Fiduciary Duty

William:Sterling (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Prime Minister's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Mae'r cais yn aros am eglurhad. Os William:Sterling (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) ydych chi, os gwelwch yn dda, mewngofnodi i anfon neges ddilynol.

William:Sterling (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir,

A fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence
or trust between two or more parties , most commonly a fiduciary or
trustee and a principal or beneficiary.

In a fiduciary relation one person justifiably reposes confidence,
good faith , reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or
protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good
conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit
and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests.

This is NOT happening in HMCS and a clear conflict of interest
prevail between ‘professionals’ within local authorities and the
families comprising of men/women/offspring(children)they claim to
re-pre-sent to the state.

What information does your department hold about your fiduciary
duty and is this to the people. i.e. real men/women/their
offspring(children) or to the Crown i.e. City of London.

yours Truly,


Gadawodd J Webb (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

"The 11 MILLION children and young people in England have a voice"
Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green



[A letter a dear friend of mine sent to the Judge in the Family Court,( edited to protect identities) the Judge used paragraph 4 to remove them as party. Yet he failed to answer when asked in Court what would stop children’s services coming after their own children if they failed ‘so-called assessments including a psychological assessment that the Council and Judge were trying to rail road them into.]

After our recent LIP experience of the Family Courts regarding contesting the ICO (at your suggestion), in the hope our granddaughters would be returned to live with their grandparents. We now have ‘little faith’ in either the LA professionals who unfortunately, do not appear to act in the ‘best interests of the children’ or the present system that fails to make them accountable for their actions.

It may just be coincidental that I was standing for election in November 2007 after I had complained to the Director of Children’s Services , on a separate issue and took my complaints to the LGO.

Apparently, we could risk being labelled mad or worse if we go to the press; yet it seems pointless to Appeal without the media.

Regretfully, our stance on being assessed has not changed for the reasons given at the initial hearing; having young children of adoptable ages and no belief in the CSW comment ‘that the SS do not canvas for work’ our family has already been destroyed.

Please do not think us paranoid. A continuous stream of high calibre news articles including award winning Journalists, looking into ‘children’s services’ alongside the UN investigation into our Family Courts, EDM’s signed by numerous MP’s and
Jack Straw’s announcement to allow the press (April2009); all suggest otherwise.

There appears to be a mass of contradictions/inaccuracies and double standards.
Selective incomplete evidence, (mainly opinion based) interpreted as ‘fact’ without the full information requested from September 2002 including ‘notes’ from both the SS and CG. A different criteria/ model supplied (non-relative assessment), which is neither objective nor subjective. And discerning to note that there is no record of us receiving £100 cash from the SS .

Ironically, a Councillor on the ‘Children’s Champion Board’ sort my advice about ‘children’s services’ and is aware of our previous experience.
Although I did not ask him, he seems to have attempted to help; I am not his constituent nor did I ask about kinship care allowance and our children are not known to social care or receive services.

Charles J in Re R [2002] 1 FLR 755 and Munby J in Re L (Care Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730In Re R,

Relatives are expected to jump through hoops and endure fishing trips that were simply not required on the two previous occasions, when XXXX and XXXX were placed in our care, on the second occasion after an interview with CPO.
The LA may have been concerned about a possible Judicial Review and this may have contributed to why an offer of a mandatory referral for (FGC) ‘not best practice’ as suggested in Court, was not forthcoming.

D-v- Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 182
. Munby J Manchester City Council – V – F (2002) 1FLR 43

What is the definition of better than good enough parenting?

The House of Lords (2008) ‘grandparents only have to be reasonable enough parents’

“Innocent yet presumed guilty unless we comply - On the balance of probabilities?”
We probably have far more experience than many of the professionals involved, having raised 6 children.

Supervisory contact is only required we believe, if there is a danger to the children.
Being a XXXX/CRB checked with no previous concerns, it is insulting and degrading to be only offered expensive supervised contact in an unnatural environment. While our offer of contact in our home (with foster carers if need be) and Cllrs/Corporate Parents offering to be present, is ignored/rejected.
Whilst bizarrely XXXX & XXXX have been transported by taxi virtually on a daily basis from XXXX that is 5 minutes from XXXX, to XXXX approximately a hours drive by their first set of inexperienced carers; all at the taxpayers expense?

Where are our granddaughter’s Human Rights to a family life? Having been placed in foster care, where their well-being has deteriorated after being separated and passed from ‘pillar to post’ and respite care, instead of with relatives.

DCSF – figures suggest that at least 2 children a week die and/or are abused in care.

Research suggests that there are well-evidenced advantages1 for children who cannot live with their parents to be raised by relatives or friends:
Farmer E and Moyers S (2008)‘Kinship Care: Fostering Effective Family and Friends Placements’ (Jessica Kingsley); Doolan et al (2004) Growing up in the Care of Relatives and Friends (Family Rights Group); Hunt J (2003) Family and Friends Care; coping Paper for Dept of Health; Broad, B (ed) (2001) Kinship Care: the placement of choice for children and young people (Russell House; Hunt Waterhouse & Lutman (2008forthcoming) Keeping them in the family (BAAF) Dr Lynne Wrenndall, Charles Pragnell. Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Brian Morgan, Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, Bruce Irvine,
Dr Clive Baldwin, Stephen Clark, Cathy Johnson (2004) Taking the stick away: the service users’ joint statement

It is hoped that XXXX (babies are far more sort after for adoption and a marketable commodity) will be given a Voice Child Advocate, (the CSW rejected this in favour of the CG only).

