DEFAULT NOTICE CLARIFICATON SENT TO CHRIS REID

Mr. Chris Reid
Investigating Officer
Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman
Progressive House
33 Wellington Place
Belfast BT1 6HN

Date: 2nd October 2024

Ref: 202006004

Dear Mr. Reid,

Thank you for your response dated 2 October 2024 and for clarifying the requirements to progress my complaint. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous communications and appreciate your patience. I would like to provide the additional information you have requested regarding my complaint against the Southern Health & Social Care Trust.

Following up on my previous communication and in light of the circumstances outlined in my previous letters, I respectfully request your urgent attention to the following matters for the second time of asking:

Requests for Information:

A complete Family Man record related to my daughter’s case.
A copy of any C110A form that has been filed.
Documentation evidencing any court fees associated with the criminal proceedings affecting me or my daughter.
A full set of attendance notes concerning my daughter’s care since she was placed in Northern Ireland.

These documents are crucial to ensuring that all relevant information is available for review in connection with my ongoing concerns about the legal handling of my daughter’s case.

Outstanding Issues with the Trust’s Response (4 December 2023):
In their response dated 4 December 2023, the Trust failed to address the core issues regarding the unlawful placement of my daughter in Newry Local Authority care. Specifically:

Lack of Signed Consent: I had not given signed consent for my daughter to be taken into the care of the Newry Local Authority. This directly contravenes my legal rights as a parent with intact parental responsibility. Despite repeated requests, the Trust has failed to provide any evidence of having obtained my consent or a valid legal basis for their actions.
DNA Request: Additionally, I had requested DNA verification through an information request to confirm whether the Trust had any legitimate legal obligation over my daughter. The Trust has failed to respond adequately to this request and other letters written to them, merely sending a large quantity of letters stating that they have answered this and referring me to the Ombudsman with incorrect details in all correspondence. This is critical given the serious nature of their actions in removing her from my care without proper legal authorization. The ICO stated they were in breach of the Act, as indicated in the attached Section 10 letter. How can this indicate that they have answered all the points in their letters when they have simply ignored clear questions? I am happy to provide these letters upon request.
Failure to Address Legal Breaches: The Trust also neglected to address the legal provisions that stipulate that my daughter should not have been relocated more than 50 miles from her parental home, as outlined under Section 22C(9)(b) of the Children Act 1989 and Article 27 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The relocation of my daughter approximately 500 miles from her home represents a significant breach of these provisions.
Failure to Provide Key Records: The Trust has failed to provide the Family Man record, any C110A form, or evidence of any court fees relating to the criminal proceedings that have affected me or my daughter. This failure to provide key records raises concerns about transparency and accountability in how this case has been handled.
The Trust has not reliably answered the content of the letters sent to it; instead, it has sent a large quantity of letters stating that they have already answered and referred my complaint to the Ombudsman with the wrong contact points. They continue to ignore a complaint and unsanswer point I referred to them including regarding the care system being unfit for purpose, which you have not acknowledged in your response, despite evidence presented in the Irish Times and the TULSA documents before you.

Issues Needing Immediate Attention:
I also wish to reiterate the following significant concerns:

Breaches of the Care Act: The Trust’s actions have resulted in violations of the Care Act, which necessitate immediate investigation.
Jurisdictional Concerns:
- Whether the verdicts of any jury were outside the jurisdiction.
- Whether the destruction of complaint papers under the Children’s Director (2010-2024) prejudices both the defense for prosecution and safeguarding of children, resulting in evidentiary gaps in the case.
Fraud Act Concerns:
- Whether the misuse of powers by the Trust’s representatives constitutes Section 3 offenses under the Fraud Act.
- Whether the breaches of the Care Act also amount to Section 3 offenses under the Fraud Act, leading to a loss of jurisdiction in this case.
Malfeasance: The failure to provide the C110A form, court fee documentation, or Family Man records, as requested from you and the Disclosure team (data.access@justice.gov.uk), could potentially amount to malfeasance.
Lack of Attendance Records: The failure to supply meeting or attendance notes regarding my daughter, Emily, who remains a minor at 17 years of age, is another critical issue that remains unresolved.
Legal Breaches of Proximity Rules for Children in Care:
- Children Act 1989, Section 22C(9)(b): This Act mandates that children in care must be placed within 50 miles of their parental home, a requirement that has been breached in my daughter’s case.
- Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, Article 27: This emphasizes the importance of keeping children in care within close proximity to their home, which has also been disregarded.
Failure to Apply Section 46 and Address Consequences: The failure to act in accordance with Section 46 of the Children Act remains unresolved.
Relevant Case Law:
- McMeel v Gissing-McMeel | [2022] EWHC 1448 (Fam): This case underlines the importance of judicial conduct when fraudulent affidavits are involved. The misuse of fraudulent affidavits can lead to significant legal consequences, as highlighted in my article on this case, “Fraud Allegations Against HHJ Watkins: Key Insights.”
- Turner, R v | [2000] EWCA Crim 27: This case further supports the need to examine judicial misconduct and its implications.

In light of these unresolved issues, I urge you to consider the severity of these legal breaches and the lack of compliance from the Southern Health & Social Care Trust.

Requested Remedy:
I am seeking the following to rectify these issues:

A formal acknowledgment that the Trust acted without legal authority in placing my daughter in Newry Local Authority care.
Immediate steps to return my daughter to my care in accordance with my parental rights.
A full investigation into the Trust’s failure to follow legal procedures, including their refusal to respond to my DNA request, lack of signed consent, and failure to provide key records and court fee documentation.
An investigation into the breach of legal provisions regarding the 50-mile limit for placing children in care, as stipulated by law.

Legal Action Consideration:
Given the ongoing failure by the Trust to respond adequately to my requests and provide necessary documentation, I am considering pursuing legal action. I request your office to intervene and investigate these matters as a matter of urgency.

I hope this clarifies the specific grievances I have with the Trust’s response and the remedy I am seeking. I would also like to reiterate that I am considering legal action based on the Trust’s continued disregard for my parental rights and failure to respond to critical information requests.

I look forward to your prompt response and resolution of these critical matters by 18 October 2024, as mentioned in your previous correspondence.

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk