BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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) >> Medway Council v A & Ors (Learning Disability; Foster Placement) [2015] EWFC B66 (2 June 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B66.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B66 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Sitting at Medway
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
& THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF A (dob 25.7.14)
B e f o r e :
____________________
| MEDWAY COUNCIL | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| AP RK A (by his Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
____________________
Mr Stephen Chippeck represented the Mother, instructed by Andrew Pearson at Pearsons Law
Mr Mark Love represented the Father, instructed by Sandra Tadhunter at Bassets Solicitors
Mr John Swales represented the Child, instructed by Patricia Gleeson at Reeves & Co.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"23. It has become de rigueur for a trial judge expressly to articulate their self direction in accordance with R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 in fact finding hearings. That is, the significance that may or may not attach to the lies told by a party in relation to the injury/behaviour in question. There is none such in this judgment which deals with outcome. A specific reference to the same is unnecessary but I do consider that it was unrealistic for the judge, and the professionals, not to have appraised the same exercise in the context of the non disclosure and/or deceit in question. The fact of a parent's non disclosure or deceit is not necessarily determinative of parenting capacity or, depending on the circumstances, an ability to co-operate with the authorities."
a) The propriety of the section 20 procedure and reliance on it;b) The foster placement –
i) its appropriateness, and the failure to provide a specialist foster placement;ii) monitoring of the placement;iii) foster carer's record-keeping;iv) verbal, racial or physical abuse by the foster carer;v) complaints by the parents and the investigation of any complaints;vi) the continuation of the foster placement on 16.9.14;c) Further social work practice concerns in this case –
i) The adequacy of the social work record-keeping;ii) The fairness of procedures up to and including the strategy meeting on 17.9.14;iii) The exploration of alternative approaches to supporting A remaining with his family.
a) The Mother was assessed by Mr Crimes an Occupational Psychologist on 5.9.14 and by Dr Conning a Consultant Clinical Psychologist on 10.9.14. She scored 'extremely low' in all fields in Mr Crimes' assessment and in the 0.1st percentile due to her full IQ score of 54, and he concluded she would have 'minimal capability' across key abilities such as communication, judgment, negotiation, planning, memory, comprehension, attention to detail, and would require significant support and guidance to make effective decisions. Dr Conning considered that notwithstanding the very low scores shown by Mother and their compatibility with a diagnosis of learning disability that she had capacity to conduct litigation, and she considered this may be due to the extensive support from Father and her legal advisers. Mother did not recall to Dr Conning that she had been to a special school and was surprised at her low results. She did in fact attend a special school and her family informed Medway and the hospital of her history of learning difficulties.b) The further report from Communicourt dated 10.4.15 is not an expert's report, but was nonetheless most informative in its appendices, setting out specific examples of where the Mother had demonstrated failures to comprehend or respond accurately when given simple scenarios and tested by questions upon them. Of note was that Mother can show a good understanding of conversational language within a familiar context and would appear more able in that context, but her language and communication disability emerged more strongly in unfamiliar contexts requiring more detailed information. This was reflected during her brief period of giving evidence in court, and I do find that the Father's explanation that, as a non-fluent English speaker he had not fully noticed the degree of difficulty experienced by Mother who does speak English fluently, is borne out by her superficially more competent ability to chat in familiar contexts.
c) I do not propose to make any detailed findings at this stage as to her functioning, given the forthcoming assessment of Symbol, but I do find that it should have been clear from at least the date of Mr Crimes' report in early September that a specialist assessment would be required and that the foster placement would not be meeting her needs.
d) As a result of her difficulties and the advice set out in the various reports, but Communicourt in particular, attempts were made to limit cross-examination to essential matters and to certain types of questioning. It quickly became clear that it was difficult to achieve meaningful cross-examination due to her limitations and the necessary approach to them. As a result few matters were put to her and then only minimally. Due to her difficulties with memory and suggestibility, as amply and skilfully demonstrated in the Communicourt and psychologist's reports, I have very serious reservations about being able to rely on any of her recollections regarding contested facts.
e) She said she had lived at an address in Ilford for the last month or two with the Father, and where two other Bengali families also live, and until then lived in Chatham. She said Father had not raised his voice or hand to her, and that it was to Mr S her step-father that she had been on the telephone while at the foster placement. She explained that she recorded the conversations on the mobile 'because people won't believe me so I recorded it'. She claimed to have a key for the back door when Father locked her in their property in Chatham and that she told Father to make sure he locked the door so she was safe. She said she had not felt good in the foster placement without the Father because she wanted that support, and that she was happy that both of them were to be assessed at Symbol.
f) The Mother came across as quiet, shy, very happy and comfortable in her relationship with the Father, and it was clear that she loves her son 'with all my heart' and wants to be 'a proper family'. I accept the evidence set out in the foster carer's records, the contact records and observations of the ISW and the Children's Guardian that Mother has developed a good bond with A, but can show anxiety and confusion handling him and meeting his needs and requires support in doing so.
a) The Father is a personable, charming young man of what appears to be at least average intelligence. He has some ability to speak English but expressly preferred the help of an Urdu interpreter while giving evidence. I heard his spoken English in the recording of his conversation with the SW outside the foster home, which then continued on to his conversation with the emergency services operator which immediately followed. His vocabulary and expression are understandably limited, but he was largely able to make himself understood to them. I can appreciate that he would not always be able to follow the jargon and nuance of court proceedings, and I have taken these difficulties into account when considering his evidence.b) He confirmed that he was happy to go to Symbol and to take full 24 hour responsibility for A and his unborn child. I found his comments to sound entirely sincere. His ability to follow through with actions will be assessed in the forthcoming work at Symbol.
c) Equally, I am wholly convinced that the ISW was correct in finding that the Father was physically shaken by his realisation of the extent of Mother's difficulties when it was properly explained to him in January 2015. He was able to talk about this in convincing terms in that he had not had a proper explanation before and it was then that he realised and now understands that 'she will not change'. He explained how before that he had noticed her forgetfulness or picking a wrong word, and he thought it meant she had to learn things to keep them in mind. He said he had not been sure about her learning disability when other people said it. Bearing in mind his frequent attendance at the foster placement where he contributed actively to A's care and is said to have been the one who bathed A, and his 'protectiveness' of Mother at meetings and his locking Mother into their flat while he was away in London, I find that he was indeed aware that Mother was vulnerable and suffered some difficulties in her functioning albeit he may not have grasped the full extent and permanence of her learning disability. I accept that he did not understand it fully and thought it could be addressed by 'learning things'.
d) There were key moments during his evidence where he actively changed his answers in ways that could not properly be explained away as interpretation difficulties, for example where he explained in some detail in evidence in chief and cross-examination that he had only seen the kitchen and sitting area of Mr S's home in Ilford, but when challenged that he had told the Children's Guardian he had lived there, he then 'just remembered' that he had stayed at Mr S's home for a few days; and similarly he changed his account of what happened in relation to the flat keys when Mother was locked in to the property. I deal with this in more detail below.
e) I consider that the Father is a prime example of a parent involved in care proceedings whose evidence is not always truthful, but where the Lucas direction and the points made in Re S 2014 are highly relevant. I have borne in mind that English is not his first language and that he is unfamiliar with the way social services work in this country and with how matters might affect his immigration status. I consider that where I find that he has lied, for example in obfuscating details of his and the Mother's accommodation to the SW, the Children's Guardian and the court, or where he lied about locking the Mother into their home in Chatham, that these examples fall within the ambit of his eagerness not to be doing something thought wrong (locking Mother in) or his anxiety not to get something wrong due to misunderstanding what child protection professionals need to know or will find significant (his accommodation); and I emphatically do not find at this stage that any of this dishonesty or poor co-operation can be equated to an inability to parent A. The extent to which his co-operation or his relationship with the Mother may impinge on his parenting skills may yet be commented on by Symbol.
f) The Father clearly loves A very dearly, and I note that no witness who has observed him with A has failed to comment on the positive bond between them and his good efforts at hands-on parenting.
53.1 A was born 6 weeks early on 25.7.14 and it was a difficult birth, requiring that the Mother receive blood transfusions. Mrs Rose made a referral from Medway Hospital to social services on 1.8.14. A number of concerns were expressed relating to Mother's ability to care for A unaided, the parents' relationship and that Mother was heard to say 'shut the fuck up' to A. Mrs Rose confirmed in her evidence that she did not hear this but believes she read this somewhere. She conceded that the only note that could be found of such a comment was of Mother saying this about another new mother in a neighbouring bed who was snoring.
53.2 While Medway chose to cite and rely on several entries in the hospital records relating to these concerns, they were all accepted to be second or third-hand hearsay and it was also pointed out that there were equally several examples of Mother being described as doing better and accepting help.
53.3 Following Mrs Rose's referral on 1.8.14, Mother was assessed for post-natal depression and none was noted. Given her difficulties I accept that it was unsafe for Medway to assert that this was a firm indication of no such issue at the time.
53.4 On 5.8.14 the SW met with the parents and noted Mother's vulnerability and struggle to understand and contribute to discussions. I note that the Learning Disability nurse advised the SW to make a referral to the Lordswood Learning Disability team. I have found no such referral in the notes. A strategy meeting was fixed for 7.8.14.
53.5 Later on 5.8.14 the SW visited the home in Chatham with Father and I accept her evidence that it was unsafe and unsuitable for a premature baby to return to, and was far from ideal even for two adults. It was an unfurnished and dilapidated flat above a former pub which was being converted into an off-licence. It lacked lighting in places and heating and hot water. The floors were unfinished boards. Although the parents' 'bedroom' was clean, the bathroom and lavatory were cold and mouldy. I accept that A was born 6 weeks early, but it is clear that it would have required a great deal of work in a remarkably short period of time to be brought up to an acceptable standard, and I note that there were still difficulties with basic facilities at the time that the Children's Guardian was visiting later in the year. I find that the parents' accommodation was seriously inadequate on a number of fronts.
53.6 On 6.8.14 the SW claims she contacted the Maternal Grandmother and Mr S to see if alternative arrangements could be made within the family to support them. Issues have been raised about her manner of doing so, and whether appropriate support was offered. I make no finding as it has not been possible to explore this fully, but I note that there were several meetings that took place on this date and the SW will have wanted that information beforehand and so may have sounded abrupt and left little time for matters to be considered.
53.7 By the end of that day the parents had signed a section 20 agreement which they and Mr S thought simply covered a two week period in a mother and baby foster placement. It is clear from the notes in the medical records, and the SW accepts, that the issue of Mother's vulnerability was raised by Mrs Rose before Mother signed the section 20 agreement. The SW also accepted that in addition to the hospital's concerns, Mr S and the Maternal Grandmother had confirmed that Mother had a learning difficulty. The SW accepted that it was not appropriate to have obtained Mother's signature to an agreement under s20 in such circumstances where her cognitive abilities had been questioned by other professionals and no assessment had taken place. I also note that it was obtained prior to the strategy meeting taking place on 7.8.14.
53.8 The following day on 7.8.14 the Mother was assessed by the Learning Disability nurse. I consider this to have been an entirely appropriate step taken by the staff at Medway hospital. It concluded that Mother had capacity, but understandably may have missed the more nuanced difficulties with Mother's failure to comprehend and to convey her lack of comprehension due to her superficial abilities to chat.
53.9 Mother was assessed again at the hospital before discharge by Ms Ashton, specialist midwife for mental health, who concluded Mother did not show signs of post-natal depression, but expressed further concerns about Mother's ability to process information. Mother then moved to the placement on 8.8.14 and remained there under section 20 for 40 days until the placement came to an end on 17.9.14.
53.10 On arriving at the placement the SW accepts that the parents were disappointed that it was so far from Father's home in Chatham and that it was not a Muslim placement.
53.11 On 19.8.14 the Access to Resources Panel met and highlighted concern that Mother's ability to consent to s20 should be established, clarified that the foster placement would not be carrying out an assessment but that it would be done by the SW and by a cognitive assessment of Mother by a clinical psychologist. The panel approved the continuation of the foster placement for a maximum of 12 weeks.
53.12 A cognitive assessment of the Mother did not proceed on 21.8.14. The Father accepts that he discouraged this from taking place.
53.13 On 27.8.14 Dr Tsang paediatrician who examined A on 26.8.14 emailed to the SW a confirmation of a discussion with the SW in which she had highlighted conflict and tension between Mother and the foster carer during her examination, in the context of Mother requiring clear and step by step verbal instruction. The foster carer is described as a quiet spoken lady and that Mother raised her voice and accused her of trying to separate the family. In the light of my own impression of the foster carer, it is clear that, and I note, that Ms McG certainly had the capacity to present to both the HV and Dr Tsang in this positive calm way in the early stages of the placement. However, I find that this should, in the context of a non-specialist placement about which the parents were already complaining, have set alarm bells ringing for the SW who should have immediately investigated the extent of Mother's vulnerability in the placement. There is no record of any such step having been taken.
53.14 On 2.9.14 Mother missed a further cognitive assessment appointment due to having a bad back.
53.15 On 3.9.14 there was a pre-proceedings meeting held at the foster placement at which the parents were informed that Medway intended to issue proceedings and the parents agreed an extension of the s20 agreement. In the minutes of the LAC review meeting held on 4.9.14 it is suggested that it was only on 3.9.14 that the parents first raised their complaints about the foster placement. However, the SW Ms Anyiamiah accepts that they had been raising concerns throughout the placement. On 3.9.14 the parents were told that their complaints would be considered at the LAC review.
53.16 At the LAC review on 4.9.14 it was noted that the plan for permanence was for Mother to attend a specialist mother and baby placement once the cognitive assessment was carried out and if the assessment indicated it was appropriate 'so that a thorough assessment can be undertaken', and if there were no concerns then Sunlight would carry out a joint parenting assessment. Neither specialist placement nor assessment took place. The LAC review reveals no detailed minute or discussion of the complaints or concerns held by the parents about the foster placement save that it is reported that the parents raised that the room is cold, the two foster children play loud music and swear and that the foster carer used inappropriate language; and that the placement is not a cultural match and the parents wanted to be placed with Muslim carers as they feel their needs are not understood, and want to live in Redbridge where they have family support. The recommendations of the LAC review include reference to a written agreement about the language to be expected in the home, hygiene, respecting one another in relation to being adults and cultural differences. The SW claimed that this was to address the parents' grievances, however it clearly makes reference to hygiene which, as will be seen later in this judgment, was an issue of particular concern to the foster carer. I have not been referred to any such written agreement and I find that it was never followed through.
53.17 Until this point there had been limited emails and occasional more formal notes kept by the foster carer, but from this date it is noted in the LAC review minutes that she would be writing notes of progress and concerns. At these two meetings it was also decided that Father's contact at the foster home should be reduced to 3 hours 4 days per week. The rationale given by the SW was that this was done in order to see Mother's capabilities. I find that this was unusually unhelpful given that this was not a specialist placement, would isolate and expose her vulnerability unnecessarily, and that Father was willingly attending more often in order to try to support Mother's care of A.
