Savanna Brockhill & Frankie Smith #16

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
He gets around now, our Brad. He was at a seige-type occurrence the other week. It all happens in Bradford.
Bless him, I saw a clip where he was explaining that a lady had brought out sandwiches for the emergency services but I think had specifically asked that they return the plate!
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 2
He gets around now, our Brad. He was at a seige-type occurrence the other week. It all happens in Bradford.
I wish he was our local reporter! Our local reporters just stalk all the local facebook groups and making their stories up from there, the lazy basterds 😂.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
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.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 8
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.
You’re wrong. It is not a misconception. The police simply don’t remove a child from anyone who has PR. If Jordan would have taken Star then Frankie would have had to go to family court and get her back via an emergency court order. I know this to be true because I know people who have been in this situation!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
You’re wrong. It is not a misconception. The police simply don’t remove a child from anyone who has PR. If Jordan would have taken Star then Frankie would have had to go to family court and get her back via an emergency court order. I know this to be true because I know people who have been in this situation!
What @SmellyAlice wrote seemed to make sense to me re: time spent with the resident parent etc. I guess it's a really complex area of law.
 
You’re wrong. It is not a misconception. The police simply don’t remove a child from anyone who has PR. If Jordan would have taken Star then Frankie would have had to go to family court and get her back via an emergency court order. I know this to be true because I know people who have been in this situation!
Was waiting for someone to say this.
 
What @SmellyAlice wrote seemed to make sense to me re: time spent with the resident parent etc. I guess it's a really complex area of law.
In most situations, Family Court will give residence to the mother, particularly when the child has lived with them from birth but the police have no power to remove a child from someone who has PR. In short, it’s not a criminal offence not to return your child if you have PR because it is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Jordan would have been able to raise his concerns with a judge in a FC situation. It would have bought some time for Star at the very least. He didn’t do enough and some people try to cover this up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
You’re wrong. It is not a misconception. The police simply don’t remove a child from anyone who has PR. If Jordan would have taken Star then Frankie would have had to go to family court and get her back via an emergency court order. I know this to be true because I know people who have been in this situation!
This is correct in England(possibly other parts of the U.K. too but i don’t know).Jordan could have taken Star and refused to return her. Someone in my family had this happen to them and the police couldn’t do anything as dad was on the birth certificate so had parental responsibility. You can also easily find this information by doing a quick google.

JH could have done this, although of course we don’t know if he was aware that he could. However most reasonable people who had grave enough concerns about their own child that they reported it to social services would surely take some advice or at least Google it to find out what they could do. I am actually quite surprised that his parents didnt( assuming he shared the concerns with them?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Jordan was seeing Star though wasn’t he until SB come onto the scene when he wasn’t at uni? He has a lot of pictures with her and her in his home
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Frankie might be being moved to Bronzefield prison in Surrey.



In other news, someone on the Remembering Star Facebook page posted a picture of Star with Ukraine flags photoshopped onto her face, with the words "Stop the War."
(face palm) Can't believe people are still doing these photoshops
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Angry
Reactions: 9
Frankie might be being moved to Bronzefield prison in Surrey.



In other news, someone on the Remembering Star Facebook page posted a picture of Star with Ukraine flags photoshopped onto her face, with the words "Stop the War."
(face palm) Can't believe people are still doing these photoshops
A family friend commented and said that this story was fake i’m sure
the editing people do on that page actually turns my stomach, if I was a family member I’d be telling them straight
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Frankie might be being moved to Bronzefield prison in Surrey.



In other news, someone on the Remembering Star Facebook page posted a picture of Star with Ukraine flags photoshopped onto her face, with the words "Stop the War."
(face palm) Can't believe people are still doing these photoshops
Oh god. What is wrong with people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Oh interesting. I’m quite surprised because I thought the judge covered herself from the legal point of view but obviously not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Oh interesting. I’m quite surprised because I thought the judge covered herself from the legal point of view but obviously not?
I think I remember reading that any sentence can get referred, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will get lengthened. I'm sure I read that someones actually got reduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5