Judge attacks legal aid cuts as couple fight to keep their son
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.One of Britain’s most senior judges has launched a withering attack on cuts to legal aid after a couple with learning disabilities was not provided with a lawyer to fight the forced adoption of their two-year-old son.
Sir James Munby, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, released a damning judgment castigating the “state” for trying to remove a child from the couple while simultaneously failing to provide them with adequate representation.
He said it was “unthinkable” that the parents should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation after they were denied legal aid because the father earned £34.64 too much.
In his conclusion, Sir James said the proceedings brought by Swindon Borough Council were a breach of the couple’s human rights. “Thus far the state has simply washed its hands of the problem,” he said.
He added that the state had “declined all responsibility for ensuring that the parents are able to participate effectively in the proceedings it has brought to the goodwill of the legal profession”.
“This is, it might be thought, both unprincipled and unconscionable,” he concluded.
Sir James said it was not for family court judges to pass judgment on the arrangements ministers choose to make in relation to legal aid provision.
But he suggested that the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, should examine the couple’s case.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments