Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

December 13, 2007

Free the 'Grandfather One'

Is it really in the public interest that a grandparent is jailed for not avoiding his grandson?

Camilla Cavendish

Two MPs have put down an early day motion in the House of Commons to bring attention to what they believe is a miscarriage of justice. It notes that a man named Charles Roy Taylor has been sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson. It “wonders if this is a good use of scarce prison resources; and calls for the Secretary of State for Justice to consider whether he should be released for Christmas”. Jack Straw no doubt has bigger things on his mind. And no story like this is ever as simple as it looks. But it deserves attention.

Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were “undermining the care plan” by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18.

It is not the local authority's fault that this child had a difficult childhood. In taking responsibility for him, social workers were doing their best. Neither he nor his grandparents sound like the easiest people to deal with. But as in so many cases of this kind, bitterness between the family and the authorities appears to have escalated into a ludicrous situation, which simply cannot be in the best interests of the child.

After a great deal of argy-bargy that I cannot go into for legal reasons, Mr Taylor last year gave an undertaking not to communicate with John until he was 18. But asking a man not to pick up the phone to a child, not to take him in when he turns up at the front door, is a harsh demand. It is tantamount to asking him to deny that the child exists, when what that child may need most is attention.

In stalking cases, when Person A is ordered to avoid Person B, it is usually at the explicit request of Person B, who fears assault. In this case, Person B was apparently desperate to see his grandparents. He seems to see them as his best hope. So in whose interests was such an order? If he has broken his undertaking, Mr Taylor has surely been responding as humanely as most of us would. A jail sentence seems wholly disproportionate.

When I first learnt of this case I felt that there must be more to it. That perhaps the grandparents were suspected of abuse. I can find no evidence of any such allegation. Indeed, the authorities initially seemed happy to leave them in contact with John. What appears to have happened is that the exchanges between the family and social workers became increasingly bitter, all of whom no doubt believed themselves to be in the right.

The council cannot comment on individual cases. It will say only that “Mr Taylor was sentenced by the High Court after he breached a court order”. It cannot comment on John's treatment in care. John seems unhappy. He has apparently asked to be discharged. But his voice can only be heard within the system, a system he seems determined to rebel against.

There is a growing campaign on the internet to release Mr Taylor. This has two parts. The first is that a 20-month jail sentence is preposterous when the prisons are so overcrowded that dangerous criminals are being released early. The second is that Mr Taylor was allegedly committed to jail in a “secret court”. This seems unlikely. But it is an allegation that is made frequently. Legally, you cannot send someone to jail in a secret court. In practice, it is questionable whether a judge sitting in a family court from which press and public are excluded, who declares the court open for a few minutes to pronounce sentence, is really “open”.

This matters, because the view of the legal profession increasingly seems to be that the less we know the better. The justification for keeping family courts closed, despite the recommendations of the Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, is to protect children's privacy. Yet this argument is no longer confined to the family courts. It is increasingly being trotted out in criminal cases too.

In the past month, one court has ruled that the defendants in a witchcraft trial, who were alleged to have done unspeakable things to children, could not be named in case this led to the identification of their victims. Another court banned publication of anything about a mother accused of poisoning her child with salt, in case the information affected her surviving child. The Times has recently succeeded in overturning yet another ruling, that a man who pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children could not be named in case his relatives might suffer. The Court of Appeal found that the man should be named, and that the attempts to restrict the proceedings were invalid.

The law must not become a secret process. Some lawyers seem convinced that the media want to identify vulnerable children, but it is always possible to write these stories without doing so. Seeing that justice is done is a fundamental part of law.

What is sad is that our elaborate system of child protection, which is designed to put children first, has sometimes become a way of avoiding accountability. The two MPs are right to ask whose interests Mr Taylor's jailing serves. Presumably, the last thing John wants is for his grandfather to be in jail. They are both victims of a system that asks us to take on trust that it knows best. But prison is surely the wrong place for Charles Roy Taylor.

I think that Jake Blake needs a reality check, big time. There have been so many cases of social service blundering, and mistakes that have damaged peoples lives beyond repair, that I think this case should be highlighted and examined with the utmost urgency. Make no mistake, there are people in the field of social work, and indeed medicine, that I have found to be a mixture of ignorance and arrogance which goes way beyond the ability to retrain, or show different or better ways to deal with situations. Remember, socialism and communism are close cousins, and anyone with half a brain knows of the cruelty of the latter.

John perks, Westcliff on sea, Essex England

Shame the child couldn't have been raised by the Grandparents saving society the cost of social care and giving the child some form of stable upbringing. Prison? Ridiculous, and if this is the result of the ego of social workers then they should be dismissed.

John R, Exeter, Devon

I have to say people on this site appear to be making this thing unbelievably simplistic with a twist of romance for good mesaure.

What I mean to say is that do we really believe that these professionals that have dedicated their lives to the well being of children, of whom they would otherwise have no responsibility for, are deliberately trying to ruin a child?? We need to be rational about these things.

The story provides very little information in terms of why the grandfather was jailed. Therefore we are left to guess at exactly what grandfather was doing to hamper the care plan to the point where the court had to detain him. My guess is that grandfather was encouraging the child to runaway and that this was putting the child in danger and perhaps missing out on his education. We must acknowledge that grandparents would of been assessed as to whether they could look after him, bearing in mind that this is always the preferred and cheapest option for local services.

Jake Blake, Birmingham,

To date, 1625 people/organisations have signed my petition to grant legal rights to grandparents to ensure family involvement when children are placed in care or put up for adoption.

The petition is soon to come to a close and I'd be grateful if, when you're seeing friends and family this Christmas, you'd ask them to sign this petition. Copy and paste this message, hand it out, forward it, whatever you can do.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/grandparents/

Michael Robinson, Brampton, Cumbria

"Child Protection" is a corrupt system in most Western democracies. The reason for this, as pointed out in the article above, that victims of the system are subject to a form of secret justice. The worst abusers are the Nordic countries. A large number of parents flee these so-called socialdemocratic paradises in the north in order to give their children a decent upbringing with minimal state interference in Spain or Italy.

Nothing I read about the so called "Child Protection" system surprises me any more.

BjÃ¸rn LindÃ¥s, Trondheim, Norway

The Social Services have got way too much power and the Courts rubber stamp their decisions. Sad but true. I know the system inside out as my son and I have also become victims of the secret family court system in this so-called democratic society. There is nothing democratic about locking up a Grandfather when his granson is crying out for help. From what I read this boy, aged 15, has complained that he has been abused in the care system which he doesn't wish to remain in and those that have failed him are trying to put a lid on the matter. This has backfired on them as due to their actions the id has blown off and it is now wide open for everyone to see!

I read yesterday that paedophiles and all manner of criminals are going to be released early to relieve the overcrowding?? Is this to make more room for caring Grandparents and Parents to take their place. What is this country coming to I ask? Secrecy is a breeding ground for corruption. Camilla Cavendish is so right!!

Lady Heywood, Stourbridge,West Midlands, UK

Hey, I just wanted to say, the Child Protection System is crap in the UK. As it doesn't even protect kids from abuse. I'd know, I grew up in foster care. Damn social services!

R Grant, England,

I see these stories as another brick being taken away in the confidence of social judgement. The whole social services community increasingly catious of satisfying the PC environment which in itself a social cancer. God help us for the future.

Rob Lewis, Bedford,

Nanny State + police state = Innocent people going to jail.
Yes, sure does.The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Just consider the police and the social services. What you have is people of low intelligence on low wages ( as the saying goes pay peanuts and you end up with monkeys ) being given carte blanche to do exactly as they please by the idiots that have been elected to run this country but refuse to do so.

Douglas Maxwell, Richmond, Yorkshire

Nanny State + Police State = Innocent People going to Jail

R Cogburn, Farnham, Surrey

I'll bet that Charles Roy Taylor is white, probably attends Church on an infrequent basis and I'll bet that the social workers in the case are none of the above.

bobby tran, enfield,

Personally I think prison should only be a place for dangerous criminals. If you put somebody in prison for something such as benefit fraud, the government ends up paying more money keeping them there! More people should be made to do vigorous community service and we would have much less overcrowding.

Heather, Thornaby, UK

I don't think Ms. Cavendish's article in any way denigrates the police - indeed the word "police" doesn't appear in the text.

This is a problem centered exclusively on the provision of the secret court system in the UK. That system has now seen a 71-year-old pensioner sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months. You have to commit a pretty serious crime to get 20 months imprisonment these days - and I don't believe inmates serving "time" for breaking court orders get their sentences automatically cut by 50% - so Mr Taylor will serve all 20 months.

The continued provision of the secret court system gives the government every right to intervene with the structure of the High Court (and county courts) which can be seen to obviously abuse human rights.

The likes of Liberty & Amnesty should hang their heads in shame - they protest venemously about the likes of terrorist suspects & the provision of control orders - how about 71-year-old pensioners being sentenced by a UK secret court?

Richard England, Bradford, England

It doesnt sound like the police have had an input on this case its purely a social services and courts matter. It is unfair to use this case as a bash the police excercise. the problem with the police service is that the politicians are taking over. They set targets without realising the affect, for example a drunk driver doesnt tick a target box but someone relieving his bladder against a wall does. For a better police service free it of political shackles and lets have officers with policing experience in the top positions

Alain, Manchester, England

The law is an ass - always has been and always will be.

It is no surprise that the legislature, the judiciary and the police are now held in such low esteem, despite the huge amount of good work I am sure they do and despite the good intentions I am sure they had when they entered their chosen fields.

Concentration on "soft" targets and non confrontational policing has led to a growing disillusionment with the police.

Ludicrous sentencing and cases like the one described above merely confirms the commonly held view that the judiciary is a care home for those with little or no contact with the realities of modern society and with a complete lack of common sense.

Our politicians seem intent on daily confirming our suspicion that they consider themselves above the law and are answerable only to whichever special interest group shouts the loudest or pays the most in "campaign" contributions.

nick, reading,

Also in Camilla Cavendish

The glass ceiling in women's heads

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Camilla Cavendish

Camilla Cavendish has been a McKinsey management consultant, an aid worker, and CEO of a not-for-profit company. She is now a leader writer and columnist on The Times