The FGC Co-ordinator’s comment ‘ holding a FGC at a late stage “energises families” is insulting and worthless when the LA holds all the power and should not be advising family members that I must agree to be assessed.
The joint comments from the LA solicitor and CG who later offered to alter her notes? The LA solicitor told me ‘ the LA only had a duty to consider family members.’
If Human Rights and the PLO can be so brazenly be disregarded/ ignored, is it any wonder that ¾ of children end up adopted or on SGO with strangers instead of relatives.

The CG Solicitor’s remarks outside the Court ‘that LA Counsel could speak for me, or XXXX a passing Solicitor could represent me or they would adjourn and the Court would/could not allow my grandchildren to be placed with us on ICO’ (reiterated the CG comment) and meeting immediately after Court, with the CSW/Counsel, but not us. And the CG & ISW lunching in the Café across the road, all show how cosy the relevant professionals appear to be, hardly independent.

‘ Generally speaking, guardians act as cheerleaders for social services departments. They are entirely compliant, and seem incapable of doing more than being a cheering section’. Eric Pickles MP. (We cannot disagree.)

As Corporate Parents we should act in the way we would if the children were our own. I am appalled at what I perceive to be professionals who fail to act in a professional manner and seem to have no intention of working to reunite children with families. The public would be astonished at the costs involved and outraged that relatives are over looked in favour of expensive foster care.

Totally amazed that such draconian measures of removing children without a mandatory referral for (FGC) can amount to; crystal ball gazing opinion backed up by expensive reports paid for from the public purse.
How is it possible to review a past non event and make a decision based on what may or may not have happened if a FGC had been held, when it could/did not take place?

Children are not mere commodities to be passed around for profit; clearly everyone involved is being paid, (the larger the bundle the more costly?), which could be better spent on ‘real’ child protection and desperately needed front line services to support families to ensure that mandatory FGC referrals are completed; improved services.

I came into politics in order to defend the children of the poor and help make sure that families receive the services they deserve. Councillors are more aware of their responsibility to ‘looked after children’ and the CEO is reviewing the case following a subsequent meeting with the XXXX Leader.

The one simple thing that can never be altered is my granddaughters’ heritage, we are blood relatives, our granddaughters will always be dearly loved and wanted; this can never be obliterated. Hopefully they will be reunited with family members, who if given the opportunity could have applied (if need be) for a RO via private law.

The Court has the power to remedy matters and take the more proportional approach that the LA has not done to-date. Please take into consideration our views and concerns when making your decisions about our granddaughters futures.

Prime Minister's Office

Dear Mr Sterling,

Thank you for your email dated 28 October sent to the Cabinet Office and
the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons regarding Fiduciary
duty. Please note for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act,
the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons is part of the Cabinet

Looking at your request as it stands, the Cabinet Office is unlikely to
hold any information but you may wish to clarify your request to focus
on information which we may hold. I have attached below a link to the
Cabinet Office Website to give you a better understanding of the
functions of the Cabinet Office;

If by HMCS you mean HM Courts Service it is possible that the Ministry
of Justice holds information relevant to your request. If you have not
already done so, you may wish to submit your request to the Ministry of
Justice using the following link;

I hope this is helpful, and propose to take no further action unless I
hear back from you.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards

FOI Team

Cabinet Office

Tel: 020 7276 2473

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

William:Sterling (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Yasmine,

Are you stating that you do not have a fiduciary duty?

What information does your department hold about your fiduciary duty and is this to the people. i.e. real men/women/their offspring(children) or to the Crown i.e. City of London.

yours Truly,


Prime Minister's Office

Dear Mr Sterling,

Thank you for your email below. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

Your email of 28 October asked whether the Cabinet Office holds any information on our fiduciary duty. We replied asking you to clarify and focus your request because we need further information in order to identify and locate the information you have asked for. You are now asking if we have a fiduciary duty. This is not a valid Freedom of Information request. A 'valid' request under the FOI Act is one that asks to see recorded information held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue, or process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or calculations, etc.

We would of course be happy to consider your request if you could identify more clearly the information you are seeking. The request, as it stands, only identifies a category of information (fiduciary duty). This is not sufficiently specific to allow the Cabinet Office to identify and locate the information. In case you would like to look at the Cabinet Office website again to help refine your request the address is;

Additionally, you will wish to know that where requestors make broad requests for information which is not sufficiently described, it may not be possible to process the request if the estimated cost of complying exceeds an appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for central Government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending three and a half working days in determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

I hope this is helpful, but please get back to me if you have any further queries. I will not be taking any further action on this unless I hear back from you.(Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information act, a public authority need not comply with a request unless any further information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied.

Kind regards,

Yasmine Edwards

FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Tel: 020 7276 2473

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir