RG at arms length

[David McKeown]

Very surprised with your take on this.

My take is fairly simple. NG has been badly failed by social services and her legal representation* - not the Derry county board.

Some of the expectations on the Derry CB "investigations" of matters in this thread are wholly ludicrous.


*my natural dislike of the legal system is also probably shining through; barristers are quick enough to rake all other professions over the coals in court inquests with the benefit of hindsight and an assumption of infinite resources - so IMO what is good for the goose - how the f**k are family law practitioners not expected to identify the signs of an raise concerns with the investigating authorities in divorce/child custody cases? If there are already such expectations, will there be any action taken against NG's representatives?

**teachers are educators, yet are expected to pick up on and raise child abuse concerns.

Probably should jump in here and defend my colleagues.  Not only is that a vast generalisation it also displays an ignorance of the legal system.  Mistakes can and do happen and on that basis I have been very keen not to make any comment on this case because I wasn't involved.  There are important general things that have to be remembered though.

Firstly and most importantly family courts are private and therefore it is impossible to know what was and what was not raised in any case but if allegations are made of a violent or sexual nature the court must conduct what is called a Re L hearing.  That is a hearing to determine the truth of any allegation.  That is done to the civil standard which is much lower than the criminal standard and involves a detailed and thorough investigation.

Social services will be involved and will investigate.  They are notoriously conservative and will take very seriously any allegations of domestic abuse.  Guardian Ad Litems will be appointed, they are specifically trained to speak to any children involved and to rely the views of those children through separate lawyers appointed by the Guardians.

Grandparents or other family members are also often separately represented.

The court will hear evidence and come to a conclusion.  The test for them is not whether one parent is more suitable than the other its to determine whether either parent is suitable.  These cases are usually protracted and are very thorough.

The point I am making is that we have no idea what happened in this family case and its therefore very unfair to criticise or worse lambast the whole professional

It's a nice big answer, but doesn't actually address the concern I've raised. Well, I suppose it partially might, as you say, its all private, so maybe allegations were made, but if that were the case, would custody decisions not have been paused pending completion of judgement on abuse investigations?

If teachers (who, lets not forget, have a primary role of educating) are expected to be able to identify and raise cases of child abuse, solicitors and barristers who spend their time practicing family law (i.e. their primary role is dealing with relationships in difficulties) should have the exact same expectation of being able to identify and raise instances of abuse. Indeed, one would think the solicitors and barristers working with abuse victims would be much closer to their core role than teachers.

The requirement of the system to only kick in "if allegations are made" is, IMO, either a complete abdication of responsibility or a failure of the system to assign responsibility to both social workers and law practitioners to protect victims who are afraid to make the allegations.

I preface this with I haven't practiced family law in about 10 years but solicitors duties are always to the court. If an allegation is made to them they will bring it to the attention of the court regardless of the wishes or feelings of the client or they will cease to act. If no allegation is made and they have a suspicion they will doubtlessly ask their client about it. If the client doesn't want to discuss the matter then it's difficult to see what exactly the solicitor can do other than cease to act. They are bound by privilege unless that privilege interferes with the duty to the court. They aren't investigators and don't make findings of fact.

To answer the other part of the question if an allegation is made the Re L hearing as it's called will take place. No final decision on residency, custody, visitation, etc will take place until the court is satisfied that the allegation has been properly investigated and a finding of fact made (on the civil standard) whether or not their had been sexual or physical or emotional violence.

A finding against a party does not disbar them from residency, custody etc but it makes it far more unlikely.  The court isn't choosing which of two parties would be better. It's choosing what options are suitable. Then which of the suitable options are best for the children.

As these cases are strictly private we don't know when if allegations are made or not. What we do know though is if they are made then a detailed and usually lengthy investigation will have been made. The court will have considered all the evidence, the views of social services, the views of the children etc and only after that will it come to a decision from which there is an aromatic right of appeal.

If allegations aren't made (particularly when there's a risk of losing custody or residency or visiting right to your children) then it's not an unreasonable question to ask why weren't they made.

If on the other hand they were made it is reasonable to assume that a detailed and thorough examination took place the result of which did not prevent the accused as being assessed as a suitable candidate for any award subsequently made.

[seafoid]

The case in question involves supervised visits of 1 hour at the weekend as I understand it.  The question would be why this form was chosen and what if anything has changed in the meantime.

[David McKeown]

I was shocked to read that Joe Brolly was planning to boycott the Ulster Final if RG was there. Isn't or wasn't he a barrister? I'm sure he's had to defend some unsavoury characters

You have to open your wallet to get them to park their morals.

Those of us who practice criminal defence work are almost always asked how do you defend someone you know is guilty. I don't think any of us do it for the money. There are far more lucrative types of work.

Our role is to ensure that every person is entitled to a fair trial and everyone is entitled to have their case made in the best possible way. Our job is not to assess the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That's a job for the judge or jury. If someone confessed to us we can not plead them not guilty. Similarly we can't plead someone guilty if they don't accept the offence. Our job is to test the evidence and to advise defendants on both the strength of that evidence and the law. How they want a trial to be conducted is entirely up to them (within reason).

