England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

		No. ZC14C000024

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

		First Avenue House 42-49 High Holborn, WC1
		7th November 2014

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE HARRIS
(In Private)
____________________

____________________

MR. J. CHURCH (instructed by Legal Services Department) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. M. BAILEY (instructed by ) appeared on behalf of the Mother.
MS. PEPPER (instructed by ) appeared on behalf of the Father.
MRS. S. ANCLIFFE (instructed by Covent Garden Family Law) appeared on behalf of the Children's Guardian.
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

HER HONOUR JUDGE LAURA HARRIS:

1. I am dealing today with an application by the London Borough of X for care and placement orders in relation to a little girl called GB, who was born on 23^rd April 2014 and is, therefore, nearly seven months of age. Her parents are JB, who was born on 10^th December 1974 and is, therefore, aged 39, and GS, who was born on 19^th October 1976. He is, therefore, aged 38.

2. The applications made are supported by the child's guardian, Michelle Dinnell, and opposed by the parents, each of whom seeks the rehabilitation of GB to their care.

3. The case was heard by me from 17^th November to today, 21^st November. I read the relevant parts of two lever arch files and heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: Amanda Morris, the allocated social worker; Natasha Richards, the author of the Jamma Umoja report; the mother; the father; TB, the father's sister; and finally the guardian.

4. The representation of the other parties throughout the hearing was as follows. Mr. Michael Bailey of counsel represented the mother; Miss Pepper of counsel represented the father; and Miss Ancliffe of counsel represented GB and her guardian.

5. The threshold in this case is set out in a composite document prepared by Mr. Church on behalf of the local authority. The threshold document is largely agreed, although there are some limited matters about which I need to make findings. The threshold document indicates that GB was likely to suffer significant harm at the time protective measures were taken, in particular that she was likely to suffer emotional and physical harm and neglect in her parents' care. I will summarise the matters relied upon.

6. Firstly, the local authority relies upon the history of the mother's care of her older child, R, who was ultimately placed into the care of the local authority. It is also asserted that the father, during the relationship with the mother, was unable to be a protective influence for R. That is a matter which is, to some degree, in contention.

7. Further, the local authority rely upon the volatile relationship between the parents and the fact that both parents assert that they have had to protect themselves from physical aggression and volatility from the other. Again, that is a matter about which I will have to make findings, because the parents' case as to who was primarily responsible for the aggression in the relationship differs as between them.

8. Further reliance is placed upon the mother's excessive use of alcohol, consuming three and a half litres of cider and four cans of Kestrel beer some nights. Further, the father's substance misuse, in terms of his smoking cannabis, namely three joints a day.

9. The mother has been assessed by Dr. Peter Maggs, a chartered psychologist. He reports that the mother's emotional difficulties may hinder her ability to manage GB when she matures and becomes more challenging of her mother's authority. The mother does not accept this, and it is a matter about which I will also need to make findings.

10. The father, too, has been assessed by Dr. Maggs. He reports that the father has found himself embroiled in relationships with abusive dynamics.

11. Further, Jamma Umoja, who carried out assessments in relation to the father and mother, report that the mother has struggled to show insight or empathy into the experiences of her daughter R. Again, the mother does not accept this and I will need to deal with that assertion.

12. Finally, Jamma Umoja reports that the father requires therapy due to his level of vulnerability.

13. I should say at the outset that it is entirely appropriate, whatever other orders I make, that the father should have parental responsibility for GB, because, even if she does not return to the care of either parent, it is important that, in the fullness of time, GB appreciates that the court's view was that the father should have equal status with the mother and that he has demonstrated full commitment to his daughter.

14. The issues in this case revolve around the following matters: the mother's parenting of R; the mother's abuse of alcohol; the mother's relationship with the father; the mother's anger control issues, which bear upon her parenting of R and her relationship with the father. In relation to the father, the issues are his vulnerability; the risk of his resuming a relationship with the mother or entering into another abusive relationship; and, finally, his use of cannabis.

The background - the parents' early lives

The mother

15. The mother's parents separated when she was nine. Her father was said to be a heavy drinker, and she indicated that she had suffered physical chastisement from him, although her mother would try to protect her. Her own mother, she reported, was a victim of domestic violence throughout her marriage. The mother herself was known to Children's Services during her childhood as a result of behavioural difficulties. In due course, in her teenage years, she was placed in a boarding school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Previous relationships, in particular her relationship with the father of R, M, involved domestic violence.

The father

16. The father described that, following the death of his father when he was 11 years old, his mother, sadly, developed an alcohol problem. He described his mother to Dr. Maggs and to Jamma-Umoja as "controlling and dominating". He told Jamma-Umoja that she subjected him to emotional and psychological abuse over a long period. He described how his home with his mother became squalid and how he ended up living, effectively, as a recluse.

17. The history concerning R

As I have already indicated, GB is the mother's second child and the father's first child. The mother's first child, R, born on 2^nd February 1999, is, therefore, aged 15 years and eight months of age. As I have said, her father is a man called M. The mother was not on the radar of Social Care until R was nine, but there are early snapshots, both positive and negative, relating to her care before that time. On the positive side, there are entries in the red book when she was aged about two, at p.16 and 17, which indicate that she was a lovely sociable little girl and there were no concerns expressed about her. I refer, in particular, to the entry on 12^th February 2001, which said:

"Mother and R seen together, gorgeous sociable and chatty toddler."

Then there were further entries of a similar nature on different occasions in 2001.

18. On the negative side, in the pre-birth assessment carried out before GB's birth, the mother admitted to the social worker that she found R's behaviour difficult from the age of two. In the red book there is an entry at the age three review about the mother expressing her concern that R keeps running off and cannot be trusted. Little, therefore, is known about R's early years, although both R herself and her maternal grandmother, who would have no axe to grind, later reported that the mother struggled to manage her behaviour and regularly physically abused her from the age of two. An early example of what has been described as mother's "issues with anger" is that she was banned from R's school as a result of her aggressive behaviour in 2008.

19. R came to the attention of the local authority aged nine, when she reported physical abuse to her school. She reported being hit with a hair brush by her mother and being slapped on the face on several occasions. This was 19^th March 2009. There is a detailed chronology from F1 in the bundle, which paints a bleak and dispiriting picture. According to the chronology, the mother denied using the hair brush to strike R, but admitted hitting her in the past, which is the opposite of what she told me, namely that she had used the hair brush, but had not hit her other than on this occasion.

20. A decision was taken for R to be placed with her maternal grandmother, DB. The mother had to be removed from R's school due to her anger at this decision. Shortly before this, the mother had first met the father. R was then returned home after a few days. There were continued complaints of physical abuse by the mother and bruises were seen.

21. On 12^th May 2009, there was a child protection conference and R was made subject to a child protection plan under the category of neglect. There was concern about physical abuse, about the mother's alcohol use and her lack of engagement with and hostility towards professionals. A lack of warmth, stimulation and guidance was reported by R herself. Further, R reported, and the school confirmed, very controlling behaviour by the mother, for example, around R socialising with her peers.

22. The mother then returned to Northampton and lived with R's father. This lasted less than four weeks and, by June 2009, she had returned to London and resumed her relationship with the father. Reverting to the chronology, at F5, entry 21, which is dated 22^nd June 2009, reads as follows:

"Alan Edwards School refusing to take R back due to Miss B's threatening behaviour and verbal abuse towards staff and intimidation towards other parents, teachers and students. Miss B's behaviour was described as so appalling she had previously been banned from the site. The school report this behaviour as an emotional impact on R."

23. It is of significance that the chronology refers to the father reporting to the grandmother that the mother had attacked him in the presence of R, which was confirmed by R. This is something that he denied ever happened in his oral evidence. Very sadly, R continued to report both physical and emotional abuse from her mother and ultimately she became accommodated by the local authority.

24. On 25^th June 2009, the police exercised police protection powers after R was found abandoned by the mother at midnight at the father's home following the mother having caused a disturbance, which led neighbours to call the police. She had run away to avoid being arrested. The mother expressed no contrition for this. R also described being woken up at 11 or 12 at night to go to the park and meet the mother's friends, who used alcohol. The mother denies this. She was also woken up to go to the father, where they would stay until 3 or 4am.

25. A child protection medical, on 3^rd July 2009, revealed a large number of bruises, of which nine were thought to have been caused by physical abuse. R was again placed with her grandmother. The mother was then charged with child cruelty. She pleaded guilty at the Crown Court, although she told me that she only did so on the advice of her lawyer and she was not guilty. R was on a child protection plan until 17^th May 2010, followed by a child in need plan until 5^th March 2012, when she became looked after due to physical chastisement by her mother and her grandmother.

26. In April 2013, R returned to the care of her grandmother. It was felt, however, that she was not able to protect her from abuse by her mother. The theme throughout the detailed chronology is of the mother's aggressive and unco-operative behaviour towards professionals, making it effectively impossible to work with her. This further placement with the grandmother broke down in October 2013, following allegations by R of physical abuse by the mother and the grandmother. The grandmother expressed herself as fearful of the mother at times. These most recent allegations led to R being placed in foster care permanently, and that is where she now lives.

27. The history pre-birth of GB

The concerns, therefore, at the time that the mother became pregnant with GB, were that she had failed to engage with Social Care in both London and Northamptonshire or to take up services to address her alcohol use or her anger issues. There were concerns about domestic violence in her relationship both as a perpetrator and as a victim, concerns about her having anger management problems and problems with alcohol. Further, the mother was not seen to show insight into the concerns. She and the father laid the blame at R's door. The failure to acknowledge the concerns led to lack of engagement with the local authority or other services which had been identified.

28. A strategy meeting took place before GB's birth. At that meeting, the mother showed no insight into the concerns about R and, indeed, no remorse for her treatment of her. It was reported that the mother had been in a relationship with the father for six years and that this had started shortly before R's first complaint to the police and the local authority. It was felt he had not been a protective factor for R.

29. During the meeting with the social worker, the mother justified the use of violence as normal and described R as "an animal" who would try to run from the home at night. The father appeared to concur with the mother's views. The mother denied the recorded concerns from Social Care files and the school. The mother spoke of R with contempt and expressed no desire to rekindle the relationship. The father appeared to hold similar views.

30. GB was made subject to a child protection plan on 4^th April 2014, under the category of neglect.

31. Both parents were against R having contact with the new baby. They expressed the view that she was spiteful and might deliberately harm her. The mother refused the family group conference and said that the only person caring for the baby would be her own mother. Further, the mother continued to smoke during her pregnancy, despite advice. She was referred to an agency called LANDS to address her alcohol problems.

32. In the documentation, the mother's engagement with Social Care was described as "ambivalent". Sometimes, she expressed a willingness to engage in services, sometimes taking the view that there were no problems needing services.

33. In the pre-birth assessment, which I have read, the father told Social Care that he was not prepared to have the mother jeopardising his chance to be a father and that he would separate from the mother if necessary. He made it clear that he was willing to work with professionals and engage in services. However, even at that early stage, concerns were noted that he did not assert himself in the presence of the mother, nor question her views.

34. In relation to the issue of alcohol, the mother says that, save for a drink at Christmas 2013, she has not consumed alcohol since she found out that she was pregnant, and the father supports this. There is no evidence that the mother has ever presented as being under the influence of alcohol during the period both prior and subsequent to GB's birth. There was, however, one positive breath test at Jamma-Umoja. The mother also attended the Lambeth Drug and Alcohol Service for four relapse prevention sessions in June/July 2014. Her attitude was reported as constructive. She was not seen to require further long term input as she was seen as stable, having been alcohol-free for several months prior to the contact.

The Jamma Umoja assessment

35. The parents were placed at the residential unit Jamma Umoja with a plan for a residential assessment of six weeks, commencing on 7^th May 2014. Within only a week, there was an incident, on 15^th May, in the early hours of the morning, where the mother was reported to have been abusive and threatening to the father and grabbing GB from him whilst the father was attempting to feed her. The mother denies snatching GB from him. The father went to the communal parts of the unit to attempt to defuse the situation and the mother followed. The mother was threatening to the father and staff. She was described as being in such a rage that she was hitting walls and slamming doors whilst holding the baby. GB had to be removed from the centre of conflict by staff. Despite being given a warning, less than an hour later, there was a further incident. The police were called, the mother initially refused to go, but then did. She initially attempted to take all GB's belongings, but the police refused to allow it. The mother had already been seen as being very controlling over the father and it was felt that the mother would use GB as a means of exercising control over him. For example, she refused to agree to his having parental responsibility.

36. On 15^th May, a professionals meeting decided that the dynamic of the parents' relationship was destructive and that the assessment could not continue with the mother there, she should leave and it should continue with father alone. The mother was to be assessed by Jamma-Umoja in the community.

37. The father could understand the impact on GB and sought to remove himself. The mother, however, minimised the incident and said that GB had been asleep and unaffected. The plan was for the mother to have contact three times a week in the unit. When the matter came before me, on 22^nd May, I sanctioned this plan.

38. After the mother left, the father was able to open up to staff about the abusive nature of the relationship and how damaging it had been for him. There was initially what could be described as a honeymoon period with the father, such that Jamma Umoja were considering a community assessment with a robust package of support.

39. However, in the end, from Jamma Umoja's perspective, the father could not sustain the progress made. He rapidly formed a close relationship with a female resident at the unit, who was reported to be a Class A drug user and reported by her social worker as exploiting vulnerable people. The father was warned against the relationship by his key worker and other members of staff, but was unwilling to accept the advice. The staff, at this point, noticed a significant change in the father's commitment to GB. At a recommendations meeting, on 15^th July, Jamma Umoja made it clear that, as a result of developments, they could not recommend any further assessment of the father in the community.

40. The father agreed, reluctantly, on 24^th July, at court, for GB to be placed in foster care. Thereafter, each parent was to have contact on a supervised basis for two hours per week on two occasions.

The community based assessment of the mother

41. This was a six week assessment involving planned and unplanned visits to the mother's home and contact to GB three times a week. Jamma Umoja reported that the mother complained at every contact about GB's physical presentation. She refused to follow the father's care regime, for example the use of a dummy. Indeed, she allowed GB to cry rather than give her the dummy to which she had become used. On many occasions, GB was crying for long periods and the mother was unable to settle her. She was constantly disparaging the father. She was not prepared to let GB go home in clothes that she had bought for her. She was seen to be resistant to advice. Jamma Umoja reported:

"There has not been a single contact where the mother came with the principal purpose of simply enjoying time with her daughter."

The mother could see no concerns about her parenting. At para.23 of E104 of the bundle, Jamma Umoja reports as follows:

'Currently, it does not appear that [the mother] does have a bond with her daughter and her commitment to the assessment has appeared to be more about getting back at [the father] and not allowing GB to reside with him. She has spoken openly that her preference is for her daughter to be adopted than to reside with her father. [The mother] has advised staff on more than one occasion that should [the father] have care of GB full-time she will "cut all ties" with her.'

42. It is right that I should record that contact has improved since those early days. It has been reported that GB has got used to the mother and is now much more settled. The mother is plainly able to meet her basic needs and there are some very nice interactions observed. There are, however, still some inconsistencies; for example, the mother wanting to wake GB up when it is clear that she wants to sleep. Thus, it is felt that the mother is not always attuned to GB's clues.

43. The mother's account of her history to Jamma Umoja and of her relationships was described by them as "superficial and simplistic" and, when she was probed, a different picture emerged or her own mother, DB, would let the cat out of the bag by making unprompted remarks. Her own mother was present at virtually all of the home visits which took place at DB's home. It was apparent that the mother spent much of her time with her own mother, but it seemed to Jamma Umoja that the relationship between mother and daughter was one where the mother was walking on egg shells so as to avoid upsetting her daughter. DB appeared unable to challenge her daughter and supported her stance of being a victim in clashes with authority.

44. A lack of empathy for others was observed, particularly for R. At E11, para.50, Jamma Umoja said this:

"[The mother] lacks empathy for others, but almost completely with her daughter R. Staff have been taken aback by how [JB] and her mother speak about R. There is no acceptance of any aspect of the care given to her as being a factor in the child she grew up to be and both [JB] and her mother blame R for the position they face now in relation to [GB]."

45. It was said that R had made up a lot of lies and that the mother had never been drunk in her presence and that the only time she had hit her was the incident with the hair brush. There was no concession at all about the care R received. The mother appeared so preoccupied with her issues with the father that this was to the detriment of GB; for example, her statement that she would cut ties with GB if GB lived with her father. There was no responsibility taken, according to Jamma Umoja, for the experiences R endured and the mother was simply not willing to explore this issue in any way. Jamma Umoja reported that she was not ready to make changes as she did not see that anything needed to change. It was felt the assessment was employed as a way of getting back at the father. It was not felt that the mother had a support network.

46. As I have already said, Jamma Umoja found the mother's lack of empathy "chilling". That was a word that was used more than once in their assessment. It was felt that "the assessment was a playing ground for the mother to exact revenge on the father" and that this was given priority over meeting GB's needs.

47. At the end of the day, it was felt that the assessment had not really got off the starting blocks in acknowledging any need for change, there being a minimisation of past concerns and a lack of open and honest working with Jamma Umoja. They reported that they could not recommend that GB was rehabilitated to her mother with no change achieved.

The father's assessment

48. The father was a new father, with no previous experience of caring for a baby. He was also felt to have limited life skills. As I have already reported, he seemed to be very submissive to his partner and she domineering to him, especially over the care of GB. When she left, he initially struggled, but, within a short time, he began to gain confidence and seemed to feel empowered now that the mother had left. He was able to open up during key sessions and disclose how damaging the relationship had been for him. He described being belittled verbally and physically abused and was subject to violence twice a week when the mother was drunk. He showed a developing insight, for example into the links between his own relationship with his mother and the relationship with JB. Whilst he reported that the mother showed controlling, aggressive and verbally abusive behaviour towards R, he denied seeing any incidents of physical abuse.

