[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Re B (Care Orders) [2014] EWFC B208 (25 July 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B208.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B208

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF: B (CHILDREN)

		Manchester Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ
		25th July 2014

THE JUDGE:

I INTRODUCTION

1. I remain concerned with five children;

A, born on 15^th July 2006, now aged 8;

B, born on 6^th July 2007, now aged 7;

C, born on 9^th April 2009, aged 5;

D, born on 5^th September 2010, nearly 4; and

E, born on 15^th October 2011, so now 2½,

2. The mother of the children is F and the father is G. I hope the parents will, again, forgive me if I refer to them as "the mother" and "the father" by way of shorthand.
3. The Local Authority key social worker is H and the Guardian for the children is S.
4. This is an application by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council for care orders in relation to the five children, issued as long ago as 29^th May 2013. If necessary, this judgment should be read alongside the judgment I delivered on 8^th October 2013, wherein I made findings that the father had been complicit in the sexual abuse of his sister's three children and that the mother was so enmeshed in her relationship with the father that she was unable to prioritise her children above that relationship.
5. This is the much delayed final hearing of the Local Authority's application. The position of the parties at the commencement of this hearing was as follows.

a. The Local Authority seeks final care orders on the basis of their plan to place all five children with J, the mother's uncle, and his partner, K. I hope they will also forgive me, they have been referred to during the course of these proceedings as "the uncles" and by way of shorthand I will continue to call them that. The Local Authority's proposal was that D and E be placed over the coming summer holiday, with A, B and C being moved to join them in time for them to commence their new school in January 2015.

b. The parents remain a couple and seek the return of all the children to their joint care.

c. The guardian agrees that final care orders should be made on the basis of the Local Authority's care plans, save that she suggests that C be placed alongside D and E this summer, rather than having to wait until December.

6. The case was listed for an issues resolution hearing on Monday, 21^st July 2014. As the case was ready and given the delays thus far and the urgent need to make decisions about the children's future before the school summer holidays, I decided to proceed to a final hearing of the evidence on the outstanding issues. It proved impossible, for various reasons, for me to hear any evidence that day. On Tuesday, 22^nd July I heard oral evidence from the key social worker and from the father before, midway through cross-examination, he decided he did not choose to continue to give evidence. The mother also declined to give evidence but I was able to hear the evidence of the guardian. On Wednesday, 23^rd July I heard submissions from each of the parties. I was unable to give a full judgment immediately, given the pressure of other cases in my list that day, and adjourned to today to do so. Noting the stresses impinging upon all of the parties, but particularly the parents, I did indicate my decisions during that afternoon.
7. Where witnesses have not been the subject of challenge and have not given oral evidence, I have taken their written evidence as read. I have reviewed the two relevant lever-arch files of documentation. I have not re-read the third lever-arch file which relates to the matters upon which I made findings in October.

II DEVELOPMENTS SINCE OCTOBER 2013: UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE

8. It appears that very shortly after the fact finding hearing, the parents left Heywood and moved to live in a flat in Peterborough, rented from a friend. They tell me that they now occupy a rented three-bedroomed property.
9. Following the fact finding hearing, I gave all of the usual directions for the filing of evidence and listed the case for an issues resolution hearing on 5^th December 2013. Tragically, on 13^th November 2013 the parents were involved in a road traffic accident and the baby the mother was carrying, L, was subsequently stillborn. Inevitably, the issues resolution hearing was then adjourned, to 27^th January 2014.
10. On 13^th December 2013 the Local Authority issued applications for placement orders for C, D and E.
11. Meanwhile, on 13^th November 2013, the father issued an application seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against the findings which I had made. Permission was refused by Lord Justice McFarlane on 2^nd December 2013, but I was subsequently persuaded to delay the issues resolution hearing pending an oral renewal of that permission application which came before Lady Justice Black on 6^th February 2014. That application was also refused.
12. By the date of the adjourned issues resolution hearing on 4^th March 2014, the parents, for the first time, put forward family members as potential carers for the children. They were M1, the mother's cousin, and her husband, M2, along with J and K, the uncles. Fortunately, as it turned out, I agreed to further adjournments for viability assessments of those family members to be completed pending a further hearing on 3^rd April 2014. In the event, both viability assessments were positive and the issues resolution hearing was again adjourned. The assessment of M1 and M2, who had put themselves forward to care for A and B, was ultimately unsuccessful. However, the assessment of the uncles as prospective carers for C, D and E proved very positive indeed and hence the changed position of the Local Authority when the matter came before me this week. The application for placement orders has, happily, not had to be pursued.
13. During this protracted process, the children have remained in their respective foster placements; A, B and C placed in one family and D and E in another. Contact has been arranged each Thursday and Friday for the parents, who have attended conscientiously despite the distances involved.
14. The Crown Prosecution Service have decided not to pursue any charges against the father.

III THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

15. I remind myself once again that the burden lies upon the Local Authority to prove the allegations which it makes. The appropriate standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities. I have reminded myself of Re: B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 and particularly the speech of Baroness Hale.
16. No formal concessions are made by the parents in relation to the threshold criteria at Section 31 of the Children Act. I am satisfied that the threshold is plainly crossed and will in due course address the evidence on that issue.
17. Broadly, there are two potential options for the future of each of the children: a return to the care of the parents; or placement with the uncles in accordance with the Local Authority care plan. My starting point in addressing those alternative options must be the provisions of Section 1 of the Children Act, the paramountcy of the children's welfare, individually and collectively, reminding myself of the welfare checklist at section 1(3).
18. Underlying those statutory requirements is the principle that the best place for any child is with a parent or, in default, with a member of the extended family, unless there are strong welfare ground to prefer an alternative. I must also be satisfied that any orders I make are a lawful, necessary, proportionate and reasonable response to the sad predicament of these children. The granting of a care order in the teeth of the opposition of the parents would represent a curtailment of the rights of the parents and also of the children under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which could only be justified by pressing concerns for the welfare of the children.

IV MY FINDINGS

The witnesses

19. H is not an experienced social worker, but her written and oral evidence was professionally delivered and clear. She has a sound understanding of the children as individuals and has successfully maintained a clear focus on their welfare.
20. I am under no illusions as to the pressures which any frontline social worker is working under, but I am afraid that does not excuse the failings of communication with the parents and the guardian. To be fair to H, the parents have actively discouraged contact from any representative of the Local Authority, responding to H's texts with a request to communicate exclusively via their legal representatives and filing statements in January 2014 pretending they were living in Heywood, when in fact they had moved some months before to Peterborough. However, it is, clearly, unacceptable that H had not met the parents before the hearing this week and had failed to inform them, or indeed the guardian, whether by their solicitors or otherwise, of key events in the lives of the children.
21. Having said that, H was prepared to apologise and was quite open about her failings. I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence as honest and reliable.
22. I was unimpressed, again, with the evidence of the father. He was very obviously suffering from profound distress, which, at times, was reflected in belligerence and a stance so confrontational and hostile that he was really not up to the task of answering questions. He was unable to cope with even gentle challenge from Mr N, unable to make any reasonable concession, steadfastly insisting that the care of the children was "perfect" prior to their removal. It was not long before he concluded, "I am not sitting here listening to this fucking shite. I am going to the press. I can't cope with this no more."
23. I have never had the advantage of hearing evidence from the mother. Following the lead of the father, she refused to give oral evidence. I explained to both parents that the weight which I could attach to their written evidence when they were not prepared to answer questions about it would be reduced. Nevertheless, although they returned to court from time to time during the remainder of the hearing, they declined to give any further oral evidence.
24. S was a cautious and sensible witness, who has been the children's guardian for an unusually lengthy period and has the advantage of having seen the developments and changes in the children since her first involvement. Her evidence was balanced, giving the parents credit where it was due and her recommendations very clear and forthrightly expressed.

The Threshold Criteria

25. In my judgment, the findings I set out in October 2013 are sufficient to cross the threshold, pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act, on the basis that the children were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be afforded to them by their parents.
26. I am also satisfied that, at the time when the children were living at home with both parents in the spring of 2013 when the Local Authority first became involved, they were also suffering actual significant harm as the result of longstanding neglect of their physical and emotional needs. In summary, the Local Authority makes the following points, which I accept as soundly based on the evidence:

(i) The home was not consistently clean or safe. I accept, for example, the description which is found in the bundle at B31 of the visit of the out-of-hours team on 4^th April 2013 which details conditions which can only be described as squalid.

(ii) A did not start in education until she was well over 5, twelve months later than the rest of her cohort. Like her siblings, she had no access to Sure Start, playgroups, any family activities or any pre-school provision whatsoever.

(iii) When A and B began to attend school, they were not taken regularly and they were rarely on time. Both A and B struggled in school academically and also presenting as painfully shy, withdrawn, subdued and unable to interact with other children. They were working well below age-related expectations across all areas of their development. The parents did not attend parents evenings, reading books were returned unread and diaries unsigned. The children's attendance was so poor that the parents were served with a warning letter from the Educational Welfare Officer.

(iv) There were times when there was simply no or insufficient food in the house and the mother was left with minimal financial resources to enable her to purchase food for the children.

(iv) The father used the premises for the drying of cannabis for subsequent sale, resulting in the children's clothes and belongings smelling of cannabis. That was particularly notable for A and B at school.

(v) The father kept three dogs detained in cages in the kitchen. The dogs, an American Bulldog, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and a cross which he has apparently bred from the first two dogs, were, according to the RSPCA inspector who removed them, "vicious", one with an untreated wound; "an accident waiting to happen".

27. My sense, on first reading the papers, long ago, was of a family who were very insular, with very limited interactions with the outside world. I was struck accordingly by the guardian's description of their home being turned into a sort of "fortress" and how sad it was that these parents really had no model in their own upbringing of how to just be an ordinary family. Nevertheless, these are the sorts of long standing neglect issues which Local Authority social workers are accustomed to working with, provided parents develop the insight to understand that they need help to make their children's lives better. What is really so striking in this case is the parents' complete denial that there was anything whatsoever wrong with the way in which the children were being cared for. To quote the father, "There was nothing wrong with my children, end of." That, I am afraid, left nothing for the Local Authority to work with.

Events after the father's arrest

28. Subsequent to the involvement of the Lancashire police at the end of March 2013 in relation to the allegations made by the O children, the father was bailed with a condition that he have no contact whatsoever with the children and the mother. The mother was given the opportunity of remaining in the family home with the children, the father residing elsewhere. It became apparent that the father was, in effect, living with the mother and children and that both parents were being thoroughly dishonest about that to professionals.
29. On 30^th May 2013, really as a last opportunity to keep this mother and children together, she agreed to move with the children to a women's refuge. However, once again, the parents proved unable to maintain any sort of separation and the mother was prepared to permit the father to have unauthorised contact with the children and both were prepared to lie about it. Importantly, the children were dragged into the deceit, being required to lie to professionals as to when, where and how they had seen their father.

The parents' response to the fact finding hearing

30. Following the fact finding hearing, I hoped that there may still be an outside chance that the father may accept what he had done and seek appropriate therapeutic support with a view to persuading professionals that he could safely be entrusted with the care of the children alongside the mother at some stage in the future. It was open to the mother, whether she truly accepted my findings or not, to seek to be assessed as a sole carer for the children, putting them first. Sadly, neither of the parents has been able to move beyond a joint outraged denial of any failings as a parent whatsoever. In reality, as I am sure the parents understand, unless their position had changed significantly in response to the findings I made, it would be very difficult for any court to contemplate placing the children in their care.
31. On the other hand, I hope I do understand, at some level, the profound difficulties which the parents would have in taking the kind of steps which were theoretically open to them. So far as the father is concerned, I do understand his fear that his children's experience will replicate his own life in care, along with his sense of desperation that everything in his life is moving away from him. For the mother, she was already a vulnerable teenager when she became involved with the father aged only 15. A was born when she was only 17 and the other four children followed in quick succession. The mother has no experience of life without the father. I have already referred to the insularity of their relationship. I suspect that the mother has no real ability to envisage any alternative for herself.

The Children's Needs

32. In my judgment, each of these five children has suffered a very difficult start to life, suffering significant neglect of their most basic needs, being raised by parents who were struggling to cope, then being removed to foster care where they have remained in limbo for far too long.
33. A was described by her previous school as "struggling immensely" both academically and socially. She suffered from talipes, a club foot, and her parents insisted on her not participating in any form of physical activity. Even recently, the father described her as "disabled". She is now an active, energetic, very happy, bubbly little girl. B, again described in very worrying terms by her school, is now a bright engaging child who loves school, confident, happy, if sometimes a little loud.
34. What was particularly striking is how quickly it was possible for the school to observe what was really a transformation in both the older girls and I quote from the report of P, the head teacher at Primary School A. She comments upon the children's return to school after placement with foster carers.

"Since their return, staff working with them both have independently reported unbelievable changes in them. The presentation of the children is radically better; they are clean, looking well rested, uniforms and hair very clean, clearly enjoying having their hair braided and the clips they are wearing. More dramatic though, hence this addendum, is the change in the children's personality. What were very withdrawn, quiet and timid children have come alive. They are talking in class, contributing to lessons and engaging with sessions, children and adults alike. Staff have all reported how animated they are and how much of a juxtaposition this is to previous. A's teacher has worked with her for two years and tells me this week is the first time she has ever heard A be 'heard' within the class."

35. C is perhaps the quietest, least gregarious member of the sibling group and it is particularly important that, as a middle child, her needs are given priority, especially as she still has some difficulty with language skills. She still stammers, although that is improving, but she is now a bright little girl.
36. D is now described as a confident, active little boy who enjoys nursery very much, is enquiring, chatty, busy.
37. E is now a contented settled toddler achieving all of her milestones and, in particular, her speech has improved drastically.
38. The children's guardian reports that she has observed remarkable changes in the children's physical and emotional presentations since the commencement of these proceedings. She refers to the increasing development of confidence in all the children and a greater ability to express themselves, particularly in A and D, alongside improvements in matters such as their skin and hair.
39. So these children have made transformative progress in the last year. They are not the children who were removed from their parents. They still need sensitive attuned parenting to address their early problems, positive role models, positive guidance, stimulation and, like any child, they need to feel secure and loved.

Parental capacity

40. Despite their unpromising backgrounds, there are some real positives in both parents. They have been utterly committed to contact, travelling each week from Peterborough and apparently sleeping overnight in the car to enable them to see their children. Contact generally goes well. The mother in particular is described by S as a "natural parent" and I have, at the back of my mind, the positive comments from the O children about Aunty F. The guardian has also observed, on occasions, some entirely appropriate, indeed tender interactions between the father and the children.
41. On the other hand, there are compelling arguments against any prospect of any of the children returning to the care of their parents;

(i) It is impossible to assess the continuing risk which the father presents to the children in the absence of any acceptance or understanding of the court's findings.

(ii) There is no evidence which suggests the mother could act as a protective parent. She is wholly enmeshed in this relationship, however destructive it has been for her.

(iii) I have already referred to the complete lack of acceptance by either parent of what might broadly be described as the neglect issues which prevailed when the children were at home and hence could have no confidence that the situation would be any better for the children in those respects.

(iv) Although the parents have worked in a satisfactory fashion with the guardian and the contact supervisor, there is, in my judgment, no real prospect of them working in partnership with this Local Authority. The history suggests that there would not be an honest open partnership and their hostility to the Local Authority is palpable.

(v) I have already referred to the exceptional progress whilst in foster care which each of the children have made. That not only adds evidential support to the allegations of neglect prior to the involvement of the Local Authority confirming that these are not children with intrinsic problems, but it suggests that these are now very different children who are unlikely to respond to some of the father's more authoritarian behaviours in the compliant manner to which he has previously been accustomed.

42. The uncles are not party to these proceedings and they have not given evidence, although they have attended court on a number of occasions and are present today, with my permission, to hear this judgment. They have been very carefully and cautiously assessed by the Local Authority. I have read and accept the evidence of Q. The assessment is dated 27^th June 2014 and contains contributions from H. It has not been challenged and I will not repeat its contents.
43. J has known these children since their birth. As soon as the uncles learned of the plight of the children, they have been totally committed to them. Initially, the family seems to have agreed that the uncles would be assessed for the younger three children and M1 and M2 for A and B. Once that assessment of M1 and M2 proved negative, they unhesitatingly asked to be assessed for all five children. The Local Authority's conclusions are shared by S, who has expressed herself as, "very favourably impressed" by J and K. She has reflected upon the support they have from a large extended family and their friendship network, their willingness to take advice and work with the Local Authority and their warm relationship with the children, who are observed to feel entirely comfortable with the uncles. I am satisfied that they do have the potential to provide all five children with the love, security and stability which they desperately need and deserve. Contact has already gone very well and has progressed to regular, unsupervised contact.
44. Their task will not be easy. The older children in particular still need to heal and recover from all of the difficulties in their lives and may, in the long term, prove challenging to care for.

The balancing exercise

45. Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that it clearly does not accord with the welfare of any of the children to return to the care of either of the parents. In those circumstances, all of the children are exceptionally fortunate that there is such a good family placement available to them to meet their needs. The realistic alternative for the younger three children, was in my judgment, adoption outside of the family.
46. There is a clear professional consensus that D and E should be placed first but there has been a good deal of debate as to whether C should be placed along with her younger siblings or should remain with A and B with a view to placement probably in December. The parents favour the first course. There are perfectly respectable arguments on both sides of the debate and no obviously "right" or indeed "wrong" approach. Doing my best on the evidence which I have sought to weigh, I have concluded that C should move during the school summer holidays along with D and E. Her future lies in the care of the uncles and, in my judgment, she should start her new school and her new life as soon as she can. In any event, given my confidence in the uncles, the issue is a narrow one. It is my sincere hope that all of the children will be placed with the uncles by the end of this year.
47. I am grateful to the Local Authority for their ready indication that they would amend their care plan in relation to C and I anticipate that such a document will be available very soon.
48. I am satisfied that a care order is entirely necessary to support the placement and accords with the welfare interests of the children. I am very pleased to note that the uncles propose to apply for special guardianship orders when the children are settled with them. In my judgment, is far too early to contemplate the Local Authority withdrawing at this stage.
49. I approve the Local Authority's plans for the gradual reduction in the parents' contact and for the long-term plan that it occurs on at least six occasions each year. I find it generally unwise to try to be too prescriptive about contact arrangements at the point at which a care order is made. I do not know how the children will respond to the knowledge that they are not going home to the care of their parents and the information that they are going to live with the uncles. None of them has yet been informed of the Local Authority plans. I do not know how the parents will respond to my decisions. I do not know how long it may take for the children to feel safe and settled in their uncles' care. So I approve six times a year as a minimum. It may be that, as time goes by, the arrangements can become more flexible. That must be a matter for the management of the Local Authority in consultation with J, K and the parents. Although of course I would not encourage this, the parents can return to court if matters ultimately cannot be agreed.

V ORDERS

50. Approving the care plans as amended, I grant care orders in relation to each of the 5 B children
51. I give leave for any relevant documentation form these proceedings to be disclosed to J and K
52. I give leave for the Local Authority to withdraw its placement order applications in relation to C, D and E
53. I reserve any further applications in relation to the children to myself
54. I make all of the usual orders in relation to costs
[Judgment ends]