[square_ball]

I was shocked to read that Joe Brolly was planning to boycott the Ulster Final if RG was there. Isn't or wasn't he a barrister? I'm sure he's had to defend some unsavoury characters

You have to open your wallet to get them to park their morals.

So he says anyway. Joe wouldn't have missed his chance of blowing kisses to the crowd at half time. Probably would have boycotted it just the same as he was invited by Biden to fly on Air Force One only the missus had a hair appointment

[High Fielder]

I was shocked to read that Joe Brolly was planning to boycott the Ulster Final if RG was there. Isn't or wasn't he a barrister? I'm sure he's had to defend some unsavoury characters

You have to open your wallet to get them to park their morals.

Those of us who practice criminal defence work are almost always asked how do you defend someone you know is guilty. I don't think any of us do it for the money. There are far more lucrative types of work.

Our role is to ensure that every person is entitled to a fair trial and everyone is entitled to have their case made in the best possible way. Our job is not to assess the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That's a job for the judge or jury. If someone confessed to us we can not plead them not guilty. Similarly we can't plead someone guilty if they don't accept the offence. Our job is to test the evidence and to advise defendants on both the strength of that evidence and the law. How they want a trial to be conducted is entirely up to them (within reason).

Great post and good to get clarification

[restorepride]

Everyone should be wise by this stage to Joe's generalisations and assumptions. Personally I now treat all his articles with the scepticism they deserve and the sensationalism they crave.  Some of the 98 team apparently not pleased that Joe seemed to speak on their behalf. Understandable. Most adults would rather be consulted first.

[Wildweasel74]

I think Joe crossed the line with a recent representation of a loyalist backed community worker, in most GAA eyes.

[marty34]

I think Joe crossed the line with a recent representation of a loyalist backed community worker, in most GAA eyes.

Joe blows like the wind.

Don't take him too seriously and you'll be grand.

[restorepride]

Runs with fox and hunts with the hounds!

[ck]

Anyone who pays any heed to anything Joe Brolly says is a fool. He's a tall tale teller, that's where he starts and finishes. He's a stranger to the truth. Not to be take seriously.

It was reported today that Nicola Gallaghers Dad sent 5 emails to Derry GAA and that the email account they claimed to be defunct was shut down only last weekend. Its clear that Derry GAA knew but didn't act.

[JoG2]

Anyone who pays any heed to anything Joe Brolly says is a fool. He's a tall tale teller, that's where he starts and finishes. He's a stranger to the truth. Not to be take seriously.

It was reported today that Nicola Gallaghers Dad sent 5 emails to Derry GAA and that the email account they claimed to be defunct was shut down only last weekend. Its clear that Derry GAA knew but didn't act.

Where are you getting this information from? Would need to be directly from the County Board or the email provider considering your first paragraph

[Champion The Wonder Horse]

Everyone should be wise by this stage to Joe's generalisations and assumptions. Personally I now treat all his articles with the scepticism they deserve and the sensationalism they crave.  Some of the 98 team apparently not pleased that Joe seemed to speak on their behalf. Understandable. Most adults would rather be consulted first.

Gonna sound like Brolly here, but I was talking to one of the men of '98. About Brolly. And he said "He's the type of boy you'd hit a dig and tell him to fcuk up. And that would be the end of it."

[seafoid]

Everyone should be wise by this stage to Joe's generalisations and assumptions. Personally I now treat all his articles with the scepticism they deserve and the sensationalism they crave.  Some of the 98 team apparently not pleased that Joe seemed to speak on their behalf. Understandable. Most adults would rather be consulted first.

Gonna sound like Brolly here, but I was talking to one of the men of '98. About Brolly. And he said "He's the type of boy you'd hit a dig and tell him to fcuk up. And that would be the end of it."

98 0r 93? Galway beat Derry in 98

[markl121]

Everyone should be wise by this stage to Joe's generalisations and assumptions. Personally I now treat all his articles with the scepticism they deserve and the sensationalism they crave.  Some of the 98 team apparently not pleased that Joe seemed to speak on their behalf. Understandable. Most adults would rather be consulted first.

Gonna sound like Brolly here, but I was talking to one of the men of '98. About Brolly. And he said "He's the type of boy you'd hit a dig and tell him to fcuk up. And that would be the end of it."

98 0r 93? Galway beat Derry in 98

The 98 ulster final winners were on the pitch in clones at half time. Joe seemed to suggest they had agreed not to do it before gallagher stepped down

[Tubberman]

Everyone should be wise by this stage to Joe's generalisations and assumptions. Personally I now treat all his articles with the scepticism they deserve and the sensationalism they crave.  Some of the 98 team apparently not pleased that Joe seemed to speak on their behalf. Understandable. Most adults would rather be consulted first.

Gonna sound like Brolly here, but I was talking to one of the men of '98. About Brolly. And he said "He's the type of boy you'd hit a dig and tell him to fcuk up. And that would be the end of it."

Well they should have given more than one dig, and done it sooner, and saved us all from listening to his shite for so long.