49. As I have already reported, by the midway stage, things had got to the point where Jamma Umoja were seriously considering a community based assessment with a high level of support. The assessment was extended to eight weeks. However, after the midway point, the staff noted, with concern, the father developing a close friendship with another resident with drug issues. As I have said, he was warned repeatedly of the potential danger of this relationship. He was described as becoming defensive and petulant if staff tried to speak to him about it. On one occasion, he was actively hostile to staff and jumped on board the bandwagon of the female resident, who wanted to make a complaint to the police. The female resident was controlling and dominant, like the mother. He admitted that, if she called him in the community, he would go to her. Staff believed he lied to them about colluding with her drug taking behaviour, which posed a risk to her child. He, however, denies that he ever lied to them. Staff felt he showed a poor ability to assess risk. For example, he would take things that she told him at face value.

50. At E164, para.46, they sum up the situation in this way:

"[GS] is still very much at the beginning of the cycle of abuse. Whilst he has separated from his ex-partner, he remains vulnerable and, seeking love and attention, he gravitates towards people who can fill that void with no understanding about the complicated needs they may have and where he fits into their agenda. It has been sad to watch him invest so much in someone over the course of the assessment who has shown very little regard for him other than making him an accessory to her own rule breaking and risk taking behaviour. We are of the view that these are patterns he is going to continue to follow in the community without undergoing some kind of therapeutic intervention."

51. As I have already said, at the same time, his commitment to GB appeared to falter. He spent less time with her, was more challenging towards staff and was no longer able to budget his money. He met her basic needs, they felt, to a good enough standard, but not much else. At the recommendations meeting, on 15^th July, they felt unable to recommend a move into the community.

52. There were, however, many positives noted in the assessment. The father had a laid back, gentle manner, which appeared to suit the baby. He showed warmth and gentleness towards her. They appeared to have formed a strong attachment. He developed a good routine.

53. As against that, he showed little initiative and the staff had to be behind him at all times encouraging him, and this became more evident as staff intervention reduced over time. If he was criticised, his lack of confidence would mean that he would tend to give up. It was felt that there was a significant risk that he would gravitate towards the mother or another abusive relationship.

54. Jamma Umoja concluded that this would place him and GB at risk of significant harm. His need for another was seen to take priority over his need to protect his child. It was felt he would not be able to recognise risk if it emanated from a person that he had feelings for. There was concern also about his ability to set boundaries for the mother. It was felt that he would struggle to meet the needs of GB as she grew older and became more demanding of him.

55. At E172, para.77, Jamma Umoja concluded as follows:

"It is felt that [GS] does not have a real grasp of the long term commitment that parenting is and what this will entail and, whilst he loves his daughter and wants the best for her, his own needs appear to be conflicting with [GB]. His need for companionship and love has meant that he has continued to prioritise this over the need to pull away for his daughter's sake."

56. So far as his cannabis use is concerned, they felt that, whilst there was no evidence that he had used it after the first few weeks at the unit, and indeed that the positive tests in the first few weeks might be due to previous use, there was a risk that he could lapse in the community.

The assessment of Peter Maggs

57. Peter Maggs was not called to give evidence and, therefore, his reports on the mother and the father are, effectively, unchallenged.

The mother

58. Peter Maggs found the mother to be of average intelligence and not suffering from any psychological disorder. He concluded that it was likely she had been exposed to the effects of her father's alcohol abuse and that this had left her feeling emotionally uncontained. This lack of emotional containment, he felt, had been played out in the mother's resistance to behavioural boundaries, in her behavioural difficulties at school and, quite possibly, in her abuse of alcohol and her involvement in abusive relationships. He considered that it was likely that her anger was the result of her underlying emotional fragility arising from painful life experiences.

59. He felt the mother would need to manage her alcohol abuse, learn to control her anger and learn to control her abusive behaviour in relationships if she was to be able to care for GB safely. In particular, he felt her lack of impulse control would be likely to be more of a problem as GB got older and became more challenging. He felt that, to achieve changes, she would need a high level of professional support. This was made more difficult by her defensive attitude towards professionals and he felt it would be a challenge for professionals to overcome this defensiveness. He felt this resistance to authority could probably be traced back to her school days. Like other professionals, he considered there was a real possibility that the mother would resume a relationship with the father if the opportunity presented and that there was a risk that she would enter into further abusive relationships without significant therapy. He expressed concern as to whether she could engage effectively with therapy in GB's timescales.

The father

60. The father, too, was of average intelligence with no psychological disorder. Like the mother, Dr. Maggs felt the father lacked emotional containment, particularly during adolescence after the loss of his father. This had left him insecure and prone to entering into abusive relationships. There was a link between his relationship with his own mother and that with the mother: both were controlling and dominant and both abused alcohol. He would need therapy to develop the strength to avoid such relationships in the future.

61. To meet GB's needs, the father would need to refrain from substance misuse, i.e., his use of cannabis, and show an ability to avoid abusive relationships in future. He felt the father was demonstrating insight into these issues, and that was the same as Jamma Umoja. He felt that the father was at risk of forming abusive relationships in the future with the mother or another female unless he had therapeutic input. He ended his assessment of the father on an optimistic note. He considered the father would be likely to benefit from such interventions within GB's timescales.

The parental relationship

62. Both parents accept that this was a volatile relationship. The mother asserts that the physical aggression in the relationship was two way. The father says that he only resorted to physical aggression when he was at the end of his tether after being goaded and provoked by the mother both verbally and physically for a period such as an hour on end. He says that it was only in those circumstances that he resorted to physical aggression.

63. The parents' relationship was seen to have ended on 15^th May, when the mother left the assessment. The mother told Peter Maggs that she still loved the father, and his report was at the end of June. I have already said that Jamma Umoja considered that there was a risk that the parents would resume their relationship. The father, on the other hand, told Peter Maggs, Jamma Umoja and the guardian that he was never going back.

64. There were concerns, however, on the part of the local authority almost immediately after the father left the Jamma Umoja assessment, that the parents had rekindled their friendship. The father attended a contact planning meeting with the mother and said he did not know the way there, despite being given instructions, so that the mother was seen to be waiting for him in the park. The parents were seen to be on friendly terms at a LAC review on 29^th August. They said they were not in a relationship but were best friends. The father was observed to be watchful of the mother and dominated by her. All these observations turned out to be well founded. In his most recent statement, the father referred to a "magnificent change" in the mother. He referred in that statement to having met together with her from time to time.

65. However, in his oral evidence, he went much further. I asked him, before his cross-examination started, to be entirely frank and open with me about the nature of his current relationship with the mother. He related how she had approached him, via Facebook, within a couple of days of his coming out of Jamma Umoja, and that he had relented and met her. He said otherwise she would continue to try and make contact and would come to his flat. They lived only five minutes apart. He said, in any event, they were both the parents of GB. It turned out that his statement, saying they met from time to time, was somewhat economical with the truth. He told me that they see each other practically every day. They have meals together, both out and at home, and they walk by the river talking. He will spend time at her flat, sometimes for the day. He said she still loves him and would go back to the relationship. He said that he has strong feelings for her as the mother of his child. He told me that he would not, however, be interested in a relationship at the moment. He said they had not engaged in an intimate relationship since he left Jamma Umoja.

66. The guardian met them both, on 10^th November, and received the clear impression that they were holding back from resuming a full relationship because of concerns about what professionals would say; in other words, if they were given the green light, they would have done so.

67. The father told me that he could, effectively, having dropped the drawbridge down, pull it back up again and back away from the mother. He said that he would play by the rules and would ensure only supervised contact.

68. The guardian felt that the reason he had been able to resist a contact made to him in the community by the other female resident was because he already had the mother back in his life. She saw no special significance in whether the relationship was currently an intimate physical relationship or not.

The mother's evidence

69. The mother said that, when R was a baby, she was in a refuge due to a violent relationship. She said R's behaviour only became difficult when she was aged nine to ten. She became challenging and oppositional. In oral evidence, she said that her behaviour changed after she alleged that she had been raped to the school when she was ten, the alleged assault having happened when she was nine. However, there was no reference to this whatsoever in her written evidence, and I would have expected it to be there if this was such a significant cause for her change in behaviour.

70. The mother said, in her written evidence, that any chastisement of R was a light tap. In her written evidence, she said she accepted that she caused a bruise to R by hitting her with a hair brush in March 2009. However, in her oral evidence, she rowed back from this and said that she had only left a red mark.

71. The mother said that, when she returned to live with R's father, he had thrown them both out of the house after two months. She admitted the incident in June 2009, when she had run away from the father's address leaving R alone at night.

72. She denied physical and emotional abuse of R. She said that R should only see GB supervised as she might try to hurt her and blame the mother.

73. The mother accepted that she had a volatile relationship with the father, fuelled by her alcohol use and his cannabis use, but she said that this stopped three years ago. She accepted that she did not engage well with Social Care when living with R. She said she had not drunk since she got pregnant with GB.

74. The mother admitted that, on 15^th May, at the time of the breakdown of her assessment at Jamma Umoja, she was in the park. She kept trying to talk to the father in the face of the plan to keep them apart and this is what led to Jamma Umoja calling the police. She denied ever being threatening or aggressive. She refused to register the father on GB's birth certificate with someone from Jamma Umoja being present.

75. In oral evidence, the mother was very much as described by Jamma Umoja and the other professionals. She showed no insight and her lack of empathy for R was startling. For example, she described R's allegation of having been raped in a wholly dispassionate way and, when I asked her if she had ever asked R about it, she said that she had not seen her after that. That was in January 2010, when she made the allegation, and the chronology shows that, whilst R did not live with the mother, the mother saw her numerous times after that.

76. She was very evasive when asked by me about her criminal conviction and what the facts were. She said she did not remember it as it was a long time ago; whereas, in fact, it was only four years ago.

77. She was absolutely clear that nothing needed to change about her parenting. She repeated that the only occasion she had been physically violent to R was the hairbrush incident and she minimised the difficulties with R, saying that they really centred upon R's difficulties in sleeping and her continually getting out of bed once she had been put to bed. She denied being drunk in R's presence and she minimised her role in the physical aggression in her relationship with the father.

The father's evidence

78. In his written evidence, he said he used to smoke three cannabis cigarettes a day, but stopped when he came to Jamma-Umoja.

79. He reiterated that, when R came home, the mother was drinking three and a half litres of cider and four cans of Kestrel beer on evenings she was drinking and that that would be every other day.

80. He described physical abuse by the mother of him. He described a very difficult relationship when the parents were at Jamma Umoja. The mother was very controlling and he described a further incident in the park the next day. In his early written evidence, he said he intended to separate from the mother and have no contact.

81. In his oral evidence, the father gave a graphic account of the relationship. He said that, when the mother was drinking, which was every other day, she would be physically violent to him and there would be loud arguments. He said the physical violence was twice a week, but later said every other day or two to three times a week. He denied that the arguments occurred, other than light arguments, after R had gone to bed and said that a lot happened after she had gone. However, later he contradicted this and said that the mother would shout at him when R got out of bed, but not hit him. However, as I have already referred, in the chronology at F1 onwards, he told the grandmother that the mother had assaulted him in the presence of R. He said, as I have already recorded, that he would only react physically after she had goaded and belittled him, sometimes for over an hour, refusing to leave his flat and he just could not take any more. Once, he punched his fist into the wall and broke a bone in his hand. He said that R would see the mother paralytic because, although the mother drank when she was in bed, she would habitually get up from bed.

82. In relation to the relationship between mother and R, he said he witnessed a lot of shouting and swearing at her. She would not settle at night and would even try to get out of the flat. However, he said that the shouting and swearing was pretty normal, as his mother had shouted at him. He said this was nearly nightly.

83. The father said he would see bruises on R, but he never asked how she got the bruises and assumed that this was through rough play. He said he did not witness physical assaults by the mother, but would see physical struggling, with R pinching and punching the mother. He said this was only on one occasion. However, in his statement, at C51, para.9, he indicates that this was not restricted to one occasion.

84. He ascribed all the mother's behaviour to drink and said that, when in drink, she was like Jekyll and Hyde. The mother shared his view that she only behaved like this when drunk, although of course she did not accept the extent of the behaviours he described.

My findings and my impressions of the witnesses

Amanda Morris

85. I found her to be a sensible social worker. To her credit, the mother felt that she was able to get on with her. Her analysis of the risk factors in this case was one which I accept. However, I have to say that her BS analysis was somewhat perfunctory and unsophisticated.

