and a placement order in respect of Baby Roberts.   Baby Roberts was born on the 4 April 2013 and is therefore aged eight months. His mother is Asha Theresa Roberts and his father is Paul Michael Roberts.

    2. Mrs Roberts has been represented by Mr Green who has brought his customary skill and good sense to the case.

[Praise for Mr Green is not only irrelevant but inappropriate given Judge Orrell's own statements to the effect that Mr Green's inaction had damaged Mr Robert's case in these proceedings.]

    3. Mr Roberts, despite my strong representations, has chosen not to have a solicitor but has been represented by different McKenzie Friends who have varied in their abilities; on the last day he had no representative.

[Inaccurate to the point of being a deceptive attempt to discredit Mr Roberts who made it clear, repeatedly, that he had been unable to obtain a solicitor and not that he had chosen not to be represented by one.

[His requirements were only that the solicitor would work for him and not for Staffordshire County Council and that he should be able to afford the fees. No solicitor could be found to meet these simple requirements despite extensive searches on Mr Roberts behalf.

[The variation in representation by McKenzie friends was due only to Mr Roberts and his representatives being repeatedly excluded from discussions on the scheduling of the case and the repeated objections, on spurious grounds, of Staffordshire County Council's legal team to Mr Robert's McKenzie friends. On the last day, which was neither scheduled nor advertised as such in advance, Mr Roberts did indeed have no representation and the case should not have proceeded, certainly not to a conclusion without the opportunity for summing up from his side.

[On the grounds that Mr Roberts was denied a fair hearing in being denied appropriate representation for the final hearing we appeal against the conclusions of this judgement.]

    3. The proceedings were started by a successful application for an emergency protection order on the day of Baby Roberts’s birth. On the 12 April 2013, District Judge Williscroft made an interim care order and her judgement is in the court bundle.

[This presumes a great deal and tries to cover a multitude of sins by simply ignoring them. The application for an EPO was not as far as can be established properly or lawfully made on the day of Baby Roberts’ birth or at any other point. The copy given to Mr Roberts shows all the signs of being a forgery and it it quite likely that in fact no hearing took place at all. At no stage has any witness to the hearing been produced and neither the evidence supposed to have been presented to that hearing or the judgement were made available to Mr Roberts or even to the court at the first subsequent hearing held before Judge Williscroft.

[Judge Williscroft's order is void on the multiple counts that she explicitly refused to take responsibility for her own judgement, admitted that it was on the basis of no evidence, failed to examine or account for the lack of any evidence of an EPO hearing and therefore failed to establish the validity of the EPO despite it being challenged in evidence by Mr Roberts. The order she made was based on a void order and is therefore void. The entire hearing before District Judge Williscroft was in fact a farce without a shred of due process.

[So keen was Judge Orrell to later cover this up that he threatened to unlawfully imprison Mr Robert's McKenzie friend after he publicly exposed this hearing as having been a shambles without law or or process.]

4. Directions were given on the 1st May 2013 providing for the filing of evidence. The mother has filed a statement and given evidence. The father gave evidence without having filed a statement, explaining that everything he wanted to say was on Facebook.

[All the evidence the father wished to present is already accessible to the court and was in the public domain before the case began. Without a solicitor. Filing a statement would not have been beneficial or added anything to his case.]

4. Apart from that, the order has been ignored.

[ What order? The only order mentioned to date is the ICO which was ignored only by Staffordshire Social Services. This is a nonsense statement unless it is an aborted attempt to charge the local authority with breaching the order? ]

4. The father has not respected the confidentiality of the proceedings and on the 19 June 2013, I committed him to prison for six weeks in respect of breaches both of orders and undertakings. Each term of imprisonment was suspended on the condition he complied with the terms of an order made by Hedley J on the 14th June 2012, an order made by me on the 1 May 2013 and an undertaking given by the father on the 12 April 2013.

[The undertaking given on the 12 April 2013 had already been discharged by this point and the order made by Hedley J on 14 June 2012 is no longer in accordance with Family Court division practice as laid down by Judge Munby in this very case in which regard the order made by Judge Orrell on the 1 May 2013 is also invalid. So this is as much as to say that the prison terms were suspended unconditionally, i.e. cancelled, subsequent to Judge Munby's ruling. It is also worth noting that in publicly naming the father Judge Orrell has also breached his own draconian precepts of secrecy and by his own approach should therefore be presenting himself to parliament to be dismissed as a judge.]

5. The parents have had three other children: C who was born on 4 November 2008 and L who was born on

30 November 2002. Those children have now been adopted within the extended family following care and

placement proceedings in the Burton on Trent Family Proceedings Court.

[The insertion of the details of Burton on Trent court here may be seeking to given the impression that this

was some separate process. This is however completely at odds with the repeated insistence throughout the case

that this was the same case and the absolute reliance of Staffordshire County Council's claims on the outcome

of those proceedings.]

5. The third child, W, born on the 25 April 2012, was also the subject to care and placement orders

made in this court on 27 November 2012 and has now been adopted outside the family.

[True, although Judge Orrell neglects to mention his own involvement in that case which he apparently “doesn't

Remember” which included such highlights as having Mr Roberts ejected from his court for asserting the

supremacy of Common Law and blackmailing Mr Roberts, by his own admission, by threatening to unlawfully remove

his wife's contact rights.]

6. It follows that the present proceedings commenced less than five months following the making of the care order in respect of W and the events of the two earlier sets of proceedings and the threshold criteria and the assessments directed to be undertaken during the form the foundation of the local authority's case today in respect of Baby Roberts.

[This is a desperate, ungrammatical and misleading attempt to given the impression that this case follows so closely on the tail of W's case, which began 49 weeks before Baby Roberts 's, that the two can be run together without further concern. Judge Orrell is trying to make Staffordshire's case for them and in doing so he shows his bias in this case.

[This is clearly unfair and on the grounds of an unfair hearing we appeal to have this judgement overturned.]

7. The parents have a lengthy history of involvement with the local authority and at times have received considerable support; their level of co operation has varied.

[This neatly sidesteps the uncontested fact that while receiving the support to which they were entitled there were no concerns sufficient to warrant considering the removal of the children. These all occurred after 'experimental' removal of support and other abnormal interventions by Staffordshire Social Services and associated Staffordshire County Council employees.]

7. The essential chronology is this.

August 2008 Mr and Mrs Roberts married.

(No they didn’t.  Marriage was November 2000 why is Orrell trying to imply? - Intbel)

May 2003 L then aged 5 months was moved to her paternal grandparents because the mother had pushed L's

car seat aggressively with L in it. She was on the Child Protection Register for about 2 months.

July 2006 L again on the Child protection Register.

March 2007 L removed from the Register.

April 2008 case closed. Parents coping. Mother pregnant with C.

November 2008 C born and case referred to Children's Services.

[What case, I thought it was closed?]

June 2009 case closed as the parents had improved.

September 2009 Parents not cooperating and children made the subject of a child protection plan.

[Not cooperating with what, the case was closed in June?]

March 2010 Review. Children to remain on plan.

[ i.e. nothing to report so why put this in? Perhaps to excuse the otherwise random insertion of the untested claims that follow to try to make them appears as established fact ]

Following the Review the mother chastised C.

[ What for and why on earth mention that here? ]

The father was showing signs of not be able to cope.

[What signs? says who? and when was this given in evidence?]

7 May 2010 mother agreed to leave family home.

[This drastically underplays the pressure put on both parents by Staffordshire CC for the mother to leave despite there never being any stated or obvious interest of the children in her doing so.]

25 May 2010 children placed first with the paternal and then with the maternal grandparents. The
mother returned home. The children were placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, Kate and Tom Buxton.

Paul -, you'll need to provide details on what else is wrong with this chronology. It's clearly partial and selective and probably inaccurate but I can't assess that. I note that very little little of this was established in evidence to the court so where Judge Orrell is getting it from I don't know. I can only presume that he's taking Staffordshire CC's word for it.  - M

8. Both parents had difficulty in engaging with the local authority.

[When? In what way? This abstract disconnected and ultimately meaningless statement appears to be, once again, Judge Orrell trying to make the local authority's case for them.]

8. The Facts and Reasons of the North Staffordshire Family Proceedings Court hearing the application for the Emergency Protection Order stated that "Although Mr and Mrs Roberts are not present, we are satisfied that they are aware of the proceedings on the circumstances of the case justify proceeding in their absence because they are refusing to answer the door to police and social services. They are aware of the application as they have posted on Facebook that an EPO is taking place and that they will not open the door to speak to either the police of the local authority."

[ Here Judge Orrell is quoting from what are supposed to be the proceedings of an EPO hearing, presumably in Baby Roberts 's case although this is not stated and is very unclear given the way this follows straight on from a chronology that is talking about L and C's case and has as yet not even made mention of W.

[What he quotes however was never disclosed in evidence to Mr Roberts, probably due to being forged sometime in August and cannot therefore form part of this judgement.

[On the grounds that evidence was deliberately withheld by the local authority and that despite repeated

complaints to the court they failed to comply with Judge Orrell's instructions and he failed to ensure their

compliance, we appeal for the overturning of this judgement.]

8. The assessments in the earlier two sets of proceedings are still recent and have been given considerable prominence in Baby Roberts 's case.

[ This is so much as to repeat what has already been said, once again trying to make the local authority's case for them and to slide it in at the end of long paragraph so as to appear consequent to something that it is not.]

9. Mr Paul Livock was jointly commissioned to carry out a psychological assessment of both parents in the case of C and L. His report is dated 28 January 2011.

[A this point it should be noted that Mr Livock's report was thoroughly and comprehensively discredited by the testimony of both parents, who were supposedly his sole witnesses and the sources for what he wrote. On this ground Staffordshire's witnesses were repeatedly warned in the court not to rely on the words of Mr Livock who is at best so confused as to have mixed up the parents in this case with some other case or at worst is simply a deranged fantasist.

[In either case he is not an expert, unless that is taken to mean highly paid idiot and his report has

no credibility or evidential basis whatsoever.]

10. Mr Livock said the mother suffers from epilepsy and she has a below level cognitive ability and has a

particular problem processing information.

[Below what level? This is nonsense. ]

10. She is emotionally immature and prone to unpredictable, aggressive outbursts.

[This was partially true several years ago but the underlying medical issue was resolved. As to emotional immaturity this statement is simply wrong.]

11. The father has a low average or average intelligence and suffers from episodes of severe depression which on occasions have led to suicidal ideas and self harm.

[In fact the father's intelligence is average to above average ( he has proven university entrance capable ), his occasional depression has always been situationally dependent and he has not self harmed]

12. Local authority intervention at times has been intensive put piecemeal and lacking clear objective as a result a piece of work might not be rightly targeted.

[What piece of work? Is this Mr Livock trying to excuse his own inadequacy or some sort of veiled criticism of the local authority that they have not clearly stated to him which set of lies they'd like him to write ?]

13. The mother's physical and learning difficulties had led to the father taking the main responsibility for the home and the children and at the same time becoming the mother's carer.

[This gives an overstated impression of the Mother's physical needs. Outside of occasional temporary debilitation due to epilepsy she is very physically capable, recently assessed by ATOS as having no level of disability.]

13. The additional burden of the father's periods of depression had become too much for both parents.
[Misleading and untrue. The father's depression was fully under control until after the mother was persuaded to leave the family home by extreme an unreasonable pressure from Staffordshire Social Services.]

13. By the time of the report, home life had reached crisis point.
[The only crisis in fact being that their children had been taken away.]

13. The mother had left the home and the father, on advice of his solicitor, was considering divorce

[ ncorrect. The mother had returned home and the father, however advised by a solicitor who was not acting in his best interest, was not considering divorce proceedings.]

14. The parents had some insight into the problems and some acceptance of their past shortcomings. However they felt they had been misled by the authority in respect of the plan for adoption which they found shocking and alarming. Both parents had the capacity to benefit from assistance.

[They were indeed misled and could indeed have benefited from assistance but none was offered or provided. To this date no post adoption counselling has ever been offered to the parents in any of the cases.]

15. Neither parent would be able to cope as a sole parent and it was felt that it would be better to do the work when the children were not in their care.

[In direct contradiction with the local authorities policy to separate the mother and father and make the father sole parent.
What work? None was done.]

16. The mother complained of violent confrontations with the father and said he was good at winding her up. Until asked by the psychologist, she had not seemed to have considered the effect of domestic violence on the children.

[A straight lie, no such statements were made by the mother as she and the father both testified under oath.]

17. The father said the mother's aggressive behaviour was presently a spur of the moment thing. He accepted he found her limited abilities challenging.

[Contradicted under oath by both parents. By this point Mr Livock is in simply extruding a work of pure fiction and no further commentary is really worthwhile. His nonsense should have been struck from the record rather than forming a central plank of this judgement.]

18. The mother would require specialist training and support in order to make sustainable improvement and would greatly benefit from LDST particularly if supported by an advocate. The father's lack of understanding of the impact of domestic violence on the children could be dealt with by CBT.
[Notice the switch from criticising the mother to criticising the father. Is Mr Livock confused about who is the mother and who is the father or just not sure which lie he is being paid for?]

18. Both parents would benefit from the parenting courses on offer from the local authority.

[And yet the local authority has never actually offered them any parenting courses, how strange.]

19. Importantly, Mr Livock set out three primary objectives which have to be achieved before any return to full time parenting could be considered. They were, and, in my view, remain [a] the mother's epilepsy required review to determine an appropriate treatment regime as there was a possibility her aggressive behaviour had a pathological origin.

[In fact the cause of the mother's occasional outbursts was diagnosed and successfully treated as stated in evidence by both the mother and father. It had nothing to do with the epilepsy which is very mild and already controlled successfully with drug treatment to the extent possible.]

19. [b] the father's depressive condition should be reviewed to establish he was receiving - and adhering to - appropriate medication

[In fact the father's condition was assessed as presenting 'no risk of harm' by a specialist NHS team.

Judge Orrell has seen the signed letter evidencing this in person and chosen to ignore it.
The father has also been assessed repeatedly by his GP as requiring no medication because he does not

currently have depression.]

19. [c] the mother's physical capabilities should be reviewed to identify precisely which tasks she was capable of performing to an adequate standard and whether she would benefit from physical aids or physiotherapy.

[This is abject nonsense. Quite incredible that Orrell could leave this idiotic drivel in after having met the mother who is quite as physically robust and capable as he is.]

20. Put simplistically, Mr Livock was recommending that, instead of the previous scattergun approach, the parents' different needs should be identified and addressed holistically and they should be supported with a multi disciplinary package of support.

[He may indeed have been recommending this although the relevance to this judgment is hard to fathom

given that none of this was ever provided.]

20. If that could be achieved and provided the parents gave and maintained their whole heated cooperation, the return of W to their care was a possibility.

[Suddenly we are back in the W case where no review was even carried out to see if the parents had complied with Mr Livock's requirements before W was adopted without consent.

[This statement also confuses, as Staffordshire Social Services have repeatedly done throughout the case, cooperation with their plans with the best interests of the child. Where their plans, such as separating the parents, have not been in the best interest of the children then the parents have every right and in fact duty not to cooperate. This has been and remains both their position and that of the law.]

21. The mother was given permission to obtain an independent social work report on both parents from Lois Sayers whose report is dated the 30 January 2011.
[This gives the impression that Lois Sayers was chosen by the mother which is of course not the case. She was in fact hand picked and paid by Staffordshire Social Services so unsurprisingly did what she was paid to do. Criticised the parents.]

21. A number of points emerged from the assessment:  

a. The parents have different needs.
[hardly a revelation considering that they are different people.]

b. Despite psychological assessments, there remained significant gaps in the knowledge of their functional strengths and deficits.
[Which can be simply be read as, I don't know what to criticise them for because their is nothing specific in the paperwork I've been given.]    

c. The mother refused to acknowledge her parenting deficits or to take responsibility, preferring to blame others. She had poor engagement with professionals and failed to prioritise the needs of the children.
[So much drivel. Essentially the mother wouldn't tell me what it is she can't do and I don't know so I'll criticise her for not telling me.]   
(I think it could be something to do with the chemicals used in making those silly wigs - Intbel)

d. It was difficult to gauge how she would engage or have benefited from an independent social work assessment.
[Read, I can't see any reason why she needs an independent social work assessment.]

d. The prognosis was poor mainly due to her lack of motivation to improve parenting skills.
[Read I don't know what's wrong with her parenting and neither does she.]

e. It was likely the father would not cope well if he were the sole carer.
[ How interesting considering it was Staffordshire Social Services policy previously to make him the sole carer on the grounds that he would do a better job without the burden of caring for the mother. So which is it. Is the father better off without the mother because she's so incapable or is he less capable on his own than with her, implying she has some capabilities exceeding his?

[The stance of Social Services has flip flopped between these two contradictory positions over their course of the past few years seemingly depending on what they thought advanced their case most at the time. Thus making liars out of them not merely individually but as a matter of long term policy and departmental practice.]

e. His poor concentration needed more investigation.
[More likely he just got bored talking to someone of so little relative intellect. There is no evidence of poor concentration on Mr Roberts part at any point in these proceedings.]

e. Overall, the father was more likely to benefit from a parenting assessment because he was better motivated.
[An interesting contradiction of Judge Orrell's own comments but only from the point of view that he has neglected to omit it as he has omitted so much else that does not support his opinions. Also an example of the flip-flopping previously mentioned. At this point Social Services were attacking the mother rather than the father]

f. Because of intellectual problems with both parents, the parenting assessment would have to be over a longer period as opposed to a shorter more intensive period.
[Nonsense, only of relevance to note that no such a long term parenting assessment was ever carried out.]

g. It was very difficult to be precise about timescales;
[Timescales of what? she could at least be precise about that.]

g. however, if the parents did raise their parenting standards, they would need a package of support.
[ It may be noted that it is really quite implausible to raise your parenting standards when you are forcibly prevented from doing any parenting.

[It may also be noted that they previously had a package of support with which they were happy and which was working until it was removed without their consent by Staffordshire Social Services]

22. An experts’ meeting took place on the 3 February 2011 at which Paul Livock reported that he had not been able to get a clear picture of the help being given for his depression either from the father or his general practitioner.
[This is disingenuous nonsense from Paul Livock to avoid admitting that the GP had only been confused by his request because the father wasn't suffering from depression and therefore unsurprisingly was not receiving treatment for it.]

He also said that in the past the mother had engaged in and then withdrawn from services provided through the general practitioner.
[One worries for this man's own sanity. That's right, when we're ill we make use of the GP's services and then when we get better we stop making use of them. Apparently Mr Livock expects it to be otherwise, perhaps in his case it is but that is hardly normal.]

He said an advocate might get around this problem.
[He's supposed to be some sort of vaguely medical expert and he proposes to interfere in the relationship between the mother and her GP. By now it should be clear that this man is either a congenital idiot or is himself seriously ill.]

The father was completely anti establishment and it was difficult to persuade him to accept he needed support.
[ So the father has political views. I wasn't aware that political views were considered the domain of medical experts anywhere outside the old Soviet Union?  Yes it would also be quite difficult to persuade me I needed support for a medical condition my GP said I didn't have.]

He tended to the very suspicious.
[Who wouldn't when faced with someone as obviously detached from reality as Mr Livock.]

23. Lois Sayers reported for second time on the 13 February 2011. She said:

a. The most suitable assessment of the parents would be a residential parenting assessment followed by a home-based continued assessment.
[This recommendation was never carried out.]

b. The children's current placement away from the parents should not be disturbed.
c. The local authority should twin track the case.
[This may simply be meaningless or may imply that they should not wait beyond the residential assessment before returning the children. Unfortunately there's no way to know. However it is clear that Lois Sayers recommendations were not carried out.]

24. In W's case, Patricia Short was jointly instructed to carry out an independent social work report which is dated the 30 July 2012.

25. This was to be a full parenting assessment in the light of Ms Sayer's assessment and the

psychological assessment by Mr Livock.
[Was to be but it was not.]

25. The report was directed among other matters to whether the father had complied with any of the recommendation made in those reports and if not, why not.
[And form this point on the approach of Staffordshire Social Services has been clear. Demand action from the father, ignore and deny any evidence that he has actually complied, use his supposed non compliance as an excuse for their own failure to comply with policy, recommendations and the law and then proceed to demand more from the father. The flip-flop has by this point well and truly flipped.]

25. Ms Short interviewed the mother and father five times in the home and also observed them during contact with W.
[Did she? I was under the impression that both parents testified that it was 3 short visits.]

26. The father told Ms Short he no longer took medication for depression as he had been diagnosed as suffering from reactive depression by his community psychiatric nurse and he attributed this to post-traumatic stress associated with the removal of his children.
[ Did he? Who gave evidence to this effect because it surely wasn't the father.]

26. By contrast, the community psychiatric nurse said the father had failed to keep appointments; she had not diagnosed reactive depression nor post-traumatic stress disorder and she had not seen the father for months.
[Maybe she said that and maybe not however she never gave it in evidence so it should not be admitted as such. Are we even sure we're talking about the same person? The presumption that community psychiatric nurses are a singularity is not validated]

(The only reason to make - or keep - an appointment at a hospital is if one is in need of medical attention.   Paul did not need medical attention.   And anyway, psychiatric illnesses are just that - psychiatric illnesses as per the DSM, invented by psychiatrists in partnership with pharmaceutical companies - definitely not medical illness and rarely mental illnesses - Intbel)           

26. The father has not sought the help of psychiatric services because he is worried the diagnosis would be used as an excuse to categorise him as a unfit parent.
[ This is made as a statement when it is surely no more than an ignorant opinion and is both un attributed and false. Was this supposed to have been actually said by the community psychiatric nurse or Ms Short or is this more once sided commentary from judge Orrell masquerading as evidence? In fact the father has not sought the help of psychiatric services since he last suffered from depression several years ago. To have done so would surely have been irrational.]

26. The GP records indicated poor cooperation with psychiatric services generally.
[Extraordinary that Judge Orrell would insert this knowing that it is either a lie or an admission of a criminal breach of patient confidentiality. One could conclude he was truly desperate for anything with which to support his predetermined conclusions.]

27. The mother had not sought the review of her epilepsy and her physical capabilities which Mr Livock had recommended.
[Its patently absurd to quote this when Jude Orrell has had in his own hands the review letter from the mother's GP, via his friend Mr Green. His ignoring of evidence has now reached such a level of blatant partiality that it can no longer be put down to mere incompetence.]

28. The parents criticised each other and bickered in front of Ms Short. She had some difficulty in discussing contact with L and C in advance of the session.
[This appears to be commentary from Judge Orrell based on something or nothing but clearly not understanding the relationship of the parents. Why Miss Short's communication difficulties would be relevant other than to lower her credibility is hard to say.]

28. The contact was to be conducted by the adopters. The mother said the contact had been arranged because she had "asked the adoptive father about seeing the girls" but the father said "no it is because my solicitor threatened them. That is what they are worried about."
He refused to guarantee that he would not behave or talk inappropriately with the girls and spoke of "Gillick competence"
Ms Short added "Whilst I have never felt intimidated by Mr Roberts's attitude and his anger has never been aimed at me, I would have been concerned leaving a young child in that atmosphere. Not because Mr Roberts posed a physical threat but it is easy to see how the needs of a very young child could be overlooked in the couple's preoccupation with their exchanges and their own difficulties."
[If there is an argument or a point here it is so weak as to be indistinguishable from the noise of Ms Short trying to complain that the parents paid more attention to one another than they did to her and quite rightly so. Their 'difficulties' and preoccupation being their children who had been removed without due process, i.e. stolen and their right of access to them.]

Apparently the father did start speaking about the girls being stolen and contact ended prematurely because of that.
[What is apparent is that reports of rumours about what someone thinks might have happened once should not be reported by Judges as unquestionable fact nor used as the basis for life altering judgements. This is so 'apparent' that judges doing so should be suspended with a view to being struck off if they are found to have given false judgement on such a basis.]

29. Ms Short dealt with the parents' understanding of the proceedings.
[No she blatantly did not. She neither claimed that they understood or that they failed to understand the proceedings neither did she aid them in their understanding of the proceedings. What she did was criticised them for not agreeing with the process or the outcome.]

29. She said they showed little insight into the concerns of the local authority,
[Well the poor local authority must indeed have been mightily aggrieved by such a lack of insight. In fact the parents are well aware of the local authority's concerns to meet adoption quotas, the financial concerns of those who make money out of 'marketing' the children who are adopted and the preoccupation of Mr Tradewell as his underlings with their awesome power to 'do anything' including it would seem breaking the law, lying to senior judges, forging documents and deceiving policemen into providing cover for the kidnapping of children.]

29. although the mother was more reasonable and regularly checked her husband when he "launched into a narrative about the injustices of the proceedings". He spent a significant amount of time on the internet pursuing evidence that people connected with the case were acting unlawfully.
[Quite reasonable considering that they were and are.]

29. His views appeared to have become extreme to the point of paranoia and he used an enormous amount of energy proving his point rather than engaging with professionals.
[This is interesting. Once again we have this phrase "engaging with ..." which is on the surface meaningless but appears to be code for "doing what you're told by ...".

[It may be news to Ms Short and even to Judge Orrell but failing to do what you're told by someone who is paid to order people around is not a crime even when they are right. When they are flat wrong, an idiot, or just missing the point then sometimes a great deal of energy is required to get communication through the barrier of their self importance.]

29. The father insisted that his children and many others had been removed from their parent's care because of "performance targets and their jobs".
[Considering that throughout the entire case Staffordshire Social Services never put forward a more convincing or even plausible reason as to why the Roberts children were permanently removed his statement seems like reasonable speculation.]

29. Both parents said they would be prepared to attend parenting classes for a residential assessment.
[Nonsense, one doesn't take classes to obtain assessment. One might take classes and then be assessed but it matters not as no classes were provided and no residential assessment took place.]

29. Ms Short said "Notwithstanding this offer to engage in further assessment Mr and Mrs Robert continued to show a poor understanding of why W and L and C had been subject to care proceedings.
[Given that there was no lawful or reasonable justification for them being subject to such proceedings is this surprising?]

29. Mr Roberts preferred his version of events, being subterfuge by the State".
[The facts are all that matters and Ms Short is clearly wilfully ignorant of them.]

30. Ms Short said of the father "He expressed ambivalent views as to whether he will be willing to work with professionals.

[What a surprise given her attitude to what that means and the series of idiots and liars previously put forward by Staffordshire Social Services as 'professionals'.]

30. On the one hand he has told me he would cooperate with anyone but he has also questioned the right of professionals to enter his property.
[Ms Short is trying to create a contradiction where there is none. Mr Roberts is willing to cooperate with anyone in the interest of his children. It also remains a fact that no-one however 'professional' has an automatic right to enter his property or any right to do so against his will. The two things are completely independent of one another and Miss Short's contention that they are in conflict is either due to plain stupidity or perhaps arises from her misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'professional'.]

30. On occasions I found Mr Roberts, in particular more inclined to want to make 'make a point' than consider the welfare of his children.
[If Mr Roberts’ point pertained to the welfare of his children which is almost certain to be the case then once again Ms Short is struggling with her own cognitive dissonance, trying to see a contradiction where there is none. If she had grasped the point Mr Roberts was making then perhaps its importance to the welfare of his children would have been accessible to her confused mind.]

30. In particular his reluctance to 'let go' of issues when he was due to have contact with L and C after a long time was of concern and I understand despite some discussion he did allow his feelings and views to spill over into this meeting so much so that contact was ended early.
[Ms Short's failure to understand Mr Roberts is comprehensive. I imagine he must have found her particularly annoying and dense and it's not at all surprising that he was wound up by meeting with her before contact. She would have been better to stay out of the way.]

31. Ms Short was unclear about who did what in the home but felt the father was the more able of the two. However she said "I did perceive the tendency on Mr Roberts' part to make derogatory remarks about his wife and this together with the lack of formal knowledge of Mrs Roberts' capabilities left me wondering how much of Mrs Roberts' lack of skills were down to her either abrogating her responsibilities or her complying with her husband's belief that she is limited to an extreme.
[Ms Short certainly was unclear, confused to the point of delusional would be more accurate. Mr Roberts has no such belief about his wife and would laugh at the very idea. As to formal knowledge of her capabilities this is utterly absurd. Asking what Mrs Roberts can do is no less stupid than asking what you or I can do. The list is endless. While there are things she surely cannot do, run an Olympic marathon or lead an orchestra for example I cannot do these things either and I very much doubt Ms Short's is capable in these or a in number of other more pertinent areas either.]

32. Ms Short identified that the father was not complying with psychiatric services;
[untrue as there was no request from any such service with which to comply]

32. he was angry and appeared flat in mood
[Mr Roberts has been very angry for a very long time and has had to learn to restrain and control that anger. His anger comes entirely from his treatment at the hands of the Social Services and Family Court System. If it is to be used as a stick to beat him with then all the that is achieved is the system criticising itself by implication.]

32. and expressed extreme and bizarre beliefs about the court system and expressed persecutory ideas which then appeared to be fuelled by his searches on the Internet.
[Mr Roberts extreme and bizarre beliefs about the court system should by now be well known and understood by Judge Orrell. Beliefs such as the primacy of Common Law. That no one should be sent to prison without the opportunity of a trial by a jury of his peers. That evidence should be properly given in person and under oath rather than relying on hearsay and rumours. That proper jurisdiction should be established and procedure followed. That lawyers and Social Workers should be required to comply with court orders or go to prison just like the rest of us. That evidence should be properly disclosed and that lawyers should work for their clients not for the court.
It is unfortunate for Judge Orrell that these very same extreme and bizarre beliefs form the basis of

our legal system thus making it very difficult for him to do his job while not believing likewise.]

32. She found that conditions in the family home appeared to be good enough at that time although

the couple were experiencing financial difficulties. They struggled to understand or at least acknowledge why

L and C were not living with them.
[Again, is this surprising since the only decisive reason given by the court proceedings was 'the future risk of emotional harm', a nonsensical piece of gibberish that could be applied to any human being any where at any time and would be just as stupid. A fig leaf to cover an unjust and unlawful decision that had already been made for reasons, probably financial and to aid in the cover up of Social Services own failings, that were never honestly disclosed.]

32. The mother conceded some deficits but the father preferred his theory that his children had been stolen.
[Yet again the false dichotomy so beloved of Ms Short. She neglects to mention that the father also c
onceded some deficits but considered them irrelevant as they were not, according to the court, the law or the facts a sufficient reason to take the children and the mother agreed that the children had indeed been stolen. The two things and the two opinions are not in conflict.] (We each have our strengths and weaknesses. Each and every one of us has some deficit, or deficiency.  Unless the mother’s “conceded deficits are defined, they can not be used to support an argument for, or against, anything - Intbel)

32. Both parents were capable of learning parenting skills and they were motivated to care for their daughter. Ms Short continued: "Other factors, however, in particular their relationship, their beliefs about their capabilities, their lack of understanding and acknowledgement of where they went wrong in the past, but most significantly Mr Roberts' beliefs have left me extremely pessimistic about their ability to achieve and sustain a good enough level of parenting in partnership with professionals."
[So Miss Shorts conclusion is that she doesn't like Mr Roberts belief's in particular she doesn't like his belief that he is being persecuted for his belief's so the remedy is clear. He must be confirmed in his beliefs by being further persecuted for his beliefs despite their utter irrelevance to his ability or otherwise to bring up children. It would be overly generous to call this circular reasoning, circular insanity would be nearer the mark.]

33. Dealing with Mr Livock's three primary objectives which needed to be achieved before considered the return of the children,
[which once again she clearly did not in fact deal with]

33. Ms Short noted there was no definitive assessment of the mother's temporal lobe epilepsy and although a referral had been made to a neurologist, the mother had failed to attend.
[What Ms short failed to note which Judge Orrell knows very well is that although the mother was unfortunately unable to attend the neurologist appointment on this occasion this was of no consequence and her occasional behavioural problems had already been diagnosed and successfully treated.]

33. Ms Short said without formal details of this condition it was difficult to assess the other issues which Mr Livock had highlighted in his report, namely whether there was a causal link between her condition and her reported volatile behaviour.
[Not that either Ms Short or Mr Livock would have been qualified to make any diagnosis of a causal link had they had all possible medical information. This is nonsense particularly as any link had already been disproved.]

33. In addition, the mother's physical capabilities have not been formally assessed and there was no formal functional assessment of her daily living skill.
[Where do they get this drivel? The court was told at the first hearing in Baby Roberts’ case that Asha had been formally assessed by ATOS, the governments own supposed experts, to have no physical disability. District Judge Williscroft chose on her own account to dismiss such an assessment as worthless and not to admit it as evidence.]

33. The mother said she had referred herself to counselling but had heard nothing since.
[In fact the mother said, if my memory serves, that the counselling was ‘interesting’ but not very practical']

34. At the observed contact with W Ms Short noticed that the parents exchanged differing opinions at the risk of W's needs being unmet which coincided with the view of other professionals that the parents' provocative and volatile relationship could distract them from the role of child care.
[Opinionated drivel. It has been well established that Ms Short was utterly unable to comprehend the relationship, exchanges or subtleties of the banter between Mr and Mrs Roberts. This has lead her to form the panicked conclusion that they are disagreeing all the time which she has then had to support by making up false arguments that don't even make sense. She has failed to show one point of contradiction on which they actually disagreed in the time she spent with them or one incidence of actual distraction of anyone from anything, making her argument utterly insupportable.]

34. She said that despite recommendations to do so the parents had failed failed to pursue relationship therapy.
[In fact as Judge Orrell knows but chooses on him own account to ignore the parents have in fact attended an introductory relationship therapy session. They don't consider that therapy is needed for a relationship that isn't broken despite the continuing persistent and aggressive efforts of Staffordshire Social Services to break it.]

35. Ms Short then said "In conclusion there appear to be a number of gaps in the information as highlighted by Mr Livock; it is unclear to me, however whether or not Mr Livock had meant for the responsibility to acquire this knowledge to lay entirely with Mr and Mrs Roberts."
[This is not a conclusion, it is just a further confusion on Ms Short's part and without an idea of what information she is referring to is as good as meaningless.]