53.18 On 5.9.14 the Mother was assessed by cognitive psychologist Mr Crimes, and this was sent to the SW on 8.9.14.
53.19 On 10.9.14 the SW emailed her Team Manager Jayne Morrell and Service Manager Jayne Grice and drew their attention to the mention of a specialist placement at the meetings with the parents earlier in September, to the assessment of Mr Crimes and the strategies he recommended to work with Mother which she rightly pointed out 'can be best achieved with a specialist placement setting'. She mentions Mother's struggle to care for A and that she is 'beginning to demonstrate increased levels of frustration/aggression at her son', and points out that they have complained about the placement. She asks if these managers want the forthcoming care plan to include consideration of a 'specialist MB placement'. No reply to this email appears on the social work records and the SW was unable to recall any response she had been given to this email, save to claim that it was possible it had been informally discussed.
53.20 On 10.9.14 Caroline Down the foster carer's supervising SW from ISP, the independent agency providing the placement, emailed the SW following a visit to the placement at which she put Mother's concerns to the two boys at the placement. They both vehemently denied playing music loudly as they use headphones; or swearing or making lots of noise as they said the foster carer is very strict about swearing and Ms Down avers that she has observed them to be quiet; and that Ms McG has no pork in the house. They also said they had not heard Ms McG shouting and swearing but pointed out that they could not say what happens when they are not at home. Nor, I observe, would they hear anything if they were wearing their headphones. Ms Down reports the boys' concerns that Mother was shouting at, about and in front of A. Other than this enquiry by SW from the ISP agency itself there is no other investigation of the parents' complaints.
53.21 The health visitor last visited on 12.9.14, resulting in an email to the SW about her strong advice to the Mother to ensure A is fed 120ml per feed.
53.22 It is from 13.9.14 that the foster carer's notes include references to abuse from Mother to the foster carer. Until this point from the start of the placement on 8.8.14 there have been mixed reports in the notes, including improved bonding between Mother and A, good bonding between Father and A and his competent hands-on care of A; but also concerns expressed by Ms McG about Mother's care of A including the need for repeated advice, prompting and support, her ability to cope and respond to advice, and her manner of speaking to A where she becomes upset and blames A for her predicament. On 13.9.14 Ms McG alleges in her note that Mother told her to 'fuck off out of my room', 'go to hell' and 'fuck off you black bitch get out of my room'.
53.23 On 14.9.14 Ms McG claimed that Mother told her to fuck off and raised her hand towards her in the kitchen while saying 'don't you dare touch my son', and during a disagreement about time out of the placement to see the Father, Ms McG claims Mother said 'I don't give a shit about the baby, my husband comes first and half an hour isn't long enough you fucking cow'.
53.24 On 15.9.14, although this is nowhere included in Ms McG's carer's note of this date, Ms McG claims in a separate document entitled 'My Personal Statement' that Mother slapped her in the kitchen and called her a 'fucking black bitch' following Ms McG refusing to give Mother money and telling her to ask her husband for it. She follows this with the suggestion that Mother immediately accused Ms McG of slapping her instead. At the end of this document she sets out that in the evening when she was on the telephone with her daughter Mother came downstairs saying 'why can't you shut your mouth, there's a baby upstairs trying to sleep and who are you talking to anyway?' Ms McG's document then claims that she responded 'Who I'm talking to is none of your business' whereupon Mother left the room and went upstairs.
53.25 It is clear that the recording made by the Mother at the foster placement entitled 'Piss off and get lost and bad language' (transcript G41) is, by the admission of Ms McG, a recording of the conversation that took place that evening to which she briefly refers in My Personal Statement as I have described above. It is far from the encounter described by Ms McG in My Personal Statement. In it, Ms McG grossly over-reacts to calm requests by the Mother to 'just keep your voice down please' with an astonishingly vicious barrage of repeated words of abuse at Mother followed by the door being slammed on her. I return to this later.
53.26 The second recording is likely to have been recorded on 16.9.14, and before the arrival of the ambulance called by Mother, as there is no mention of the pushing incident nor of the ambulance being called, whereas there is mention of Mother coming down the night before and asking Ms McG to keep her voice down, being sworn at and having the door slammed on her. It is a recording that is again accepted by Ms McG of a conversation that took place between herself, her adult son and the Mother (transcript G42 'New Recording 10'). It is notable for its insensitive discussions with Mother by Ms McG and her son, for the Mother asserting that she is being disrespected by Ms McG in response to being told by the son that she is disrespecting Ms McG, for Mother reporting what happened the night before, and of Mother denying allegations that she swears or racially insults Ms McG or slapped her.
53.27 On 16.9.14 Ms Down again emailed the SW at 09:01 and 13:34. The first email (G45) attaches a document called 'My Personal Statement' and sets out Ms Down's concerns about the alleged slap of the foster carer by Mother and that she may have to give notice on the placement. It is not clear but it is likely that this is the same document that the court has seen dated 15.9.14 and headed My Personal Statement.
53.28 The second email (G57) sets out the observations of Ms Down that she heard Mother shouting while she was at the placement in the morning of 16.9.14, taking details from the foster carer of her claim that she was slapped by Mother the day before. She cites concerns about the racist and physically abusive behaviour to the foster carer and the 'continual allegations' by the parents. She criticises the amount of 'babysitting' the foster carer is said to be doing of at least 4 hours per day, and that she believes this family has 'massive issues with working with Black Caribbean/Black African individuals' and that this needs to be challenged and addressed immediately. I note that I did not hear direct evidence from Ms Down, for reasons already mentioned, and so I make no findings about her enquiries or the shouting she or the boys claim to have heard. I note that the foster carer's notes never mention any excessive babysitting, and the only mentions are of the parents going out for appointments such as for the cognitive assessment on 5.9.14 or for 45 minute walks together (17.8.14) and the disagreement on 14.9.14 when the parents were out for just under two hours. This begs the question as to whether Ms Down was familiar with the content of the foster carer's notes at the time she sent this email or was simply repeating the foster carer's allegations, and I find that the latter is the more likely.
53.29 Shortly after, at 14:47 on 16.9.14 the SW emails Mr Jacob of the Medway legal department about the increasing concerns as to Mother's behaviour becoming increasingly worrying and 'dangerous', and that the Team Manager Ms Morrell thinks that the plan should be altered to safeguard A and to issue proceedings without further delay. She confirms that the carer's daily logs can be filed later in the proceedings. The SW confirmed that she had not seen all the carer's notes at this point, and that the parents' concerns had not been set out in the social work records, nor investigated by anyone other than Ms Down.
53.30 Meanwhile, at around 2pm according to Ms McG's note, the Father arrived at the foster home and Ms McG claims in her note that he told her to 'leave my wife alone or I'm going to sort you out', and the parents then left for a walk for about an hour. At 15:54 according to the ambulance records the Mother called the police and ambulance to the foster home, claiming that Ms McG has pushed her. Ms McG sets out in her note that Mother would not tell her why she had called the emergency services, but also reports that the paramedics informed Ms McG of the accusation made by Mother that she had pushed Mother hurting her back. The paramedics treated Mother for muscular skeletal soft tissue injury and give advice on pain relief as set out in their record of attendance. The foster carer claims the police then called her to tell her they will attend within 4 hours, but they did not in fact attend. Mother is noted by the paramedics as having reported to them that she was pushed and fell over that morning resulting in back pain. In her statement the Mother states she was pushed by Ms McG into a table. It is notable that despite their attendance and treatment of the Mother, this episode is subsequently dismissed by the SW and foster carer, and by an ISP manager, as their 'finding nothing wrong', with the implication that the Mother has fabricated or at least exaggerated this incident and that they are therefore entitled to disregard it.
53.31 Later that afternoon the SW visits the foster home and on her way there is met by the Father outside on the street a few houses away. The third recording is of the conversation between them in which the Father shares his concerns and is urged by the SW to speak to his solicitor or to make a formal complaint. Her tone is patient but becomes slightly more anxious and short when it is clear that she can hear the Mother's cries and shouts from the foster placement. These can be heard on the recording and I find that these were loud cries of anguish and distress by the Mother calling for her husband that could be heard several houses away, and are as reported by the SW and the foster carer. She is reported as holding A while in this distress, and I find that it is likely that she was holding him at the time the SW arrived. Once the SW leaves the Father he then continues recording a new conversation he has started with the emergency services due to his concern about the Mother in the placement. His anxiety and distress become apparent and he occasionally sounds tearful, but at no time does he behave or speak inappropriately or lose his temper.
53.32 Notwithstanding the Mother's complaint of an assault by the foster carer and her calling the ambulance and police, the SW calmed her down and encouraged the Mother to return to the foster placement. There has never been any investigation into this complaint of assault made by the Mother against Ms McG, and I find it astonishing that the SW should have sanctioned, let alone encouraged, a continuation of this placement leaving such a vulnerable new mother with the foster carer who she is said to have slapped the day before and whom she claims pushed her earlier on this day.
53.33 It is at around this time that the Father is said to have raised a hand towards the SW during further conversation on the street between the parents and the SW, and during which she claims she was trying to encourage the Mother to visit her GP due to her distress the SW had witnessed earlier. I consider this incident later in this judgment, but in the highly stressful circumstances of 16.9.14 I do not find it to have been an inappropriate action by the Father nor indicative of abusive or controlling behaviour.
53.34 So Mother returned to the placement that afternoon once the SW had left. Ms McG alleges in her note of 16.9.14 that ten minutes after the SW left, the Mother re-entered the house and immediately slapped her across the face screaming 'put down my son'. Ms McG claims she then called the police, and goes on to state that Mother again told her to 'fuck off, fuck off, fuck off you black bitch' when offered help that evening. I have seen a social work case recording said to have been made at 03:39 on 17.9.14 (G1) detailing a call from Kent Police at 22:37 (on 16.9.14) as Mother had called them due to not getting on with the foster carer. This is followed by a call to Kent Police by social services to update them and referring to Mother apparently slapping Ms McG. A further call is made at 03:08 by social services to the police who had not yet attended the foster home. I have seen no record of the foster carer telephoning the police as she claims about being slapped by the Mother.
53.35 In the early hours of 17.9.14, the foster carer claims she went unannounced into the Mother's room due to continued crying by A which changed in pitch, and saw Mother shaking A. She called the ISP out of hours service and the police and was advised to take A to hospital. Entries in a social work case note (G2) suggest that these calls were made at about 4am and that at least by soon after 4am the police were at the foster placement. There were significant discrepancies in the foster carer's evidence regarding this very serious allegation against the Mother, and also regarding the other serious accusations by her against Mother, covering the timings, the movements, and the reporting and consistency of the allegations. I address these later in this judgment, but note here that these are the allegations originally sought against the Mother by Medway, but which after the conclusion of the foster carer's evidence were unsurprisingly discarded. In particular, I note here that I find the timing of this shaking allegation, coming as it did straight after the foster carer knew the police and ambulance had been called on 16.9.14 due to an accusation that she had assaulted the Mother, to be significant; and in combination with other key features of the foster carer's evidence, drive me to conclude on the balance of probabilities that this assertion that Mother shook A cannot be relied on as a truthful account.
53.36 A was then taken to hospital with the foster carer and Mother was sent home to the Father and has been separated from A ever since. A strategy meeting then took place at 2pm on 17.9.14 on the paediatric ward at Medway Hospital at which both Ms McG and a Ms Hannett from the ISP agency were present, and contributed to the discussion of the risks said to be posed to A by Mother. There were no concerns raised about Mother's allegations which were described at the meeting as 'claiming various misdemeanours and that Ms McG pushed her and she hurt her back' but were immediately dismissed by Ms Hannett due to the ambulance crew finding 'there was nothing wrong', and no strategy meeting nor any subsequent investigation were undertaken to consider Mother's claims of abuse and assault by Ms McG. The acting team manager Ms Willis, chairing the meeting, described both parents as 'clearly not suitable to care for [A]', that both are 'very aggressive and it is a miracle that [A] has not been seriously injured mentally and physically'.
53.37 Proceedings were issued on 17.9.14 and an EPO was granted on 19.9.14. A remained with Ms McG until moving to his current foster carers on 19.9.14. A contested ICO hearing took place on 25.9.14, where no opposition was mounted to the ICO and no evidence was heard. Directions were made. Mother was then assessed by Dr Conning in early October 2014.
53.38 The second CMH took place on 31.10.14, and a timetable was created. Reference is made to the Father providing information sought in an email from the Child's Solicitor dated 6.10.14. It is unclear from the order if this relates to the recordings.
53.39 There was no progress made on suggestions that the family should be assessed by Medway's in-house service Sunlight, despite the Children's Guardian chasing for it through late 2014. The SW was reallocated in November 2014. The parents were then assessed by the ISW Janice Barton in January 2015 following further delay and subsequent to further directions made on 5.12.14.
53.40 Eventually, despite it being set out in numerous sets of directions in 2014 the Family Group Conference took place on 4.1.15. Mr S attended with 9 other friends and relatives. There was a great deal of support for the parents discussed, and in particular that the family could be supported by moving in with Mr S, with additional support and help from female friends and relatives in caring for and learning how to care for A. The new SW Ms Stewart attended and confirmed that these were all positive leads. She also confirmed that her concerns are set out at the end of the FGC report (G21) which primarily relate to a timetable, and the provision of details so that feasibility can be considered. A further FGC is suggested to clarify those issues, but none has ever taken place and Ms Carmit accepted that no further action was taken thereafter in any respect to explore this support available to the family.
53.41 The ISW's report was completed on 18.1.15. She interviewed the Father on dates in December and January, and the January dates all post-dated the FGC. My understanding of her evidence was that the discussion with Father when he finally better understood Mother's difficulties and was shaken by that understanding came towards the end of their interviews, and thus was likely to have also post-dated the FGC meeting.
53.42 Directions were given on 15.1.15 to permit instruction of Communicourt. The IRH took place on 5.2.15. No further directions were made at that point as to any special measures Mother required or in relation to the recordings that were played to the ISW. Extensions of time were given to Medway for the provision of statements and source documents that had already been directed on several previous occasions, including: midwifery and health visiting notes, and a statement from the foster carer. The case was timetabled to a 10 day final hearing on 13.4.15 and allocated to an unknown circuit judge.
a) For a limited period, up to 12.9.14, the mother for whatever reason was unable to follow the new advice of the recommended 120 ml milk feed for A with the risk that he might be underfed.b) Over time, Mother was observed by a number of professionals to struggle to maintain the provision of basic care needs of A without prompting and guidance.
c) Father had shown that he was unable to engage with professionals and put all guidance given on parenting into practice. Father had indicated that there was no need for professional involvement because at that time he thought that the extended family in Redbridge would be sufficient help.
d) The family home in Chatham was observed to be unsafe and not habitable for a young baby to live in. For example, there was no running hot water and no heating. In spite of the obvious hazards and the unsuitability of the home condition at the time, there was no other property that the parents could provide as a home fit for their newborn son.
e) Father failed to acknowledge and lacked insight into Mother's cognitive difficulties until carefully explained by the ISW Janice Barton in January 2015.
f) When asked about the report of Father being heard shouting at Mother, Mother reported to the Safeguarding Midwife Mrs Rose that she was "used to" Father shouting at her.In the light of the expert evidence as to Mother's capabilities, and in particular the high risk that she may misunderstand, misreport or be suggestible, I do not consider it safe to take from her comment to Mrs Rose that there was shouting from Father of a significant sort to justify any inference of domestic violence. I do not doubt that Mrs Rose accurately and fairly reported her recollection of this conversation, but its relevance to threshold issues cannot safely be established. This is particularly the case where the parents have raised the possibility of their being a cultural difference that has been misunderstood, namely that an Urdu-speaking couple will be louder and more assertive in their speech patterns than a couple speaking English and that this may have been misinterpreted. Additionally, I note that this finding is sought in the context of there being no direct evidence of any actual shouting or other inappropriate behaviour by the Father towards the Mother, and Medway are not seeking such a finding given that comments of this nature in the hospital notes are second or third-hand hearsay and thus all the more susceptible to such misunderstandings and are unable to be tested, and therefore unsuitable to provide the basis for such significant findings. Mrs Rose confirmed that she had seen or heard no such behaviour herself.
g) At times Mother was prepared to say that she had learned enough to care for A without support. At other times Mother said that she did require support to help care for A.
It is pointed out on Mother's behalf that Mother at times is recorded as having acknowledged that she needed support (for example on 6.8.14 in hospital at page M100), while perhaps she understandably resisted such suggestions in more formal and adversarial settings such as the LAC review meeting on 3.9.14. And it is pointed out on Father's behalf that given Mother's learning disability it is unwise to place too much weight so soon after the arrival of her premature baby on her differing comments about her perception of the support she might need. However, in the context of it being conceded that Mother was observed by a number of different professionals at different stages to be unable to carry out basic tasks correctly without prompting and guidance, and where the Father himself was unable to comprehend the nature and degree of support that Mother would require until he had it properly explained to him by the ISW in January 2015, it is clear that she did need considerable support and that as a family they lacked an adequate insight into that factor in order to guard against its consequences. These are not criticisms of either parent, but are simply the facts of the state of affairs that existed at the time of the issue of proceedings, and which inevitably placed A at risk. It is also suggested on Mother's behalf that, but for Medway's failure to work with the Mother and Father appropriately, this state of affairs may not have arisen in that the Father would have had proper advice and Mother would have had proper assessment and support and therefore there would have been no consequent risk to A. This may be a fair assertion as to what Medway ought to have done (and which omissions I comment on later in this judgment), but it does not remove that state of affairs as it existed at the point that Medway issued proceedings on 17.9.14, and as such must fall to be considered under section 31(2) Children Act 1989.
h) A cognitive assessment of Mother was completed with the finding that her cognitive functioning was "extremely low". Mother's scores across the four indexes [sic] of Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed were all extremely low with an IQ of 54 (less than 99.9% of her normal age group). The risk to A being that without the necessary support and without fully being assessed by the Local authority [sic] Mother was unable to meet A's needs.
This is resisted on Mother's behalf as an element of the threshold criteria, on the basis that it thereby somehow suggests that all those experiencing a learning disability and with an IQ of 54 are automatically unable to parent their child to a good enough standard. However, it is the case that the Mother was assessed by Mr Crimes and that he describes these findings in relation to her cognitive functioning scores in his report dated 5.9.14, and as summarised in the first sentence set out above. It is also the nub of this case that Mother has a learning disability, without which disability the Father would not have struggled with understanding its implications for their parenting of A, and without which the various professionals would not have made their observations as to Mother's repeated need for prompting and guidance when providing basic care for A. Again, in the context where Mother accepts that she was observed by a number of professionals to struggle to meet A's needs without prompting and guidance and where the Father accepts that he did not fully understand the implications for her parenting of A until January 2015, it can be seen in this particular case with these particular circumstances and as at the date of 17.9.14 when proceedings were issued, that without assessment of the difficulties posed for Mother's parenting of A and the provision of consequent necessary support and without Father's insight into these problems, A was likely to be at risk of significant harm in her care. This is by no means a blanket finding that all those with such a cognitive assessment are therefore unable to parent (which would be an unfair and inaccurate generalisation, and I acknowledge that the bare diagnostic result from psychometric testing is not correlative in itself with parental adequacy: paragraph 1.2.6. DoH Good Practice Guidance), but is driven by the acknowledged facts of this particular case.
i) In his protective role Father accepts that his behaviour towards Mother could be seen by others as controlling and domineering. He did not understand at the time that such behaviour may not have a positive effect on a child's emotional well-being.
This 'acceptance' by the Father does not extend to his agreeing this concern is a threshold criteria factor (a position also held by the Children's Guardian), but that he may have been perceived, wrongly, as controlling and domineering while trying to guide and protect the Mother in their interactions with the local authority. The Mother's position is that it is simply not accepted that the evidence establishes that he behaved in this way. Medway asserts that the evidence is there from the SW's account of the Father answering for Mother during meetings and barring her from attending the first cognitive assessment appointment in August 2014. They also cite the later occurrence of the Father locking Mother in their property in Chatham as evidence that can be seen to vindicate this as a threshold finding. While I acknowledge that the Father accepted that he resisted the Mother attending the first cognitive assessment appointment, and there was some caviling about her attendance at the 5.9.14 appointment, I note that Father does not speak very good English and was at the time in the throes of finding himself deeply at odds with a social work team in a child protection system that he did not fully understand, and where he felt that no-one was listening to his concerns about his wife's experiences in the foster placement. He may well have spoken protectively and taken over discussions given the Mother's communication difficulties. Other observations that allege controlling behaviour, such as at the hospital, have been discussed already and hearsay does not suffice to establish such a finding. I note that the SW Ms Anyiamiah herself did not want too much emphasis on or for it 'to be overplayed' that she had stated that Father had raised his hand towards her during a conversation outside the foster home when he was discouraging her from speaking to Mother after she left the foster home on 16.9.14. She agreed that it was a highly stressful occasion for all concerned, and she was not concerned that Father was being deliberately threatening, but that he was concerned that Mother should not say anything more at all. She said she did think it was controlling and a domestically abusive relationship. In the circumstances that I have considered in the round, I find it unsurprising on 16.9.14 that the Father should have abruptly raised a hand to prevent further discussions with the Mother. She had been very significantly distressed only a short while previously, screaming for him from the foster home, and having been treated by ambulance staff following her claim of being pushed and hurt by the foster carer. I do not find that Father was being controlling or domineering on this particular occasion, but was understandably highly anxious. I deal later in this judgment with the allegation that he locked Mother into their property in Chatham, and I have found that it is more likely than not that this occurred, and that he is likely to have done so in part because he did worry about the Mother's abilities on her own. The question of the nature of the relationship between the parents and how the Father manages the Mother's vulnerability is one of the matters that must be assessed by Symbol, and I do not consider that the evidence before me at this point assists me to be able to make any clear finding as to whether it was protective, mistakenly so, or controlling. It does not in any event necessarily equate to a pattern of abusive behaviour that would pose a risk of significant harm to A.
j) Father failed fully to co-operate with professionals and acknowledge all of the local authority's concerns, especially after he perceived [the foster placement as being] an unsuitable placement for Mother and his son and the apparent failure of the Local authority to acknowledge or deal with his complaints about the placement.
In the light of the findings I make in this judgment, I find it unsurprising that the Father has conceded that he felt unable to demonstrate complete co-operation with the social workers in the case and acknowledge Medway's concerns in the period immediately leading up to the issue of proceedings in mid-September. He was instrumental in his wife not attending the first cognitive assessment appointment in August, and I have discussed this in the paragraph above, however he was assiduous at attending other meetings, attending the foster placement to help with caring for his son, and attempting to put forward his own concerns about the placement and Medway's approach. I do not consider that this is a true threshold issue, but it shows the understandable effect of this local authority's actions and omissions upon the Father, and is also likely to be reflective of his limited understanding of the child protection system in this country; and I consider that the observations in Re S 2014, that problems of this sort do not equate to or imply an inability to parent are significantly applicable to this issue of Father's approach in 2014. What was unhelpful, and that I have not fully understood the reasons for, was the failure to ensure that the recordings that have proved so crucial in this case were promptly provided once they had been made and certainly once they had been played to the ISW and were being requested by the Children's Guardian and Medway. Again, this is not a threshold issue, but the parents' co-operation and the Father's ability to demonstrate insight will undoubtedly be central to the future assessments in this case.
"R….. piss off out I'm getting it on the phone piss off out R….. piss off out I'm on the phone when you on the phone chatting loud in your in your Pakistani language I don't say anything I just grin and bear it yeah I don't (indistinct) so piss off out and leave me on the phone piss off. Piss off when (indistinct) your Pakistani language I not saying anything I leave you (indistinct) but get with I don't say anything to you right, so get lost"
This is then followed by the sound of steps walking away and a door loudly slammed.
Ms McG accepted that this is her voice and this was how she behaved to Mother on this occasion. She was unrepentant during her oral evidence, but in her submissions indicates she has now reflected on this and accepts that she behaved inappropriately, for which she now apologises and will be seeking support from her fostering agency. She claims that this inappropriate behaviour was as a result of repeated provocation and the breakdown of the placement. I shall return to that assertion later.
"132. The last thirty years have seen a radical reappraisal of the way in which people with a learning disability are treated in society. It is now recognised that they need to be supported and enabled to lead their lives as full members of the community, free from discrimination and prejudice. This policy is right, not only for the individual, since it gives due respect to his or her personal autonomy and human rights, but also for society at large, since it is to the benefit of the whole community that all people are included and respected as equal members of society. One consequence of this change in attitudes has been a wider acceptance that people with learning disability may, in many cases, with assistance, be able to bring up children successfully. Another consequence has been the realisation that learning disability often goes undetected, with the result that persons with such disabilities are not afforded the help that they need to meet the challenges that modern life poses, particularly in certain areas of life, notably education, the workplace and the family.133. To meet the particular difficulties encountered in identifying and helping those with a learning disability in the family, the government published in 2007 "Good Practice Guidance on Working with Parents with a Learning Disability". In their closing submissions, Miss Ball and Miss Boye contended that such good practice guidance is required because there is little evidence of effective joint working between adult and children's services and practitioners in each area rarely have a good working knowledge of the policy and legislative framework within which the other is working. They submitted that local authorities frequently do not take account of the fact that, if children are to be enabled to remain in their own families, a specialist approach to a parent with a learning disability is absolutely central to any work that is done, any protection which is offered and any hope of keeping the family together. The 2007 guidance points out, inter alia, that a specialised response is often required when working with families where the parent has a learning disability; that key features of good practice in working with parents with a learning disability include (a) accessible and clear information, (b) clear and co-ordinated referral and assessment procedures, (c) support designed to meet the parent's needs and strengths, (d) long-term support where necessary, and (e) access to independent advocacy; that people may misunderstand or misinterpret what a professional is telling them so that it is important to check what someone understands, and to avoid blaming them for getting the wrong message; that adult and children's services and health and social care should jointly agree local protocols for referrals, assessments and care pathways in order to respond appropriately and promptly to the needs of both parents and children; and that, if a referral is made to children's services and then it becomes apparent that a parent has a learning disability, a referral should also be made to adult learning disability services. The guidance also stresses that close attention should be paid to the parent's access needs, which may include putting written material into an accessible format, avoiding the use of jargon, taking more time to explain things, and being prepared to tell parents things more than once."
"175. It is, I think, inevitable that in its pre-proceedings work with a child's family, the local authority will gain information about the capacity of the child's parents. The critical question is what it does with that information, particularly in a case where the social workers form the view that the parent in question may have learning difficulties.'176. At this point, in many cases, the local authority will be working with the child's parents in an attempt to keep the family together. In my judgment, the practical answer in these circumstances is likely to be that the parent in question should be referred to the local authority's adult learning disability team (or its equivalent) for help and advice. If that team thinks that further investigations are required, it can undertake them: it should, moreover, have the necessary contacts and resources to commission a report so that as soon as the pre-proceedings letter is written, and proceedings are issued, the legal advisers for the parent can be in a position, with public funding, to address the question of a litigation friend. It is, I think, important that judgments on capacity are not made by the social workers from the child protection team.'
181. In the pre-proceedings phase local authorities should feel free to do whatever is necessary in social work terms to assist parents who may become protected parties. My view, however, is that this is best achieved by members of the adult learning disabilities team who do not have responsibility for the children concerned."
- Immediately made a referral to the adult services Learning Disability team and worked together with them to benefit from their advice, training, experience and resources;
- Triggered an assessment of Mother's abilities via the Learning Disability team;
- Ensured the appointment of an adult care SW for Mother:
- Identified and provided a specialist resource within a short period of time, in order to assess the Mother, and her and the family's needs for support;
- As soon as the parents expressed complaints about the placement, if not before, provided her with details of how to complain;
- Investigated more fully the support options available from Father, friends and family.
a) PD27A COMPLIANT BUNDLE – There is little point in Medway having created a bundle a few days before a final hearing by unilaterally selecting documents to fit the 350 page limit. Needless to say it was not considered fit for purpose by the other parties and I have already identified that it lacked crucial documents. This, and the various acts of non-compliance discussed elsewhere, betray an unacceptable failure by Medway to adequately prepare the case, to consider properly which documents would be required, to focus on the issues and the evidence, and to apply itself with care and a sense of the necessarily heavy responsibilities borne by applicant local authorities when applying for care and placement orders which have life-changing consequences for families.b) In order to achieve a meaningful compliance with PD27A, the local authority should liaise with the other parties at an advocates' meeting prior to the IRH to agree a provisional core bundle index. This will not only assist with the proper analysis of the issues and evidence in readiness for an IRH, and permit a proper resolution of issues at that hearing, but will also identify any further documents that may need to be the subject of an application to depart from PD27A and form a supplemental bundle, and which can be addressed and resolved at that IRH. I will be implementing directions to facilitate this approach at CMHs, but even absent such directions it is evident that a local authority applicant should be taking on this responsibility in any event.
c) INTERMEDIARY - I commend A's solicitor for raising the question of an intermediary with those representing Mother in mid-November. A consent order was not circulated until mid-December and was ordered in mid-January. This was knocked back by two refusals of prior authority prior to the IRH in early February. No directions were made then and I consider that this was a missed opportunity. A further refusal of prior authority was made at the end of March leading to an urgent application to DJ Gill and the DFJ. This led to the report of Communicourt being provided on the last working day before the start of the final hearing and my direction that Mother should be provided with an intermediary, funded by the court service. This issue should have been considered and grappled with from the very first hearing, given Mr Crimes' report, and a more robust approach taken at the IRH, so that this issue too did not jeopardise the final hearing. This would also have avoided a change of intermediary half-way through the hearing, which was a direct consequence of not having an intermediary booked in from an earlier date.
d) NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS – Medway repeatedly flouted numerous directions to file key source documents and witness statements following initial directions in September, CMOs in October and December 2014, and finally the IRH in February 2015. This was completely unacceptable and placed the parties and the court at a gross disadvantage and almost led to the abandonment of this hearing with consequent delay and injustice. It is clear that this case is unfortunately far from an isolated example of such practice by Medway, and is an habitual problem that local practitioners and the court struggle with. I am raising with Kent's DFJ and FDLJ practical measures to solve such problems and prevent them recurring.
e) However, I am also disappointed that the parties (including Medway) did not pursue an urgent hearing to address these failures. There should have been a swift and comprehensive response to the local authority's failures following the IRH by obtaining a prompt listing. Such requests are frequently received and action promptly taken by this court, albeit that in this case there was no allocated circuit judge from the date of the IRH. I understand that timetabling failures were raised with DJ Gill at the IRH which led to further re-timetabling, but when further breaches continued after the IRH the court was not requested to reconsider the timetable and no hearing was sought, whereas these issues should have been pursued and an urgent listing obtained.
f) ALLOCATION – I acknowledge that it may have disadvantaged the case management of this case that it was allocated to an 'unknown' Circuit Judge by DJ Gill at the IRH. This was not DJ Gill's fault, but because a new Circuit Judge was in the process of being appointed to a vacant post and this problem was a function of the process whereby the identity of a new Circuit Judge remains unknown until their royal warrant is signed, and therefore there was no allocated Circuit Judge to address case management issues in the period between the IRH in January and the final hearing in April. While it is of course preferable for any matters raised by the parties to be dealt with by an allocated judge who would be conducting the final hearing in order to maintain continuity and focus, I note that DJ Gill was able to refer the intermediary issue to the DFJ.
g) LATE PROVISION OF RECORDINGS – As I have mentioned, it is unclear whether a direction made in late 2014 related to the recordings made by the parents, but it was highly unsatisfactory that they were not provided by the Father in an accessible format to his solicitor until the week before the hearing. I have not been able to clarify why this problem arose. What is clear is that these recordings were central to a proper understanding of the case. If there had been an earlier order debarring the parents from relying upon them unless they were provided by a certain date, this may have triggered their provision, but I note that if I had taken that stance at the outset of a final hearing it would have resulted in a serious misunderstanding of the case. I remain puzzled as to why these recordings were not the subject of directions at the IRH.
h) BEST EVIDENCE – It is salutary and sobering to consider that there are many children in foster care, and many parents in parent and baby foster placements, and there will be occasions when parents complain about their treatment in those placements, but that it is the frequent practice in care proceedings not to require the foster carer to attend court, but to rely upon their notes and the social worker's evidence. In the light of Re A 2015 and Re J 2015, and an example such as this case, it will be all the more important to consider with a sharp focus the nature of the evidence that the court needs to consider, and best evidence in particular. In this case, the parents' allegations were frankly treated dismissively from the outset. But for this court's willingness to permit the consideration and transcription of the recordings, despite the extreme lateness that they were provided, in combination with the requirement that the foster carer attend to give evidence (which was correctly anticipated at the IRH), it would have been impossible to gain a just and proper understanding of this case.
HHJ Lazarus
2.6.15
APPENDIX A
Department of Health: Good practice guidance on working with parents with a learning disability
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_075118.pdf
Why is this good practice guidance needed?
As the research summarised in Appendix A illustrates, practitioners often experience some difficulties supporting families are affected by parental learning disability:
• Children whose parents have learning disabilities and who are in contact with children's social care services have high levels of needs;
• There is little evidence of effective joint working between adult and children's services. Children's
services practitioners, and adult learning disability workers, rarely have a good working knowledge
of the policy and legislative framework within which each other are working. Appendix B therefore
sets out the respective policy and legislative framework with the aim of increasing understanding
of both the responsibilities of children's and adult social care, and of parents' entitlements.
Whilst the same values about safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children should be applied to the children of learning disabled parents as to the children of non-learning disabled parents, such families have specific needs which require particular knowledge and skills if the professionals working with them are to provide an equitable service to these children and their parents. A specialized response is often required when working with families where the parent(s) has a learning disability but many children and family social workers do not feel adequately equipped to work effectively with them. At the same time, many adult learning disability services struggle to effectively support parents with learning disabilities.
There are five key features of good practice in working with parents with learning disabilities:
1. Accessible information and communication
2. Clear and co-ordinated referral and assessment procedures and processes, eligibility criteria and care pathways
3. Support designed to meet the needs of parents and children based on assessments of their
needs and strengths
4. Long-term support where necessary
5. Access to independent advocacy.
1.2.3 Identification of needs should start when a pregnancy is confirmed.
Procedures, criteria and pathways therefore need to be agreed between maternity services and
children's and adult social care. Such agreements could relate to parents with learning disabilities in particular or to all groups of parents and their children who may be identified as vulnerable. An
important starting point will be to recognise:
• Pregnant women with learning disabilities are entitled to universal services
• Universal services are required to make "reasonable adjustments" to make their services
accessible and suitable for people with learning disabilities
• Early assessments of support needed to look after a new baby will help to prevent avoidable
difficulties arising.
1.2.4 Adult and children's social care services should jointly agree referral procedures to prevent
parents and children falling between the two services.
It is good practice that, as a general rule, referrals relating to the needs of parents with learning
disabilities should be directed to Learning Disability services, unless there are concerns about
children's welfare, in which case a referral should also be made to children's social care. If a referral is made directly to children's services, and it then becomes apparent that a parent has a learning disability, a referral should then also be made to adult Learning Disability services.
1.2.6 Services in contact with parents with learning disabilities should promote good practice in
assessment by using appropriate assessment materials and resources and/or access specialist
expertise.
Needs relating to learning disability should be considered whatever the level of assessment, whether it is an assessment of additional needs being carried out by a universal service using the Common Assessment Framework, or a child in need assessment using the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, or a section 47 enquiry to establish whether a child may be suffering harm. This means that a range of professionals who are in contact with children may need to consider, using the Common Assessment Framework, the possibility of parental learning disability and its impact on children. Children's social care will also need to consider the impact and needs associated with learning disability when assessing children in need, and in safeguarding children.
Where a parent has a learning disability it will be important not to make assumptions about their
parental capacity. Having a learning disability does not mean that a person cannot learn new skills.
Learning disabled parents may need support to develop the understanding, resources, skills,
experience and confidence to meet the needs of their children. Such support is particularly needed
where they experience additional stressors such as having a disabled child, domestic violence, poor physical and mental health, substance misuse, social isolation, poor housing, poverty or a history of growing up in care.
…
Diagnostic psychometric assessments can provide information about whether a parent has a learning disability and about their skills and abilities. However, "Although such information is useful, it must be stressed that there is no direct correlation between the results of these tests and parental adequacy"(McGaw and Newman, 2005, p.27). A list of such assessment tools is given in the Resources section.
Assessments should cover family and environmental factors, as well as parental capacity. Research tells us that family and community support networks are particularly important for parents with learning disabilities and their children. We also know that parents with learning disabilities are
particularly likely to experience difficult housing situations and poverty. Both the Common
Assessment Framework and the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their
Families require that family and environmental factors are covered.
Adult learning disability services should ensure that Person Centred Planning is made available to
parents with learning disabilities as part of both the assessment of their needs and the planned
response to these needs. Person Centred Planning is a process of life planning which enables the
identification of a person's strengths, needs, relationships and the barriers they face. It is a
particularly appropriate method to use where people with learning disabilities are parents (see
Resources).
1.4.1 A need for long-term support does not mean that parents cannot look after their children.
Some parents with learning disabilities will only need short-term support, such as help with looking
after a new baby or learning about child development and childcare tasks. Others, however, will
need on-going support. Most may need support at various different points of their family's life cycle
for two main reasons. Firstly, although a parent with learning disabilities can learn how to do things, their cognitive impairment will not go away. Just as someone with a physical impairment may need personal assistance for the rest of their life so a person with learning disabilities may need assistance with daily living, particularly as new situations arise. Secondly, children and their needs change. A parent may have learnt to look after a baby and young child and be coping well. However, as the child enters adolescence other support needs may arise.
1.4.2 Where a need for long-term support with parenting tasks is identified, it should form part of
the community care and/or child in need plan.
Early identification of support needs will help prevent unnecessary difficulties arising but it should be recognised that some support needs may be on-going and this should be reflected in care planning.
2.1.4 When a key worker is appointed for a child whose parent has a learning disability, it is
important that the worker has some understanding of learning disability or, if not, that the worker has access to such expertise.
2.2.4 Core assessments involving families affected by parental learning disability should
always include specialist input concerning the impact of learning disability.
Core assessments should also include seeking information from others who may know the parent(s) well, providing the parent gives their consent.
It should be recognised that, in many cases where there are risks of significant harm to children of
learning disabled parents, parents usually face other difficulties in addition to learning disability.
These may include mental health and/or physical health problems, domestic violence, substance
abuse. Assessments should therefore also include, where appropriate, specialist input on these
issues.
2.2.8 Where children are subject to a child protection plan, it is good practice to appoint a key
worker for the parent(s) with learning disabilities (as well as a key worker for the child/ren).
Both key workers should be part of the core group and should have expertise, or access to
expertise, in supporting families affected by parental learning disability.
2.2.14 Placement with extended family members should always be considered.
Support from the extended family can work well and can take the form of 'shared care' or of permanent placement. On the other hand, there are some circumstances where extended family members would not provide suitable support, and there are other circumstances where extended family members attempt to 'take over' care of children without appropriate involvement of parents. Assessments which take into account the wider context of the parents' and children's circumstances and needs will ensure that care planning is fully informed by both the possibilities, and the limitations, of extended family involvement.
2.2.15 Where possible, foster care placements should be made with carers who have experience and/or training in working in partnership with parents with learning disabilities.
2.2.16 Parents should be informed of the complaints procedure and it will be important that such
procedures are conducted in ways which ensure people with learning disabilities equal access to all stages of the complaints process. This should include information in easy to understand formats and any support required to use the complaints procedure.
APPENDIX B
Working Together to Safeguard Children
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419595/Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children.pdf
Statutory assessments under the Children Act 1989
• A child in need is defined under the Children Act 1989 as a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services; or a child who is disabled. Children in need may be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, in relation to their special educational needs, disabilities, as a carer, or because they have committed a crime. Where an assessment takes place, it will be carried out by a social worker. The process for assessment should also be used for children whose parents are in prison and for asylum seeking children. When assessing children in need and providing services, specialist assessments may be required and, where possible, should be coordinated so that the child and family experience a coherent process and a single plan of action.
The purpose of assessment
29. Whatever legislation the child is assessed under, the purpose of the assessment is always:
• to gather important information about a child and family;
• to analyse their needs and/or the nature and level of any risk and harm being suffered by the child;
• to decide whether the child is a child in need (section 17) and/or is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm (section 47); and
• to provide support to address those needs to improve the child's outcomes to make them safe.
30. Assessment should be a dynamic process, which analyses and responds to the changing nature and level of need and/or risk faced by the child. Any provision identified as being necessary through the assessment process should, if the local authority decides to provide such services, be provided without delay. A good assessment will monitor and record the impact of any services delivered to the child and family and review the help being delivered. Whilst services may be delivered to a parent or carer, the assessment should be focused on the needs of the child and on the impact any services are having on the child.
Focusing on outcomes
52. Every assessment should be focused on outcomes, deciding which services and support to provide to deliver improved welfare for the child.
53. Where the outcome of the assessment is continued local authority children's social care involvement, the social worker and their manager should agree a plan of action with other professionals and discuss this with the child and their family. The plan should set out what services are to be delivered, and what actions are to be undertaken, by whom and for what purpose.
54. Many services provided will be for parents or carers (and may include services identified in a parent carer's or non-parent carer's needs assessment).18 The plan should reflect this and set clear measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for the parents, with measurable, reviewable actions for them.
Timeliness
57. The timeliness of an assessment is a critical element of the quality of that assessment and the outcomes for the child. The speed with which an assessment is carried out after a child's case has been referred into local authority children's social care should be determined by the needs of the individual child and the nature and level of any risk of harm faced by the child. This will require judgements to be made by the social worker in discussion with their manager on each individual case. Adult assessments, i.e. parent carer or non-parent carer assessments, should also be carried out in a timely manner, consistent with the needs of the child.
58. Within one working day of a referral being received, a local authority social worker should make a decision about the type of response that is required and acknowledge receipt to the referrer.
59. For children who are in need of immediate protection, action must be taken by the social worker, or the police or NSPCC if removal is required, as soon as possible after the referral has been made to local authority children's social care (sections 44 and 46 of the Children Act 1989).
60. The maximum timeframe for the assessment to conclude, such that it is possible to reach a decision on next steps, should be no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral. If, in discussion with a child and their family and other professionals, an assessment exceeds 45 working days the social worker should record the reasons for exceeding the time limit.
61. Whatever the timescale for assessment, where particular needs are identified at any stage of the assessment, social workers should not wait until the assessment reaches a conclusion before commissioning services to support the child and their family. In some cases the needs of the child will mean that a quick assessment will be required.
| Strategy discussion Whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm there should be a strategy discussion involving local authority children's social care (including the fostering service, if the child is looked after), the police, health and other bodies such as the referring agency. This might take the form of a multi-agency meeting or phone calls and more than one discussion may be necessary. A strategy discussion can take place following a referral or at any other time, including during the assessment process. |
Strategy discussion Whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm there should be a strategy discussion involving local authority children's social care (including the fostering service, if the child is looked after), the police, health and other bodies such as the referring agency. This might take the form of a multi-agency meeting or phone calls and more than one discussion may be necessary. A strategy discussion can take place following a referral or at any other time, including during the assessment process. |
| Purpose: | Local authority children's social care should convene a strategy discussion to determine the child's welfare and plan rapid future action if there is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. |
| Strategy discussion attendees: | A local authority social worker and their manager, health professionals and a police representative should, as a minimum, be involved in the strategy discussion. Other relevant professionals will depend on the nature of the individual case but may include: • the professional or agency which made the referral; • the child's school or nursery; and • any health services the child or family members are receiving. All attendees should be sufficiently senior to make decisions on behalf of their agencies. |
| Strategy discussion tasks: | The discussion should be used to: • share available information; • agree the conduct and timing of any criminal investigation; and • decide whether enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 should be undertaken. Where there are grounds to initiate an enquiry under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, decisions should be made as to: • what further information is needed if an assessment is already underway and how it will be obtained and recorded; • what immediate and short term action is required to support the child, and who will do what by when; and • whether legal action is required. The timescale for the assessment to reach a decision on next steps should |
Provision of services for children in need, their families and others
Section 17(1) states that it shall be the general duty of every local authority:
(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.
by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs.
