Bit late to this, followed the case live, only just found the threads on here and there is some great background info.
Just wanted to mention something as there’s been a misconception throughout the thread about Jordan Hobson and the rights parental responsibility gave him. A lot of posters seem to be under the impression that people with parental responsibility can remove a child from the parent they are normally resident with and keep them without any comeback. This isn’t correct, it’s a bit more of a legal classification in terms of next of kin, not carte blanche for full custody on demand.
Child maintenance is worked out in terms of how many days a week a child spends with each parent. In this case Star lived 100% with Frankie and Frankie would have been able to prove that relatively easily from documents relating to maintenance. In this situation Frankie would have been able to simply call the police. As Star was normally resident with her, police would simply have attended Jordan’s home to remove Star and return her to Frankie. We already know police and other services had contact with Star but failed to help her, there’s no reason to think this occasion might have been different.
As an example of this, Baby P’s father was married to Tracy Connelly (the Mum) when all their children, including Baby P were born. He remained married to her up to Baby P’s death, was on their birth certs and had parental responsibility and regular access until shortly before Baby P died.The last time he saw Peter (Baby P), he was missing fingernails and other signs of abuse. His father refused to give him back, Tracy Connelly called the police and they went round to the fathers house, retrieved Peter, returned him to his abusers and further contact between the Dad & Peter ceased as a result.
Parental responsibility isn’t the magic bullet some posters seem to think. I don’t know about any of the other stuff he’s accused of, but that particular allegation isn’t fair. It’s just something worth noting as it seems to be a common misconception that frequently allows innocent parents labelled as neglectful or careless of their children’s welfare, purely on the basis of a misconception.