36. As I read the report, the positives appeared to be that the home conditions were adequate and both parents had cooperated with the assessment. If W had been placed with the parents they would have required daily support. In the past support had lead to an improvement in parenting.
[In the past they had far less than daily support when that improvement was observed so the conclusion that daily support would be required is both erroneous and baseless although a high level of support would certainly be welcome as the problems, minor as they were, began when the 'couple of visits a week' level of support was withdrawn. It is interesting to note that at this point Judge Orrell chooses to include that the home conditions were 'adequate'. In all the long tale below they are never again assessed and he then pronounces them 'unsafe'. He does not of course provide any basis for such pronouncement as he has none.]

36. To some extent, the situation was deteriorating as the father's views were becoming more extreme and he had made serious threats against social workers.
[Judge Orrell knows this to be false and failed to require Staffordshire Social Services to produce the evidence they claim to have of such threats. A previous police investigation found no evidence of Mr Roberts making threats and despite this and the absolute lack of evidence of any threat made by Mr Roberts Staffordshire Social Services legal team made false representation to Judge Munby during this case claiming that Mr Roberts had made specific threats when they knew this not to be true. Judge Orrell was made aware of this act of perjury and on his own account chose to ignore it. Now he chooses to repeat it and so condemns himself.

[It's worth noting that although Judge Munby didn't buy into the majority of the deception he was taken in on some points including the lie that Mr Roberts had chosen not to attend or be represented. Mr Roberts was in fact never informed about the hearing and was given no opportunity for representation. This breach of law and of practice should and hopefully will be referred to the relevant authorities for sanction against Mr Tradewell's dishonest and despicable cohort.]

36. A principal anxiety for Ms Short had been the relationship difficulties between the parents which was such that they had frequently become distracted from their childcare role.
[This as established previously is nonsense based on Ms Short's lack of the necessary intellectual capacity to understand Mr and Mrs Roberts relationship or dialog. There was no actual incidence of distraction from childcare only Ms Short's panic that it might happen based on her lack of understanding. This invention on the part of Judge Orrell is almost certainly a direct breach of some regulation or instruction to judges and is in any case a deliberate act and intervention damaging Mr Roberts case. On the grounds that Judge Orrell has invested an incidence of his own imagination with the status of evidence we appeal that his judgement has no authority.]

36. In the end, Ms Short was unable to provide an optimistic recommendation that a residential assessment would take matter any further or would be in W's best interests.
[ No. In this at least Ms Short was able but simply unwilling. As to W's best interests, she didn't even consider them as far as can be established.]

37. A further viability assessment of the parents was obtained from Diane Long of Families First and commissioned on behalf of the mother; the report is dated 6 August 2012.

38. Ms Long spent five hours with the parents at their home and then the mother visited the assessment centre to discuss what was involved in a residential assessment.
One of the principle aims of the assessment was to see whether the parents could focus on and prioritise W.
[Clearly a little hard to do when she had been taken from them before she was even supposed to be born. Can you prioritise and focus on someone who isn't there while having your every behaviour dissected by an interfering busy body?
Doubtful in the extreme!]

39. The father's motivation throughout the interview was to impress on Ms Long the L and C had been stolen. By contrast, the mother had a much more significant insight into the local authority's concerns and was receptive to doing work designed to encourage self reflection.
[Yet another pathetic attempt to set up a false dichotomy between the fathers views and the mothers. L and C were stolen. The importance of accepting this fact was clearly lost on Ms Long and so she was unable to get past this gateway issue for being able to help Mr Roberts. Mrs Roberts is more willing to live in the moment and was able to 'engage' with the 'imaginative' nonsense Ms Long was peddling despite the fact that she was of no use in helping them solve the overall issue as she was unable to see the plain truth when it was put in front of her. In this way Mr and Mrs Roberts fulfil different roles and take complimentary approaches to interacting with 'professionals'. Sadly Ms Long was unable or unwilling to grasp this.]
(Remember that one, quote: “the mother had a much more significant insight into the local authority's concerns” - this may be useful next time one of ’em attempts to cast doubts upon the mother’s capabilities or thought processes - Intbel)

39. The mother was able to take in imaginatively that C and L had been adopted and needed to be happy, but the father said he would encourage L to "divorce" her adoptive parents when she was aged 12.
[And again the false dichotomy. Neither Mr or Mrs Roberts are stupid, despite the endless repetitive inane attempts of Staffordshire Social Services to portray them as such aided and abetted by Judges who seem believe that disagreeing with them is a sign of low intelligence. They are both aware that L and C have been adopted, and that they need to be happy and also that they are not happy because they cannot go home to their parents which Ms Long and other 'professionals' choose to ignore for their own convenience. Mr Roberts believes quite reasonably that L would be happier if she was at home and would encourage her to take any course of action that would bring that about as soon as possible. There is neither any contradiction between

the parents expressed views nor anything sinister, irrational or other than in the children's best interest in Mr Roberts expressed views.]

40. Ms Long had come to the view that the father was too overwhelmed by the situation to focus on learning to developing the necessary skills to meet W's needs.
[Ms Long was clearly too overwhelmed by her own powers of literacy to remember that Mr Roberts had already brought up two healthy and happy baby daughters and therefore already had considerably more skills and experience than all the first time fathers she wasn't persecuting that day in the rest of Staffordshire.]

41. In that context, Ms Long raised the delicate question of separation...

[As if that was going to help anyone. It's difficult to comprehend whether she was merely being destructive for the sake of it or blindly following preordained instructions. Either way this was in incoherently stupid thing to do.]

41. ...and immediately detected that there were power issues between the parents and that the father was extremely reluctant to consider the possibility of separating.
[What? Did someone sit on a voltage regulator. I can only hope she was told to shut up and mind her own business.]

41. The mother was left to reflect and the father said sorry for some of his behaviour during the interview.
[What behaviour? without that knowledge the reader must bring there own bias as to whether this was a trivial comment or a serious matter.]

42. The next day, the mother contacted the assessment centre to say she wanted to be assessed alone and later visited the centre to discuss the position.
[Unlikely to be true. Much more likely she wanted to be assessed and the father could see that it was pointless. The spin here is both obvious and weak as no assessment actually took place.]

43. The conclusion of this viability study was that Ms Long was of the opinion that parents would not be able to complete a residential parenting assessment...
[Why ever not, did she think they would evaporate while they were being assessed. What onerous task would such an assessment involve that she had reason to believe after a few hours with them they would not be able to do? This was never spelled out because there was in fact no reason why a residential assessment could not have taken place other than Social Services not wishing to spend the money. The purpose of interposing this viability assessment was purely to create an excuse not to carry out the recommended residential assessment probably for financial reasons.]

43. ...and even so, the necessary changes should not be affected within W's timescale.
[ The necessary changes not being specified as there weren't any and W's timescale not being specified as there was in fact no such thing, only the commercial pressure of the local authority's target driven adoption timetable.]

43. The last two paragraphs of the report read as follows:

a. If Asha can be empowered to accept that her parenting skills can be built on following and assessment should she separate form Paul this it is my view that Families First could work with Asha as she is prepared to learn and does have the baseline understanding that the couple's previous parenting was not good enough and why.

b. Should Asha find this too painful or should she not be absolutely clear that a

permanent separation would be necessary then it is my view that no further assessments should take place in

respect of W Roberts, as it has to be welfare and future protection that remain paramount."
[Ms Long finally shows her hand. The agenda is to split up Mr and Mrs Roberts. There is no valid reason to require doing so. No benefit to W in doing so. Nothing that can be achieved having done so that could not be done anyway either with Mr Roberts participation or without. This is beyond irrational and I'm afraid can only be described as evil.

[Ms Long and those she represents should be barred from all future work with families until they themselves have been assessed for compliance with the intent of UK law and stated government policy in support of marriage. I could say more but it would extremely unpleasant both to write and to read]

44. Catherine Hassell, the team coordinator gave evidence. She said that contact had taken place on the 13 September and the 4th October but not since although further sessions had been arranged. She said the quality of contact remained poor.
[She said it but only because someone told her too. She was not at contact on these dates, had no first hand knowledge as was simply repeating lies she had been told.]

44. The mother lacked confidence and relied on the father.
[misleading and discredited in evidence from both mother and father.]

44. She struggled to feed and wind Baby Roberts...

[ a lie, except in respect of the difficulties associated with extremely occasional breast feeding]

44 ...but she spoke very kindly to him which was positive.

44. The father would hold Baby Roberts reluctantly...
[ a lie ]

44. ...and rarely spoke to him...
[ a lie ]

44. ...preferring to air his grievances. Baby Roberts is generally a fractious child including in contact. It was suggested that on those occasions the mother would persevere with him. Ms Hassell said she had not seen that;
[not surprising as she saw nothing, not being present]
(Here we have a child whose birthday was extremely traumatic, being taken, screaming from his mother’s arms in a violent confrontation; being denied natural feeding by his natural mother; having no opportunity for the normal bonding necessary -with either parent - is it any wonder the child is “fractious”?  And whose fault is that ??? !!! - Intbel)

she saw
[she did not]

she had been told that at those times the mother became anxious and needed the father's support which

he had not been able to give.
[A lie discredited explicitly in evidence from both the mother and the father]

The father's behaviour had been described as unhelpful...
[too whom and by who? It was not unhelpful to Baby Roberts and it was certainly not Baby Roberts complaining about it.]

...and on one occasion the mother had begged him to leave.
[gives a false impression. On one occasion the mother suggested that he wait outside which he did.]

45. Ms Hassell said the parents had not sought any assistance from the local authority or asked the courts for an assessment.
[A stupid lie because she was in court at the first hearing when they asked for an assessment. A request ignored by Judge Williscroft. They had not asked the local authority for assistance but only required them to comply with the court order for contact which they had failed to do: deliberately making contact virtually impossible while repeatedly attacking the parents in court for poor attendance. Staffordshire County Council staff eventually stooped as low as stealing from the cash and travel warrants Asha had to travel several miles to collect.]

45. The mother, in her latest statement, had said she would cooperate with social workers but at the contested hearing the parents had said they did not want family support workers to visit them and they would only accept visits from the community police.
[A distortion, deliberate or otherwise. The parents did not need a family support worker to visit them while they had no children in the flat. They suggested the community police as an alternative if the court wanted someone to visit them because the local beat officer had already volunteered to do this.]

46. The mother gave evidence, She first spoke of the financial and travel difficulties surrounding contact. Contact had been easier with W because the authority had provided a taxi.

[It would actually have been cheaper for the authority to provide a taxi in this case as well. They chose not to and by making contact impossible were in breach of a court order through most of the proceedings. Judge Orrell chose to ignore this despite being repeatedly asked to do something about it and make no further orders regarding transport to contact.]

46. The mother agreed that on occasions they had not made contact and had not telephoned in advance because they had no credit on the telephone.
[ Judge Orrell's utter incomprehension of Mr and Mrs Roberts financial situation was and remains apparent. He seemed to think having no credit on the phone was a matter of incompetence that could easily be remedied if they made an effort.]

47. The mother then dealt with the quality of contact. My note reads "I lost a lot of confidence but when I am with I Baby Roberts love it and play with him. Not all that is in the contact logs which appear to be negative. I try to calm him down if Baby Roberts plays up. Paul is supportive and I won't have it otherwise. I do turn to him for support - that is marriage."
[It is interesting the Judge Orrell makes use of his note here as shortly after this point in Asha's evidence he appeared to fall asleep while the magistrate sitting next to him wept quietly.]

48. She said their relationship was calm and good and only occasionally tense because of the litigation. She said they had been to a day course on marriage at Nottingham and she was going to a counselling to learn to become more confident. The father had been very good at looking after her and the girls when they were at home and she relied on the father and he on her.

49. The mother said she would welcome an independent social work report and felt they would be able to work with the authority although a lot of trust had been lost. She thought she would still be nervous and hesitant but would open the door to professionals to "prove they would not ruin my dreams and steal from me."

50. She did not accept things had not changed since the last case, She said it was eleven months on and she was now going to counselling, and had been to neurology and felt stronger she said Paul had had a
mental health check although there was nothing in writing.

51. Of L and C, the mother said "I could have done things better. I needed some more support and kick up backside. I am so willing to put things right and prove I'm not such a little girl. I want to focus on what I am capable of and not what I am not capable of. Alison Beale ( the health visitor ) seemed obsessed at pointing out bad points and not the good points which made me stressed. The flat was not clean enough for her but clean enough for the children, I accept I was aggressive towards L and I reproach myself for that and know it won't happen again."
[ The last part of this appears to be fictional, 'Reproach' is not a typical Asha word, a careful check is needed but this is very doubtful and looks like another insertion on the end of a paragraph.]

52. The mother accepted they did argue but not constantly. They would have words and then would find common ground. The mother denied the father had been violent towards her as described in Mr Livock's report and said there must have been a misunderstanding.

53. In answer to questions on behalf of the Guardian, the mother accepted that the reports in the earlier cases had said work had to be done. She remembered Mr Livock and said "he set out a lot of recommendations to make the local authority confident I could parent; I didn't act on them. That was stupid on my part but I have now acted on them although it's a bit late in the day. I agree I still have a lot of work to do on issues." She added "I never got a referral; I had no telephone numbers. I accept he said it could take a long time and I should have done it there and then. May be it was irresponsible of me but I am glad I've started."

54. The mother also remembered Diane Long had suggested the father should have counselling and be assessed and she agreed "perhaps Paul should have done it."
[Unfortunately a stretch of the core Asha's evidence is missing here, perhaps Judge Orrell was not the only one asleep or perhaps he has simply chosen to omit it giving a selective and rather biased view of her evidence. Her eloquent appeal that she loved her son and wanted him back which moved the magistrate to tears is not something I can reproduce from memory nor is it so irrelevant to the conclusions of this case that in a long form judgement dredging desperately for something to say it can be left out without comment.]

55. Mr Roberts, the father gave evidence. By no stretch of the imagination was he his own best advocate.
[This is ironic from judge that had threatened to unlawfully remove his advocate and proceed without one.]

55. However, to his credit, he did give evidence which he must have found a distasteful experience and

there were moments when he tried to address some of the of the suggested problems. His case is that C and Baby Roberts

were kidnapped and W removed under a void order.
[ Here Judge Orrell is confused, he misses the point that taking a child by force from its parents without a valid and lawful order is kidnap. Given that in L and C's case there was no order, in W's case the order was void, it had not been stamped by the court, and in Baby Roberts’ case the order is a likely forgery which has been contested but never examined by the court and was in any case not lawfully obtained because the criteria could not have been met, then in all three cases the children were kidnapped, stolen, taken without lawful authority or the permission or consent of their parents.]

55. The local authority wishes to place Baby Roberts for adoption because the older child adopted easily. The authority has adoption targets to meet and individual social workers want to better their prospects by meeting those targets. The authority is malicious. there is and never has been anything about his quality of parenting, his health or personality or his relationship with the mother or her parenting to justify removing any child from them. He does not have a mental health problem and has not made threats against social workers.
[A reasonable and coherent if somewhat compressed summary of the fathers case.]

56. The father said the District Judge ought not to have made the interim care order. He was insistent the the prior emergency protection order was a void order.

[In this he is very likely correct but as the order has never been examined by the court nor any witness to its creation found this has yet to be established. Judge Orrell's choice to proceed without examining this puts his judgement and Baby Roberts 's welfare at risk. As such he has neither motive nor right to go on in ignorant presumption without establishing the facts with regard to the order unless he too suspects it to be void and wishes to cover this up by simply ignoring it.]

56. He argued that the order he has is a photocopy but on the top edge a pen indentation can be discerned so that the original may not have been the same as the photocopy.
[Again Judge Orrell is confused or wilfully misunderstanding what he was told. The order is part photocopy and partly written in pen indicating that is was probably signed while blank, photocopied and then filled in later. This is consistent with it being forged for the purpose of deceiving the police into cooperating with Social Services when no judge could be found to hear the case after 5pm.

[The case evidence and EPO judgement were not made available at the first hearing before Judge Williscroft and she should have dismissed the case on this basis. The EPO judgement, almost certainly a forgery, was inserted into the bundle at one later hearing so that Judge Orrell got a copy but it was then removed again and no copy was ever made available to Mr Roberts.]

56. Additionally, the order does not bear a seal and does not identify the Justices who granted the order.
[now Judge Orrell is just being obtuse in a weak attempt to make Mr Roberts look foolish. The EPO in

Baby Roberts 's case bears a seal that looks like it was done with a hammer and at no stage has Mr Roberts claimed

otherwise. He in fact commented from the first how they had been sure to put the seal on this time. The EPO in

W's case was void due to having no Court stamp. This has been public knowledge for over a year as the void

order is available on the internet.

[As to the matter of identifying the justices, their scrawled, photocopied signatures are on the order

in Baby Roberts’ case but it has not been possible to identify from those marks who are the justices in question.

Miss Hulme, Staffordshire's solicitor, claims that the hearing took place at the court in Stoke on Trent but

what can be made out of the signatures do not seem to tally with the names of any of the justices known to be

at that court.]

57. The father returned to this subject more than once and it illustrates how his mind can be distracted by curious arguments from addressing important questions.
[And here we see that Judge Orrell is once again distracted by his need to portray Mr Roberts as mentally ill in defiance of the evidence and being distracted fails to address the validity of the very procedure in which he is involved, fails to examine the EPO, fails to ask relevant questions about the EPO hearing and evaluates wanting due process and fair dealing as a 'curious argument'.]  

57. He was asked about his failure to attend relationship counselling.
[but of course he had not failed to attend relationship counselling so this is an inherently biased point.]

57. My note reads "we attended one session; that was all that was needed; and we had lost three children because of a void order so there was no point in counselling."
[Once again Judge Orrell misses the point that Mr Roberts is making that complying with the requirements of the court to have counselling for a relationship that is not broken is doubly pointless because the court system is both dishonest and corrupt. It says do this and you can have your children back but doesn't give them back even if you do what you're asked. It issues void orders and breaks its own rules with impunity having no care for justice so playing along is a mug’s game.]

58. the father said W's birth had been induced for no medical reason but so that the local authority could snatch her. He said the Guardian had colluded with the local authority during private meetings.
[Mr Green confirmed the collusion of the Guardian with the local authority as well as his own.]

58. He said that a social worker and the health visitor had arranged the case because they both w
anted promotion.

59. He said a previous solicitor had been collusive. Mr Green asked the father about his representation in this case. He said "I don't see the need for two solicitors; it causes conflict; they poke their noses in and stir the pot a bit. They have been approached but backed off when they heard Social Services were involved." He added "the only people I have faith in is the general pubic; put the information out there and let them decide, a jury of your peers, real English Justice. I have lost faith in the entire establishment; it created anarchy for me. Most of the good social workers have left or been pushed out."

60. Mr Roberts did not appear able to co operate with social workers;
[No. He was not and never will be willing to cooperate with those who break the law to steal children for money, whether they be social workers or anyone else. He was and remains completely capable of cooperating with anyone of good and honest intent on this or any other matter.]

60. when it was suggested to him he was not co operating he replied "with what's happened, are you surprised." Communicating with him can be difficult. He explained "I just tear it up and throw it in the bin anything that has 'Mr' on it or 'legal occupier' on it."
[This is out of context and not relevant to communication with the Judge]

60. He said he would be assessed but only if the proceedings were taped so the audio could be compared with the paperwork. I asked him three times if he would consider an unrecorded assessment and on the third occasion he said he would if no one could be found to do a recorded piece of work.

[This question is vexatious and irrelevant as Dr Peter Dale, an eminent professional with unimpeachable credentials has already agreed to do an audio recorded assessment under conditions acceptable to Mr Roberts. Once again Judge Orrell ignores the facts in favour of trying to generate a false impression.]

61. Mr Jarman, the Children's Guardian, gave evidence. He had been the Guardian in W's case. He said the report of Mr Livock offered hope; he had suggested a possible way forward for the parents.
[As previously noted this is baloney.]

61. Sadly, the parents chose not to go down that path.
[Not actually true as noted previously they were prevented from completing a parenting assessment through no fault of their own by Staffordshire Social Services themselves.]

61. The position has now been reached where the father is hostile to anyone who does not tell him what he wants to hear …
[An interesting conclusion given the Mr Jarman has made no attempt to even speak to Mr Roberts during the entirety of Baby Roberts’ case.]

61. … namely that Baby Roberts can return home. Since W's case the father is disinclined to communicate with the Guardian.
[Hardly surprising considering his despicably dishonest behaviour during that case and his slapdash, lazy attitude to both children.]

61. The mother is more amenable to being approached but she had not mentioned wanting to be assessed.
[More deceptive nonsense. Mr Jarman approached the mother once, promised to visit them at home and has never done so. As to an assessment Mr Jarman was at the first hearing where both parents requested the parenting assessment they had previously been denied as they have done at every opportunity in each intervening hearings although Mr Jarman didn't bother to turn up for most of them.]

62. It was suggested to the Guardian that he might have made a more determined effort to meet with the parents. Mr Jarman resisted the suggestion. He said something had to be left for the parents to do so as to test their engagement.
[You would have thought a 2.5 hour+ each way journey to contact 3 times a week would be enough to test their 'engagement' never mind turning up to court and facing down professional lawyers and judges willing to send them to prison without trial for telling the truth. This is just slippery dodging from Mr Jarman who fails to mention that he promised the mother that he

would visit her and failed to do so.]

62. Moreover they refused to go to his office insisting he saw them at home.
[Now Mr Jarman is just lying. He volunteered to see them at home, then later gave them a vague unspecified invitation to see him at his office which came with neither dates and times nor even an address or telephone number for the aforementioned office.]

62. His solicitor sent the mother's solicitor an email suggesting discussing a neutral venue; the email was not acknowledged.
[If this is true which is doubtful then this is another case where Mr Greens failure has potentially damaged Mr Roberts case. More than justifying an appeal with costs to be born by Brendan Flemming.]

63. Mr Jarman said that, if anything, over the last 12-18 months, the father's attitude had deteriorated. Posting Baby Roberts' removal on the internet had been to put the authority in the dock.
[The dock where they should have been given that the removal was unlawful.]

63. He had not discussed making the video or posting it with the mother.
[Not before doing so but then Staffordshire Social Services had not discussed abducting his son with the mother before doing so either.

[There was however discussion on the posting of the video afterwards. What Mr Jarman would know about this other than the evidence already heard at the first hearing is unclear as he was not their when Baby Roberts was taken but Mr Jarman is known

not to be adverse to testifying on matters about which he knows nothing]

63. The tone of his accusation of lying for money and collusion had become more vociferous since W's case.
[Again is this surprising given the lies told by the likes of Mr Livock and he being paid more than the Roberts annual income for doing so?]

64. The Guardian said C and L's case was the starting point for Baby Roberts 's case because, if nothing had changed, then Baby Roberts could be expected to experience the same parenting C and L had suffered.
[Irrelevant nonsense as not only was Mr Jarman not involved in L and C's case and knows nothing about it but it is far beyond reasonable doubt that many things have changed since then so his point is futile before even considering whether there was anything terribly wrong with the parenting of L and C. Hard to claim when the nonsense of 'future risk of emotional harm' is all that the court come come up with after acknowledging that every other problem had been dealt with.]

    (Er … if the original order was invalid, void, and nothing has changed since, then as the subsequent cases are based upon that order then they and the current cases are unlawful.  Unless something has changed.  But then, the guardian has sworn nothing has changed thereby bringing the case to a conclusion.  Unless he’s lying, of course.  Nothing changes in ten years? Yeah, right. Stagnation rules, okay?  -Intbel)

64. In his analysis it was not safe for Baby Roberts to return home because the environment remained the same.
[An environment which Mr Jarman is conspicuously unqualified to comment on as he has never been there.]

65. Mr Jarman said he had not seen any evidence in W's case or Baby Roberts 's case that the parents would cooperate with support.
[This is likely true simply because he had not looked at the evidence. However this is apropos of nothing but Mr Jarman's own laziness.]

65. He added "they have their own support network which is not recognised by the court".

[He may have added this but to what end? What does he mean by it and how would he know? He does not know the parents, or the first thing about their lives, having barely spoken to them and having never visited them.]

65. Another assessment, in his view, would cause delay for Baby Roberts and would produce nothing new.
[This is blatant nonsense, Baby Roberts is eight months old and is not concerned about delay, neither will he be concerned about delays now when he is eight years old, only about the outcome. It is Staffordshire Social Services who have a timetable and their interest and that of the adoption racket that Mr Jarman is serving not Baby Roberts.

Mr Jarman cannot possibly know what the outcome of an assessment would be before it is made or it would indeed be pointless ever to do one when you could just 'ask Mr Jarman' instead. No doubt such an approach would save Staffordshire County Council a lot of money and leave a lot of annoyed 'experts' like Mr Livock looking for someone else to line their pockets. However in this case the parents want an assessment and have lined up a highly qualified independent social worker to do it on agreeable terms and at a cost upon which Social Services would be unlikely to be able to improve]

65. Unfortunately, the parents would react to the assessment as they had done before.
[That, presumably, being to cooperate fully as that is what they did last time according to Judge Orrell’s own selected evidence above.]

66. The result was that Baby Roberts would have to be placed outside his family. For a child of this age, foster care was not an option. However, adoption would not entail a complete severance of Baby Roberts’ ties with his birth family because there was a good chance he could be placed with his sister and benefit from the blood bond as he grows and it maybe that in the future he would be able to have contact with the older girls.
[More maybes distant promises and vaguely positive sounds from Mr Jarman as he moves into child salesman mode for a child with whom he has spent no time, who's cultural heritage he neither knows nor respects and for whose poor health he admits concern only because it might put off potential adopters.]

[At this point Judge Orrell moves straight on into his opinion, neglecting to mention along the way that he prevented the proper cross examination of Mr Jarman that would have shown him to be lazy, ignorant of Baby Roberts and of his family and in many respects utterly unsuitable to be a children’s guardian at all.

It would also have shown that he deliberately set out to deprive Baby Roberts of his article 9 rights under the UN convention on the rights of the child: a crime in international law and given that this is a ratified treaty in UK law as well. no one who has committed or attempted to commit a crime against the human rights of a child can reasonably be assumed to represent that child's best interests - especially when they conflict with his own.

[On these grounds we require Mr Jarman's evidence to be excised and we appeal against this judgement on the grounds of an unfair hearing as Judge Orrell prevented proper cross examination of a witness that would have shown that witness to be incompetent and then proceeded to base his judgement substantially on the partial and untested testimony of that witness.]

67. I accept the evidence of Ms Hassell...
[Well that's not true for a start. Judge Orrell threw out a whole chuck of paperwork 'evidence' from Ms Hassell as being without merit which it surely was.]

67. ...and in particular that the quality of contact is not good.
[This is going down hill. This is an outright lie for which Ms Hassell could produce no source or actual evidence other than, 'that's what I was told' and yet Judge Orrell is choosing to accept it, risky, especially given the quality of Ms Hassell's other evidence. ]

67. I also accept that the parents had not sought assistance from the local authority nor have they sought an assessment.
[This is just foolishness. Judge Orrell cannot 'accept' what he knows in his own hearing not to be true without making himself a party and a false witness. This disqualifies him from giving judgement and all his order beyond this is void. On this ground we appeal that his judgement should be struck from the record.]

68. As far as the mother's evidence is concerned, I accept the parents found getting to contact inconvenient when the taxi service was removed.
[No taxi service was provided at all in Baby Roberts 's case by Staffordshire Social Services so this is misleading.]

68. However, they were given money and travel warrants and the fact remains that since May there were a total of 62 possible contact of which the parents attended only five.
[This is incorrect, An error of fact on which basis we appeal that this judgement is incorrect. The figure of 5 is not supported by the evidence, it likely sourced from a lie told by a Staffordshire Social Services barrister at a previous hearing in desperation at not being able to blame Asha for non attendance because of her convincing case that the transport arrangements were utterly inadequate. The money and travel warrants were by no means sufficient to cover the full costs of the journey and the available buses and trains such that if one bus was late by a single minute then the train would be missed and with it most or all of the


68. This evinces very poor commitment.
[Judge Orrell has swallowed the carefully arranged but transparent lie which the local authority made clear from the first hearing they were preparing to sell that the parents attendance at contact was poor. So convinced where they that they could achieve this poor attendance that Mr Jarman felt confident to lie in his statement to the court claiming that the parents had stopped attending contact altogether.

[In fact although late in the day a sponsor was found to pay for taxi transport to contact. This turned out to be no more expensive than what Staffordshire were already claiming to be providing in cash and travel warrants and since this arrangement was setup the parents attendance at contact has been consistently excellent. Judge Orrell may well have been unaware of this but ignorance is no excuse before the law and his judgement falls on this point.]

69. When answering questions on the half of the Guardian, the mother accepted that neither she nor the father had acted on the recommendations made in the previous proceedings and, perhaps with the benefit on hindsight, they ought to have done.
[A half truth is worse than a lie, so the saying goes and this is surely only half the truth. The mother accepted that they had not acted on ALL the recommendations AT THE TIME. BUT STATED THAT THEY HAD PRIOR TO THIS HEARING ACTED ON ALL OF THEM and perhaps, they ought to have done so SOONER. ]

70. I thought the mother gave an unconvincing account of how calm and stable the relationship between her and the father was.
[Judge Orrell was clearly not only asleep but dreaming at this point. If he was left unconvinced then he was the only only one in the court room including the local authority barrister left in such a state.]

70. I believe the contrary to be the case;
[Far be it from me to persecute his honour for his beliefs however random and baseless but if he's going to go about ruining peoples lives on the basis of them then the least he could do is give a plausible explanation.]

70. these are parents who cannot behave even at contact when they know they are being observed and

those observation are being recorded.
[No these are adults who live in the real world with real world problems of poverty and injustice. Not naughty children who need to be told how to behave. At this point Judge Orrell has lost it as he does occasionally and gone into irrational authoritarian rant mode as when he admitted blackmailing Mr Roberts into signing an undertaking in the W case.]

71. In her statement, and in her evidence, the mother has welcomed the idea of a assessment. Mr Green, very correctly, has not filed a part 25 application because he cannot identify an area which it is necessary to assess for a second time.
[Once again Mr Green's failure is lauded by Judge Orrell. How about the area to be covered by the residential parenting assessment which was never carried out. Presumably that covered something or it would have been a fraudulent waste of time running it. As previously stated Mr Green's inaction has damaged Mr Robert's case through no fault of Mr Roberts leading to a substantively unfair hearing. On this ground we appeal.]

71. I agree with the Guardian that a further assessment would produce nothing new.
[and for the same reasons this argument is as obviously flawed as was Mr Jarmans'. It presupposes the outcome of a process that has not taken place something even Judge Orrell who believes he can put people in prison at will without charge or trial, is not entitled to do.]

71. The mother's request comes late in the day and she would want to be assessed as a couple with the man who will not co-operate with an assessment.
[This is an error of fact and on this ground this judgement falls and we appeal to have it cancelled. Mr Roberts has agreed to co-operate with an assessment by Dr Peter Dale because the assessment will be recorded and it will therefore be impossible for the ISW to lie, even by omission, about what was said. Given that this has occurred repeatedly in the past Mr Robert's requirement is not unreasonable and Dr Dale does not find it unreasonable.]

72. Turning to the father, he suffered a terrible shock when the elder girls were removed and it is a shock from which she has not recovered and he is now so hostile and preoccupied with his sense of grievance that he is unable to benefit from advice and is all to easily distracted from the task of child care.
[This is in error of fact and on this ground this judgement falls and we appeal to have it cancelled.

Mr Roberts has indeed benefited from advice from a number of sources throughout the case. He has sought and followed advice and to claim otherwise is facetious. No evidence of him actually being distracted from the task of child care has ever been presented. As noted earlier this was invented by Judge Orrell on the basis of the unjustified and debased concerns of a confused social worker in a previous case who observed one contact between Mr and Mrs Roberts and W at which even she did not claim that he was actually distracted from anything or by anything.]

72. in his present state he is not able to benefit from advice or accept support and …
[Judge Orrell repeats himself but is no less in error for doing so.]

72. … tragically, he remains impervious to any attempt to get him to see there are failings and shortcomings which could be addressed and which would have to be addressed before he and his wife could care for children safely.
[There is a Latin term for this kind of logical error which I don’t recall. It is a favourite if rather weak trick of some politicians, Peter Mandelson comes to mind, to run together some truths with some falsehoods in a sentence with lots of 'ands' to leave the casual listener or reader under a false and misleading impression. This is a little more subtle than that but not much.
Mr Roberts position is not as Judge Orrell presents it that he refuses to acknowledge any deficit in his parenting skills or makes some claim of requiring no support or being perfect. He has never made such a claim and has in fact been at pains to acknowledge all the details of his past mistakes. The point of contention comes at the end. Judge Orrell without ever specifying what the failings and shortcomings he is talking about are makes the blind assumption that they constitute being unable to care for children safely and hopes that the reader will obligingly make the same assumption. They should not because for all Mr Roberts acknowledged faults they do not constitute a serious risk of harm to children in his care. It has been Mr Roberts' contention all along that they never have. This contention has been consistently supported by the evidence through all three cases. It was acknowledged by Staffordshire Social Services at the the pre-birth case conference for W, the recording of which was made available to Judge Orrell and which he has chosen to ignore.

[What is tragic here is the shear dishonesty of making this defamatory claim without basis in evidence in a judgment he is not even willing to sign much less publish and yet he expects it to be given the force of law rather than being burned and forgotten as it deserves.]

73. I found the father unconvincing when he dealt with his medical history. As can be seen from earlier in this judgement he has been dishonest about his state of mind...
[I'm sorry, where exactly did this judgement previously access Mr Roberts’ true state of mind so as to declare him dishonest about it?

This is an error of fact and of logic. On this ground this judgement falls and we appeal that it is an irrational judgement]

73. ...and the medication he is prescribed.
[No evidence has been presented at any point of any prescription for medication related to mental health for Mr Roberts for the past several years. He has been declared not to have a diagnosable mental health problem by his GP. He has been declared to pose no risk of harm by an NHS mental health team. Judge Orrell's conclusion here is ludicrous, without merit and in direct contradiction of evidence he has seen with his own eyes and held in his own hand.]

73. He also demonstrated something approaching contempt for the recommendations made by the experts in the earlier proceedings …
[There were no mental health experts other than those who've cleared Mr Roberts as fit and the utterly contemptible Mr Livock involved in the earlier proceedings.]

73. … all of which he has ignored or forgotten.
[ Judge Orrell may like to reconsider whether contempt for the truly contemptible can ever be a crime.

Especially in the light of him finding me in contempt of his court on the basis of nothing but 5 seconds of entirely black video and his own arrogant presumption. I was at the time completely innocent of any contempt and his threats with regard to me were unlawful. I can forgive him his arrogance and his presumption was merely foolishness but the premeditated and persistent dishonesty of this judgement puts me in great danger. I am in danger of being in utter and permanent contempt of Judge Orrell himself, his court and all his doings.]

74. Mr Jarman is not only an experienced Guardian he also is very experienced in the history of the Roberts children.

[In fact Mr Jarman is both ignorant and lazy. His involvement has at no point contributed usefully in evidence or in action to either case.]

74. I found his evidence to be extremely clear and his analysis fair and perceptive.
[So perceptive that he was apparently able to predict the future outcome of an assessment. This polishing of Mr Jarman is as deceptive as it is futile. There are some things you simply cannot polish.]

74. I accept his recommendations.
[As previously noted Judge Orrell accepted Mr Jarman's recommendation after preventing his cross examination which would have shown them to be baseless, without merit and not in Baby Roberts’ interest.]

75. Mr Green has submitted that the threshold has not been met.
[In fact nothing resembling a threshold has been defined, discussed or used as a threshold at any stage in Baby Roberts's case. A threshold against which nothing is measured largely because it defines no means of measuring anything and nothing to measure it against is not a threshold. The threshold has not been met because there is no threshold in the so called threshold document.]

I cannot agree with that, The threshold is set out in the bundle at page A5.
[and it is worth considerably less than the small piece of paper on which it is printed.]

Arising from the proceedings involving L and C are the allegations of neglect …
[which were found not to be a sufficient basis for the permanent removal of the children]

… failure to follow advice,
[which is still not a crime outside of Judge Orrell's court]

the father's mental health problems and his failure to take medication,
[a false claim backed up with no evidence which Staffordshire have chosen not even to repeat in Baby Roberts’ case because they cannot support it. ]

coupled with threats of self harm,
[a lie backed by no evidence. When pressed on this Ms Hassell could offer no primary evidence nor any source of such evidence. ]

and the mother's aggression towards L.
[A case that was closed years before L was removed and an issue that was solved by medical help for the mother.]

There is also the allegation that the relationship between the parents is a volatile one.
[This has been tested by serially taking away their children, dragging them through the courts, forcing them to live in abject poverty, trying to bribe them to separate with the prospect of returning the children when threatening them with taking the children did not result in the breakdown of their relationship. Everything that can be done to damage this relationship has been tried by Staffordshire Social Services and the Family Courts including Judge Orrell and their relationship is described by both of them as stronger than ever.
They have won, despite all the lies told and all the injustice done to them done they are still together. The excremental smear of an allegation to which Judge Orrell clings needs no further degradation. He can keep it.]

76. The more recent allegations include a lack of cooperation in the pre-birth assessment process,

[This is not an allegation. They were not invited to the pre-birth case conference in Baby Roberts’ case as testified by both parents. They therefore did not attend as they did not know the date or location. This is breach of regulations by Staffordshire Social Services not an allegation against the parents.]

an unwillingness to cooperate with social workers and the police when they visit the house,
[The only visit from social workers in the whole period of Baby Roberts’ case was with the sole and express purpose of illegally abducting him. Any cooperation with such activity would be have been a crime.]
(This leaves the attending police constables open to prosecution, whether private or public - Intbel)

the failure to follow the recommendation of the experts,
[except that they have in fact followed all the recommendation the court asked them to at the first hearing in Baby Roberts 's case including those outstanding from previous cases even where these were no longer relevant or meaningful, as confirmed in the mother's testimony and not even contested after that by the local authority.]

the father's continuing mental instability
[a fantasy invented by Mr Livock but one which Judge Orrell apparently likes. Perhaps he'd like to consider buying a bridge I have for sale?]   

and his threats to kill social worker, to burn down a Social Services office and two outs gone to Ireland.
[I have no idea how anyone would 'two outs gone to Ireland' it sounds quite a painful thing to try and there is no evidence other than admitted baseless statements made in error on the basis of lies previously recorded in documents not provided to the court for Mr Roberts making any such threats. Judge Orrell is aware of this and is repeating what he knows to be utterly malicious and baseless rumours which have been investigated by the police who found 'no evidence'. The inclusion of these defamatory rumours adds nothing to this judgement but spite and further error piled on the exceedingly great pile of error that forms the majority of it.]

77. In my judgement, what was alleged and found proved in the case of L and C …

[nothing that justified the permanent removal of the children]

… and what was found proved in the case of W( and not contested by the mother ) ...
[this is untrue, it was not contested by the mother's solicitor but then, he was not acting in her interest s]

… reveals a settled pattern of behaviour.
[Yes it does. A settled pattern of collusion and dishonesty between Staffordshire Social Services and the Family Courts]
(And the police - Intbel)

I refer to the judgement of Her Honour Judge Watson delivered on the 27 November 2012. She made a number of findings which are identical with the findings I make in this case.
[Judge Orrell is on dangerous ground here because this case is not that case and because this tends to automatically concede the patently absurd and easily disproves the claim of Staffordshire Social Services that 'nothing has changed'. A claim so obviously stupid that even they had given up making it by the later hearings in this case.]

First, the father believes the whole basis for the local authority intervention is based on lies and the whole proceedings are void.
[Correct and the evidence supports his claim.

There is no acceptance by him of any of the concerns of the local authority… [This is lie, it was likely a lie when Judge Watson said it was a lie and it is certainly a lie in the mouth of Judge Orrell. The claim that nothing has changed has the unfortunate property of cutting both ways. It's a lie now so it must have been a lie then if nothing has changed.]

...and he was dismissive about the recommendations before returning a child to their care.
[Then he carried them out anyway because he wants his son back.]

The father has not engaged with psychological intervention and was finding the role of looking after a child and looking after the mother increasingly difficult.
[Wrong, misleading and inaccurate. As previously noted this is an insupportable claim on the basis of the evidence ]

78. Judge Watson concluded by saying "I am unable to find any support for the proposition that the local authority case is based on lies.
[That would be because she looked with her both eyes closed.]

It is rather based on evidence and thorough analysis.

[Except that there is no evidence only analysis of previous analysis which was based on lies.]

The unanimous recommendations are recognised by Mrs Roberts but not by Mr Roberts.
[A lie as previously noted.]

I am satisfied that the threshold is met.
[Judge Watson may indeed have been satisfied but this did not make the threshold valid or useful. It was neither, merely a heap of false allegations most of which were already thoroughly disproved by then ]

I am satisfied that all orders within the case have been properly made. None is invalidated by the absence of a court seal.
[Now Judge Watson oversteps the mark fiddling with her language to avoid telling the lie that all the orders were properly sealed which she knows she can't get away with; she tries rather to claim they are valid anyway. This is the sort of linguistic trickery worthy of the BBC and does Judge Watson no favours; she is still lying, the EPO is still void, no matter how satisfied she feels. Anyone doubting this can find it online and see for themselves. It should be no surprise the the EPO was a forgery, only that it was such a transparently poor one, given that at no stage did W's case meet the criteria for an EPO. There was never even claimed to be any immediate risk of harm and Judge Orrell has heard the words of a senior Staffordshire Social Worker, "it's all about parenting". Given this no magistrate acting properly would have issued an EPO and no Social Services department acting properly would have applied for one.]

79. The recent history of the local authority's attempts to engage the parents and to address the poor parenting is set out in the first statement of Mr Michael O'Connor, senior practitioner, dated 8 March 2013
[It is unfortunate for Judge Orrell that Michael O'Connor is neither willing nor able to testify to anything specific within this statement as was clear at the first hearing. He has since indicated regret over his role in the case. It is highly likely that 'his' statement was written for him as he was obviously unfamiliar with its content making it probably no more than another forged and dishonest document from Staffordshire Social Services which should not be relied on as evidence.]

The reading that statement reveals that really nothing has changed since the judgement of Her Honour Judge Watson in the previous November.
[Judge Orrell walks willingly into the bear trap that the local authority had set and themselves walked into several times in this case. If nothing has changed then what is true now must have been true then.


[The mother and father have complied with all the recommendations of the court, the guardian is a lazy fool who's statement is an ignorant pack of lies that reveal him to have no care for the child. The child was taken without first lawfully obtaining an EPO according to the prescribed process and Judge Munby's latest recommendations. The judge has had to lie about the validity of the order to hold on to any case at all. There is no evidence against the parents because all the so called evidence is that from L and C's case, all of  which has either been discredited or already found to be an inadequate reason to remove a child and have them adopted without parental consent. Nothing is left on which to build a case and in fact in Baby Roberts’‘ case Staffordshire Social Services had no case to bring, no evidence to present and no claim to make against the parents. This was effectively if grudgingly admitted by Judge Williscroft who should have ended the proceedings then and there.]

80. My analysis is that if nothing has changed then it would be unsafe to return Baby Roberts to his parents because he would be exposed to a similar risk of significant harm suffered by L and C.

[That being only a 'risk of future emotional harm' according to the proceedings in L and C's case.

Having walked into the bear trap Judge Orrell has now put his head in it for good measure.
He is admitting without reservation that the risk to Baby Roberts is such that it would be inadequate ever to warrant an EPO with the only condition being that nothing has changed. If the condition is true the there was at no stage sufficient risk to Baby Roberts to warrant an EPO and Mr Roberts case that the EPO must have been unlawfully obtained is proven. If however things have changed then Judge Orrell's case is disproved. The trap is sprung and the Judge is hoist by his own petard.]

80. That was the situation at the date these proceedings were commenced. I use the adjective "similar" because I believe the risk may now be more acute because I have formed the view the that father's more intransigent and a great deal more hostile and incapable of engaging with social workers then he was between 2003 and 2010 when increased support to the family frequently led to temporary improvement in parenting;

[As already noted at length this is nonsense. the father is no more or less capable of engaging with social workers or anyone else than he ever was. He is merely more suspicious and more defensive as a natural result of that to which he has been subjected.]

I am satisfied that increased support now would not be accepted by the father and so the risk becomes all the greater.

[Using the same drivel as Judge Watson, Judge Orrell pronounces himself satisfied but neglects to mention that at no stage in Baby Roberts 's case has increased support been offered. Mr Roberts has been given no opportunity to accept it and Judge Orrell's presumption that he would not if the offer were indeed genuine and not some devious attempt to entrap him, break up his marriage or blackmail him into indemnifying Staffordshire Social Services for their criminal negligence, is baseless.]

81. I found the threshold proved as pleaded.

[As previously noted Judge Orrell may indeed have found the threshold, it is quite near the front of the bundle after all but none of it is proved.]

82. Everyone is acutely aware of the recent authority Re B-S (Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

[This is not actually true especially given the secrecy of the Family Courts but anyway …]

It is necessary to have at the forefront of my mind a number of important principles.
a. The recent reminder provided by the Supreme Court in Re B (a child)
( care proceedings: threshold criteria)[2013]UK SC 33 that orders
"contemplating non consensual adoption are...a very extreme thing, a last resort, only to be made where nothing else will do..they are the most extreme option."

b. There is a presumption that a child's best interests will be served by being brought up by his

birth family unless there are overriding requirements that make that impossible.

[It is apparent that there is such a presumption, both in law and in the minds of the public at large.

