According to the Podcast the window incident was after the wardship was filed. The window incident in itself would have raised a SS concern independently.
Wardship applications are to make children wards of the court, not the applicant. Yes, I cannot see why the sudden interest in his grandchildren.
Great! I do wish reporting was consistent!
Yes, I think this is exactly what CM thinks - whether there is any truth in it, I do not know.
This is what I would be wanting to know the answer to as a juror. If she felt so desperate as to be compelled to escape in such an extreme fashion then maybe going off grid was sort of kind of justified if the alternative was just having her children stolen. I still think she was negligent in terms of not having the appropriate kit to be sleeping out with her child such that she admitted that to keep her warm enough she had to knowingly fall asleep with her in her jacket. Which is how I think Victoria possibly died. But if the extremes that drive CM there are as unfair as she seems to think they are then I think at least she should get some sentencing mitigation. But I worry for her that by bringing all this up in court and diverging from agreed facts there might be more that is released that is most definitely not in her favour. And since it is all a sideshow to the actual matter that is being tried in court, ie was she or was she not responsible for the death of her death child I fear it’s only going to have made things worse for her - unless what comes out is really quite sensationally awful (in her favour I mean). (Although maybe she’s muddied the waters just enough to get a hung jury/mistrial and more stuff will come out? Although the judge attempting to reign her in for one good (according to the podcast) suggests this might not be a good tactic for her!)
Those are possible routes but I don't see that a wardship is incompatible with them. Excluding the grandchildren from the family trust would stop money going in that direction, but you might not want to do that.
Another question. If that was the case, then why did the Trust itself or the Trustees on behalf of the Trust make that application? I’m interested in who made that application because of the breakdown of the relationship between father and daughter.
I keep wondering why interfere at all if you aren’t going to adopt them or take an ongoing interest in their upbringing ? Or do they take an interest financially ? We don’t know .. I don’t think.
I don't know if the Trustees of a family trust even have standing to make such an application. Ordinarily their role qua trustee is to manage and distribute the money, not regulate family life more generally.
I presume the kids don't get any of the trust upon being adopted?
I agree, I don’t find it unusual. It also isn’t always related to the grandparents having parented to very high standards. It’s more that there are pressing and very dangerous issues for the children and, potentially, if one seeks legally advice this would be an option given in specific situations. I believe it’s easier for a family member to make an application for wardship compared to a local authority (not to successfully get the wardship, just to apply) as it has to fit a certain remit. Once the court provides this wardship, it’s effective immediately.
It might have been advice, from SS or an expert witness type person, that grandparents adopting would not provide enough “distance” from CM & MG. For providing best for the children, is likely best for them being out of CM orbit & not living w her parents.
Maybe CM's parents suggested the DV as to why she fell to take MG out of the picture. Thinking CM would go to parent and child placement again or would be asked to leave MG?
I'm surprised, because if there were real concerns over safety of the children or any safeguarding concerns, the first port of call (for anyone regardless of relationship) would be the police and/or social services.
This link is useful Wardship - childlawadvice.org.uk.
I'm thinking when Napier made that public message to CM while she was on the run. He said something about her "being vulnerable".again. Just wondering if a previous time in which she was "vulnerable" was when he made the application.
Was there not a report from neighbours saying that CM and MG were heard having heated arguments? Just thinking that maybe there were arguments that raised concerns even before the window incident.
It’s unclear now though where this incident was ? Was it here ? They made it sound like it might have been in Ireland ? I have no knowledge if the two social services advisories share info ? Or where exactly in they were in Ireland it may have been for that matter ? North / south ? Anyone got any clarification on this?