Natasha Richards

86. She was the representative from Jamma Umoja who was responsible for the report and most of the work with the parents. I found her to be an insightful and impressive witness. Although the Jamma Umoja assessment did not follow the more usual framework for assessments, I find that it covered all necessary areas. I found that, in her evidence to me, she summed up the situation and the risks and benefits accurately. I accept her analysis.

Peter Maggs

87. I also found that the analysis of Peter Maggs, which in many ways was wholly consistent with the analysis of Jamma Umoja and the other professionals, to be on point. Indeed, I observe that his evidence was not challenged.

The mother

88. I regret to say that I found the mother to be an inconsistent and unreliable witness. Where her evidence differed from that of the father, I preferred his evidence. She was evasive, for example about her criminal convictions, and minimised the difficulties in her relationship with R and her role in the physical and verbal aggression in her relationship with the father. I do not find that her aggression is limited to when she is drunk. She has real issues with anger, especially when she is challenged. Recent examples include her behaviour at Jamma-Umoja at the time she was asked to leave, and there is even an example of a recent contact when she walked out and left GB.

89. In my judgment, the mother has a need to be in control and she cannot tolerate it if her control is challenged. That is why she found it so difficult to tolerate the idea of the father being GB's primary carer. Her emotions took over to the detriment of GB. I refer to her behaviour in contacts, when she was more concerned with discrediting the father than with GB's needs.

90. I find, however, that she loves GB very much and GB was a much wanted baby. It is greatly to her credit that she was able to stop drinking and was able to engage constructively with the sessions at the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Service.

91. However, I find that difficulties arise when a child gets to the stage when that child can be oppositional and defiant and later when the child is able to challenge her. In my judgment, it is no coincidence that the difficulties with R started after the age of two.

92. She was wholly unable to prioritise GB's needs over her own. In particular, I refer to her behaviour during the Jamma-Umoja residential assessment and during contact. There was a very clear display of the concerns held about her in the context of that Jamma-Umoja assessment. In my judgment and experience, it is extremely unusual for an assessment to have to be terminated after nine days.

93. I found her also, for a woman of her years, to be immature.

The father

94. I found the father generally to be an honest witness, although I consider that he understated what R had been exposed to. I felt in fact that he, too, lacked empathy about what R had endured. He did not seem to be particularly shocked by the behaviour he saw and, indeed, described the shouting and swearing at her as normal. I find that his own childhood experiences have normalised this sort of behaviour for him.

95. I found him to be an extremely pleasant and well intentioned man, but, like the mother, very immature for his age. I agree with the professionals that he is a very vulnerable individual. His childhood experiences have left him being drawn to potentially abusive relationships with dominant controlling females. Like the mother, it is highly significant that he displayed the behaviours which have been expressed to be of concern about him even in the highly supportive environment of Jamma-Umoja; and I refer in particular to his friendship with the female resident.

96. He is so needy that, however much he loves his child (and I have no doubt whatsoever that he does), he is unable to prioritise her over his own needs. Despite all his pronouncements to the contrary to professionals and in his own evidence, and despite his developing insight into the damaging nature of the relationship, within days of leaving Jamma Umoja, he was back in a relationship with the mother. In my judgment, that is the clearest testament to his neediness. It is doubly extraordinary that he should gravitate back to her so quickly and that he did so when the spotlight of the proceedings was on him. I agree with the guardian that it is irrelevant whether their relationship is currently platonic or not. I also accept her evidence that, if they were given the green light, it is likely that they would have resumed a full relationship by now and that they are only holding back because of these proceedings.

97. I do not find that he would ever be able to set the necessary boundaries in relation to mother's contact with GB. As has been said, the mother is a very persistent person. He has the best of intentions, but, in my judgment, he is being wholly unrealistic and he is deluding himself. I find that, once the spotlight of the proceedings is over, it is likely that, in due course, he will resume his relationship with the mother. In Jamma Umoja, he started to take the initial steps on a long journey. In my judgment, he has a long way to go and I do not consider that he can take sufficient steps along that journey within GB's timescales.

TB

98. I found TB to be a very nice and sensible woman. She is realistic enough to accept that she would not be able to exercise control over her brother's actions and how he lived his life when he lived with her and, indeed, when he chose to leave. Indeed, I got the clear impression from him that he would leave as soon as alternative accommodation was available. I accept that TB is a person of integrity and that she would report any concerns to Social Care.

99. The difficulty is that this brother/sister relationship has only recently been re-established when the father was at Jamma Umoja. He, plainly, has not confided in her about all the issues, and I have no confidence that he would do so if he was living at her home. She is extremely well intentioned in offering her home in support to her brother, but I find that she has other commitments in terms of her work and her own family which would severely limit the time available to spend with him and GB.

The guardian

100. I am not going to go over what was contained in the guardian's report. However, I record that I found her an astute and worldly witness and I found her written and oral evidence compelling.

My findings

The threshold

101. It is not disputed in this case that the threshold has plainly been crossed. However, there are some findings that I need to make, firstly in relation to item 6, which states that mother and father have been in a relationship for about seven years and father has not been able to be a protective influence for R.

102. The evidence as it emerged showed that the father had only been present in the mother's home for a period of about three months when R was living with her and that he was not living there full-time during those three months. Therefore, this allegation must be effectively watered down. However, I agree with the guardian that, even though his involvement was much more limited than the threshold document suggests, he should have appreciated the way that the mother treated R was simply inappropriate and not acceptable. As I have said, his treatment by his own mother to some extent has normalised this behaviour for him. No doubt, he also found it very difficult to challenge the mother. I find he should have been more enquiring about the bruises that R had and, as the guardian said, as any responsible adult would.

103. In relation to allegation 8, both mother and father say they have had to protect themselves from the other acting in an aggressive manner towards them. I find the father's account to be the accurate one, namely that the mother was the principal perpetrator of physical aggression in the relationship and he only acted in that way when he was effectively goaded beyond endurance and simply "lost it", if I can put it colloquially.

104. Allegation 11 concerns Peter Maggs' assertion that the mother's emotional difficulties may hinder her ability to manage GB when she matures and becomes more challenging for mother's authority. I have already indicated that I found Peter Maggs' analysis to be an accurate one. Therefore, I accept that allegation.

105. Similarly, in relation to allegation 13, that Jamma-Umoja report that mother has struggled to show insight or empathy into the experiences of R in her care. Again, it is plain from what I have already said, that I find that allegation made out.

106. I then have to go on to consider the welfare part of this hearing. As this is an application for a placement order, GB's welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I have to have regard to the welfare checklist both in the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act.

107. I also have to apply the very clear recent guidance given to the court in the Supreme Court decision in Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 and in the case of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. I have also been referred, by Miss Ancliffe, to the case of Re M-H (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1396. I refer in particular to para.22 of the case of Re B-S, where the conclusions of the Supreme Court in Re B are helpfully summarised:

'The language used in Re B is striking. Different words and phrases are used, but the message is clear. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are "a very extreme thing, a last resort", only to be made where "nothing else will do", where "no other course [is] possible in [the child's] interests", they are "the most extreme option", a "last resort – when all else fails", to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do".'

There is then reference to a number of passages in Re B. I also refer to paras.43 and 44 of the judgment, which set out in clear terms the nature of my task in this application:

'43. In relation to the nature of the judicial task we draw attention to what McFarlane LJ said in Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, paras 49-50:

"In most child care cases a choice will fall to be made between two or more options. The judicial exercise should not be a linear process whereby each option, other than the most draconian, is looked at in isolation and then rejected because of internal deficits that may be identified, with the result that, at the end of the line, the only option left standing is the most draconian and that is therefore chosen without any particular consideration of whether there are internal deficits within that option.

The linear approach … is not apt where the judicial task is to undertake a global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available for the child's future upbringing before deciding which of those options best meets the duty to afford paramount consideration to the child's welfare."

…

44. We emphasise the words "global, holistic evaluation". This point is crucial. The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and (see Re G para 51) multi-faceted evaluation of the child's welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option. To quote McFarlane LJ again (para 54):

"What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options."'

108. Re M-H provides a useful reminder of the context of the phrase "nothing else will do". I refer in particular to para.8 in the judgment of Macur LJ:

'However, I note that the terminology frequently deployed in arguments to this court and, no doubt to those at first instance, omit a significant element of the test as framed by both the Supreme Court and this court, which qualifies the literal interpretation of "nothing else will do". That is, the orders are to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements pertaining to the child's best interests." (See In Re B, paragraph 215). In doing so I make clear that this latter comment is not to seek to undermine the fundamental principle expressed in the judgment, merely to redress the difficulty created by the isolation and oft subsequently suggested interpretation of the words "nothing else will do" to the exclusion of any "overriding" welfare considerations in the particular child's case.'

109. I deal with the pros and cons of each of the realistic options before I consider the checklist, because it seems to me that my findings in relation to the pros and cons can be fitted in under the different factors to which I must have regard. It is, of course, right that I am only required to consider the realistic options, and the options suggested in this case as being realistic are return to mother, return to father or a placement for adoption. No one has submitted to me that long term foster care is a realistic option for a little girl of GB's age.

The pros and cons of placement with the mother

The pros

110. Plainly, such an outcome would enable GB to live with her birth mother, with all the advantages that that brings in terms of identity and self-esteem and ability to enjoy a relationship with her father and the extended family on both sides. The mother has addressed her drinking currently. She is described as having a bond with GB and her contact has improved so that GB is now largely settled in her care and has got to know her. No one suggests that the mother is not capable of meeting GB's basic needs. I have already referred to the fact that I am in no doubt that she loves GB very much indeed. She has shown this by the way she behaves towards her in contact and her commitment to contact.

The cons

111. The central issue, in my judgment, is the mother's personality and psychological make up. Her anger issues are not solely linked to her drinking, as is evident from recent events. Her anger affects her relationships with male partners and indeed any child in her care. This over-arching concerns spills over into the concerns about her relationship with the father and others and her behaviour towards R. Although I do not doubt that there were happy times between R and her mother, if only half of what R describes is accurate, it paints an immensely worrying picture of repeated almost casual physical abuse and a lack of emotional warmth and empathy. Equally worrying is the fact that the mother sees no reason to change her parenting and minimises the concerns. As Jamma-Umoja said, effectively, she did not get off the starting block.

112. I find it highly likely that GB would be exposed to the same risks of physical and emotional harm and neglect, particularly as she got older and more challenging. The mother's relationships with men add another layer of concern. I have already found that it is likely that she will resume her relationship with the father fully. Without change, the same dynamics will be re-enacted, with further risks to GB of being exposed to aggression and volatility. Whilst I accept that it is likely that the mother's aggression is further disinhibited by drink, I firmly reject the parents' case that her anger is no longer present when she is sober. Any therapy could not produce results within GB's timescale, and I have the gravest doubts, as did Miss Richards, that the mother could benefit from therapy whilst being in such a state of denial. Whilst drink has not been at centre stage in this hearing, I find that there is still a risk that the mother may relapse under stress as she has undertaken only limited work. I, of course, accept the evidence of Peter Maggs that there is more ground for optimism if there has been 12 months of sobriety, but nevertheless I do not see that the risk has been removed.

The father

113. I have given the father's case the most anxious consideration. He is a likeable, well intentioned man and does have the potential to be a good father to a child. Some of the pros are the same as the pros with mother in terms of a placement within the birth family.

114. I found that he showed the ability to develop parenting skills in the highly supportive environment of Jamma Umoja. He is described as having a good attachment to GB. His contact has always been positive. He is more attuned to GB and his laid back manner seems to suit her. He has also started to develop insight into the effect of his background on him and the relationships into which he enters.

115. I find that he would be likely to be receptive to interventions. He has put forward a package of support which he says is sufficient to meet the concerns, and I must also consider that and whether it is sufficient to meet the concerns. The package of support involves both family and local authority support. It is set out in detail in Miss Pepper's written closing submissions as supplemented by her orally. She submits that the combination of living in the supportive home of his sister, having contact with his niece and nephew, who have children of their own, attending various community supports such as parenting groups with GB, coupled with a supervision order, would provide a sufficient package to make his care of GB tenable. As I have said, I have to consider that when weighing up the pros and cons.

The cons

116. The father's vulnerability and neediness, in my judgment, are such that they take priority over GB's needs to her detriment. Even though he was repeatedly warned by staff at Jamma Umoja and must have appreciated that the assessment was his one chance to prove he could care for GB, he nevertheless felt unable to draw back from the relationship with the femal e resident and, in effect, lost focus on GB. This was despite being in a highly supported environment.

117. There is also a risk that he gives up too readily. This is evidenced by his seemingly being prepared to give up GB when he left Jamma-Umoja, largely for financial reasons, from what he told me, when he felt that he could not provide for her and he was so conscious of his own childhood living in poverty.

118. Sadly, the prognostications of all the professionals were borne out virtually as soon as he left Jamma-Umoja and gravitated back to the mother. This, to me, is the clearest demonstration of his inability to put GB's needs first and, even more worrying, his inability to appreciate the risk that this involves. As the guardian astutely said, her concern in relation to risk was that he would not see it coming. There is a risk that the dynamics of the relationship will re-establish themselves and that GB would, therefore, be exposed to physical aggression and volatility. I find he would also be wholly unable to challenge the mother if the relationship resumed as she would assume the role of primary carer, with all the risks I have identified.

119. Even if this prediction is not borne out, I find that there is a significant risk that he will enter into a further abusive relationship with similar, if not identical, risks. I am not satisfied that the package of support that he puts forward can address these risks.

The pros and cons of adoption

The pros

120. An adoptive family would be carefully selected and would be subject to a rigorous assessment process. The evidence before me from the family finding social worker is that there would be no difficulties in identifying a family for GB as a very young female child with no special needs; indeed, she is described as a delightful baby. Adoption would provide her with a family of her own, would mean that she would not be a looked after child and the expectation would be that it would provide her with a family for the whole of her life.

The cons

121. Adoption must always represent a step into the unknown. There is always a risk of breakdown, although far less so for a child of GB's age. There can be a loss of a sense of identity and it is not uncommon for an adoptive child to seek out a birth parent in adolescence or beyond. There is a potential sense of rejection and of feeling different, although these can, in my view, be ameliorated by effective life story work. There is, of course, a loss of direct contact with the birth parents and the extended birth family on both sides.

122. I turn now to fit the findings I have made into the checklist. I am not going to consider every factor in the two checklists explicitly in this judgment, although I have them all in mind. I am going to focus on the checklist in the Adoption and Children Act as this is ultimately an application for a placement order.

The child's particular needs

123. Plainly, GB, fortunately, has no special needs. She needs what any young child of her age needs. She needs permanency; she needs security; she needs consistency; and she needs a family who can be her own family.

The likely effect on the child of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person

124. I have already referred, when considering the cons of adoption, to the potential risk for any adoptive child of feeling different, feeling rejected and the risk of breakdown. I do not see the risks, given GB's age, as being particularly significant in her case, although of course one cannot completely obviate the possibility that such risks will arise.

The child's age, sex, background and characteristics

125. GB has been described as a delightful little girl. Her age and sex are such that she should be a child who can be placed with a permanent family relatively quickly. I do not consider that there are any other particular characteristics to which I need to draw attention.

Any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering

126. GB, fortunately, did not suffer harm because of the protective steps taken immediately after her birth. I have already identified, in considering the pros and cons of the different options, the risk of harm that GB may face. The risk of harm from the mother is that she will be subject to the same kind of emotional and physical harm to which R was subject and to the harm flowing from the mother's relationships with men. The harm from the father is the harm that will flow from his resuming his relationship with his mother or, even if he does not, his inability to set boundaries on her relationship with him and GB. There is the further harm, if he does not resume his relationship with the mother, of him entering into further risky relationships and his vulnerability, which it has been demonstrated results in him putting his own needs before that of the child.

The relationship which the child has with relatives, including the likelihood of such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so; the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives to provide the child with a secure environment; and the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives regarding the child

127. I have already dealt comprehensively with the capability of the parents to meet GB's needs. There is no other family member, or indeed friend, who is putting themselves forward to offer long term care. There was a negative viability assessment of DB. I rejected an application for a further assessment of her, considering that there was more than sufficient known about her to make it unnecessary for there to be further assessment. I formed the clear view that she was unable to meet GB's needs in the long term, not least because of her collusive relationship with the mother and lack of insight into the harm caused to R. She has not challenged that position. TB, for reasons which she has fully explained and which are wholly understandable, has not put herself forward as having a parental role in GB's life. Her support is one I have already delineated. Therefore, there is no other person, whether relative or friend, who is in a position to offer long term care to this little girl.

128. My conclusion on this case must be one which is proportionate and necessary and commensurate with the risks posed. Re B spells that out with clarity.

129. I have come to the clear conclusion that an adoption order is the order which would best meet GB's welfare throughout her life. I am driven to that conclusion by exceptional circumstances pertaining to the child's overriding welfare. I am driven to the conclusion that, in this sad case, nothing else will do.

130. I have to consider dispensing with the consent of both parents on the grounds that GB's welfare requires it. "Requires" imports a high test, a test of necessity, the same test that was spelt out in Re B. I have to be satisfied that nothing else will do and that, therefore, it is necessary to dispense with the consent of the parents.

131. I have formed the clear view that the test is met and that it is necessary for me to dispense with the consent of the parents; in other words, that GB's welfare demands that I dispense with their consent, and I do so.

132. I approve the plan for gradual reduction of contact until GB is placed. I approve the plan for indirect contact for GB, both in relation to her parents and her sister R.

133. I appreciate how devastating this must be for both parents. I have already referred to the fact that I consider that the father has the potential to be a good parent in the future. I consider it is imperative for him to undertake intensive work to try and redress the effects of his own childhood experience and to assist him to gain the strength to be able to resist the pull of relationships which are dangerous and risky to him. If he can achieve that, I have no doubt that in the future he has the empathy and the potential to provide love and care for a child. I hope that that remark is not too upsetting and distressing for him, but, as I have said, in many respects, I formed a very positive impression of him and I would like him to take that away from my judgment. I am sure that his sister will be an enormous support to him. As I have said, I found her a delightful lady, in my very short knowledge of her, and I am sure she will support him in getting the help that he needs.

__________

---

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B180.html