Unfortunately, however, there is no such presumption either in Judge Watson's judgement, in this judgement or in the minds or practice of Staffordshire Social Services. Both Mr O' Conner and Ms Hassell freely admitted that no other option than adoption had been considered from the time they became aware of the mother's pregnancy until at least 6 months into the case. To this date no other option has been seriously or appropriately examined and no assessment has been made of what support the parents actually need to have Baby Roberts at home. Neither of these social workers seemed to think there was anything strange about this, in a case where the parents have never even been accused of actually harming a child.]
(That those social workers saw nothing strange about this case is scary. Ennit. - Intbel)

c. In coming to a decision, the court must consider all the of the options available including, in the present case, a supervision order which would be the contemplated order if this application and substantive application were to be successful.
[Well the court has not considered all the options available. In particular returning the stolen child, apologising to the parents for the appalling trauma they have suffered at the hands of Staffordshire Social Services, compensating them appropriately ( if such a thing were possible ) and letting them get on with their lives. This option was in fact suggested by Mr Roberts at the first hearing subject to the parents meeting the list of requirements set out at the first hearing and no actual reason why this couldn't be done was put forward,  merely the false assertion that they 'could not']

d. The court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities providing the requisite assistance and support to the parent to enable an adoptive order to be avoided.
[The court did not even examine this with any serious or proper attention, the local authority refused to even engage in such a debate.]

83. Sadly, in this case, Re B-S causes less anxiety than in most cases. My analysis is as follows.
[Judge Orrell's anxiety level may not indeed have risen but that is likely due to his having no intent of taking any notice of Re B-S, other recent judgements or the current practice as set down by the President of the Family Law Division Judge Munby in this case and in others. Having already comprehensively ignored the requirements for obtaining an EPO and collaborated with Staffordshire Social Services in a monstrous and futile attempt to deceive Judge Munby into issuing a ridiculously draconian injunction to silence the father Judge Orrell has clearly abandoned even the pretence of acting according to the law let alone best practice by this point.]

a. If the home environment is no different to when L and C were at home, then it is an unsafe environment in which to place Baby Roberts.
[This is both untrue and predicated on 'no different' which as has already been noted is an absurdity]

b. The environment would only alter if the parents made the significant changes expected of them in the earlier proceedings.
[This is both patently untrue, an air strike by USAF would radically alter the home environment without the parents making any changes, and self defeating given that the parents have already done everything on the very short list of remaining items which was reluctantly wrung out of Staffordshire Social Services at the first hearing in Baby Roberts’ case and they were reluctantly pushed into admitting had done 'everything' required.]

c. In order to be satisfied the parents had achieved those changes, it will be necessary to have a fresh, positive assessment with both parents had cooperated wholeheartedly and which revealed that they had carried out the recommendation made by Mr Livock and other experts and to have honest and reliable evidence from the parents.
[None of this is a problem, it's simply what the parents have asked for and having found a suitable, highly qualified ISW to carry it out, reasonably expect. Judge Orrell's apparent problem with the parents’ honesty is only that he has no evidence that they are anything but honest and they make him look like a filthy liar in comparison.]

d. There is no such assessment and no sensible prospect of obtaining one given, in particular, the father's attitude.
[This is utter rubbish and in flat out contradiction with the facts as stated above.]

d. The evidence I heard from the parents on these matters was neither honest nor reliable.
[A baseless lie as previously discussed. ]

e. The evidence that does exist suggests firmly that the parents have not tried to put into effect the recommendations and the that the father is very unlikely to take any step to have his mental state reviewed lest ( as he sees it ) the result provided the local authority with ammunition against him.
[A false statement about the evidence followed by an even more egregious false statement claiming to know the mind of the father, something Judge Orrell is clearly not capable of comprehending even if it were possible. The only issue the father has had with getting his mental health assessed is that the GP cannot make a referral because he cannot find anything wrong.]
(To have one’s mental ‘state’ assessed by a psychiatrist of their choosing would be insane.   Ref. Hibbert - Intbel)

The burden of the evidence suggests the parents had not made the necessary changes and may have actually gone backwards.
[Once again Judge Orrell is repeating himself as if trying convince himself of his own invention.

Having selected for himself a smell fraction of the evidence, excluding almost all that he finds distasteful because it disagrees with his pre-determined conclusions he then tries to use the weight of what he has left to support his point. He should remember that even the scales of justice have two pans and what he has chosen to take notice of is found wanting by what he has chosen to ignore.]

Trying to persuade the parents to cooperate would be fruitless and in bringing about significant change could take the case outside Baby Roberts 's timescales.
[The same plaintive cry that we can't get the parents to cooperate, all the more pathetic when you have nothing for them with which to cooperate with eight months of wasting their time and the public's money. Then we're back to Baby Roberts’ timescales. I've not met Baby Roberts but I'm as certain as I can be that he doesn't have any. The only timescales in question are those of the Staffordshire County Council adoption system who know very well how rapidly the statistical likelihood of Baby Roberts being adopted drops the older he gets. Once he's a difficult toddler and not just a cute baby in a nice basket any more their sales and marketing job gets a lot more difficult.]

f. The local authority could put in place a suitable package of support for the parents will not co-operator with the local authority.
(Are you laughing yet? - Intbel)
[Ignoring the fact that this is non grammatical rubbish it is just plain rubbish. The local authority could put in place a suitable package of support for the parents, who haven't had such a package since well before L and C were taken and if the parents didn't cooperate then they would have something to complain about. Trying to complain about their lack of cooperation in a future than hasn't happened with a package that's never even been discussed is insensible.]

g. In those circumstances,
[which we are not in]

there is a compelling argument that the home environment remains the same and it would be unsafe to return Baby Roberts to his parents now or in the foreseeable future.
[If there is indeed such a compelling argument then Judge Orrell must have forgotten to insert it because it it is not present in this judgement.]

h. There is no family member willing and able to look after Baby Roberts in the long term.
[ A bold statement and one made despite a complete lack of contact between Staffordshire Social Services and the paternal side of the family who have not even been asked about taking Baby Roberts.]
May I suggest Mr & Mrs Roberts are willing and able? - Intbel

Given his attitude to Mr and Mrs Burton,

[An attitude of which Judge Orrell has little knowledge and no understanding ]

the father is likely to be hostile to any family member who offered what he would regard as a rival home for Baby Roberts
[An assumption not based on anything in these proceedings and presumably written for the Judge or given to him by the local authority or the guardian. Either way it is baseless and has no place here.]

i. The Guardian has given evidence that for a boy of Baby Roberts’ age, long-term foster care is not an option. It would mean that he would be a looked after child for all his growing up years, might well face more than one move to a new placement and would be deprived of the opportunity to put down roots and form attachments he would be able to in an adoptive family.

j. Adoption would provide stability, nuturing and would be almost identical to being brought up in a safe, birth family.
[All of which is as much as to pay lip service to Re B-S as mentioned above as precursor to going about ignoring it]

k. The usual perceived disadvantages of the adoption are [i] the cessation of direct contact with the birth parents and [ii] the cutting off, of all links with the wider birth family, so that the adopted child acquires a sense of who he is only from life story work.

l. In this case, the cessation of direct contact will not be as severe as in many cases. The parent's commitment to contact has been very poor. That bodes ill for the future.
[As prevously discussed this is a lie engineered by Staffordshire Social Services. The parents commitment has in fact been extraordinary despite very seldom actually getting any contact as a result. The local authorities inadequate transport arrangements were in breach of Judege Williscroft's order and more importantly considering that that order is void on serveral count, in breach of Baby Roberts 's right to breast feeding which should have been asserted by Mr Jarman, the so called guardian, who instead of doing so actually tried to get contact reduced to 2 hours a week.]

The mother undoubtedly loves Baby Roberts and interacts with him at contact but is not very capable;
[At what point Judge Orrell covertly performed the capability assessment which had according

to his own selected evidence not been carried out earlier is unclear. In any case he is obviously not

qualified to carry out such an assessment so this just more nonsense. ]

The father largely ignores him.
[ An outright lie ]

Even in long-term foster care, it is difficult to see how direct contact could be be managed with a father who promised to persuade his adopted daughter to "divorce" her adoptive parents when she is aged twelve years.
[It is not difficult at all to see how direct contact could be managed: by not interfering with it and allowing all those involved to be themselves; in particular, by not presuming to know what is in the best interest of a child whose circumstances you don't know and therefore starting from the basis of asking them. If this had been done with L, her repeated requests to go home would have been honoured.]

m. In Baby Roberts 's case, the cutting off of all links with the wider birth family would not take place because, as Mr Jarman has said, there is a very good chance Baby Roberts will be abel to be placed with W...
[with W who's contact with the wider family has been cut off ] !!!

...and in due course those two may well have direct contact with the elder girls.
[ Judge Orrell buys wholesale into Mr Jarmans rosy fantasy of how things will be. Pitiful nonsense. None of this is in Mr Jarman's power to bring about and Judge Orrell is well aware of that.]

84. The argument for Baby Roberts being placed for adoption is compelling.
[Only in comparison to being placed in long term foster care, the only comparison even paritally attempted here.]

In those circumstances, I approve the care plan and I make a care order in respect of Baby Roberts in favour of the local authority, taking the view that that is not only a proportionate order, it is also the only feasible order to make.
[Ignoring, of  course, that this is apriori a void order being based on a void order and so has no authority. In addition it is a vexacious order because the judge making it is aware that it is based on a void order.]

85. Having made the final care order, I turn to the placement application. I have to consider the welfare checklist in the 2002 Act and bear in mind that I have to consider Baby Roberts 's welfare for the rest of his life. I repeat the analysis I have already tried to give.
[This of course invalidates anything concluded from here on because as shown previously the analysis leads either to the judgement being void or the judgement being debased which amounts to the same thing.]

They are the same factors I take into account when considering this application. I have already found the argument for adoption compelling. In those circumstances I make a placement order in respect of Baby Roberts in favour of the local authority and I dispense with the consent of each parent on the grounds that Baby Roberts 's welfare requires me to do so.
[At this point we, too, must dispense with the Judgement of His Honour Judge Orell on the grounds that we are required to do so by Baby Roberts 's welfare, his human rights, the law, justice, common sense, reason and all the other good and right things which have been ignored, trampled upon and otherwise abused in this most egregiously unjust of judgements.]

[The giving of judgements is no easy thing and while this particularly abject example may be straight forward to pull apart we are left dissatisfied that it should have been made in the first place. Who will judge the judges and to whom can we turn for justice when the courts are filled with liars and thieves?

Here is a judgement handed down nearly 3000 years ago. A judgement that still stands as a precedent

and warning to this day as it will for all time. A judgement both apt and final.

" Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.
What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?
Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain." ]

Additional note from Paul:

"People will wake up if judge Orrell is sacked over this, or Staffordshire's legal team and a few social workers are imprisoned.

"My aim is to get my son back home, but also some justice which should frighten the child snatchers into following the rules to the letter instead of behaving like a bunch of criminals.

"I expect they'll make my life difficult and put up a fight, but the truth is the truth and always will be, and the truth is going to destroy their lives just as their crimes have destroys the lives of thousands of families."

Paul again:

"Judge Orrell took less than 2 minutes to say "the threshold has been met". During that 2 minutes he was threatening me with prison if I speak about any part of the case.

"I believe I stand more chance of getting my children back home if I follow judge Munby's judgement by opening the case and Orrell's judgement to public scrutiny.

"A committal has to be held in a public court, and would move the whole case and all the evidence including the judgement and grounds for appeal into the public domain.
From me: Based on the evidence, Paul and Asha have a good chance of winning an appeal and if so, the ramifications will be widespread. Not only will they receive substantial damages which will remove a great financial stress, it is inevitable that certain individuals will be disrobed, debarred and dismissed and hopefully, tried and imprisoned for perjury and perverting the course of justice.

Of course, it depends who oversees the appeal, doesn't it ...

Regards the Orrell, he is so far beneath me I am above having any contempt for it.   It’s a nothing,. Zero. Zilch.  - Intbel

Back to the Top of the Page