England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

 

IN THE MEDWAY COUNTY COURT No. ME15C00708

Anchorage House,

Supervision Order breached : EPO required

 

13 ^th April 2015

 

B e f o r e:-

 

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON

 

 

 

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL

Applicant

v

 

 

S & B

Respondents

 

 

 

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

(As Approved)

 

Application by Local Authority for Emergency Protection Order where there is concern regarding mother’s emotional well-being and partner not co-operating with Supervision Order

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR CHALLENOR of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Local Authority.

MISS PORTER of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Mother.

MISS DUCKWORTH, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of Father.

MRS LLOYD, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Guardian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcription by:

Audio and Verbatim Transcription Services

10 Herondale, Haslemere, Surrey, GU27 1RQ :

Telephone: 01428 643408 : Facsimile: 01428 654059

Members of the Official Tape Transcription Panel

Members of the British Institute of Verbatim Reporters

 

This Judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given leave for this version of the Judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the Judgment) in any published version of the Judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a Contempt of Court.

HER HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON:

1.                   An urgent application has been made in relation to B who is the daughter of those two aforementioned parents, KS and JB, she being born on the 1 ^st August 2012 and she is therefore two-and-three-quarter years of age. The matter was actually before the Court very recently and extensively in November of last year, that hearing culminating on the 27 ^th November 2014 with His Honour Judge Scarratt giving a very detailed and comprehensive Judgment and making findings of fact in relation to what had occurred in the life of both young B and her brother, J. There had been long standing concerns about the welfare of both children and neglectful parenting; failing to meet the children’s health and educational needs; and there were allegations about JB’s alcohol and drug misuse. To be fair that was not tested, and although His Honour Judge Scarratt referred to that, it was not a matter which was actually capable of proof at that time, although the Court was well aware that the father had been accessing some support at both Turning Point and at Durham House although that has not been as I understand it consistent.

2.                   In any event what occurred was that a Care Order was made in relation to J. I believe he lives with his paternal aunt and uncle. A 12 month Supervision Order was made in relation to B who was to continue living with her mother.

3.                   For completeness I add that Dr. Meyer had assessed the father. Dr. Conning also had assessed both parents, both with various learning difficulties and other issues, there being concern about the mother’s psychiatric state or mental health, although it was clear that Dr. Conning allowed for the fact that the mother did indeed have capacity to deal fully with the proceedings. There was also a PAMs assessment of the father by Tom Brazier and that indicated that the father was a risk to the children. Certainly father was not recommended by any of the experts to be an alternative carer of the children. It was found that he was unlikely to be able to offer a safe level of care to his children.

4.                   The case has now come before the Court in this way. A 999 call on Friday of last week, 10 ^th April, by a member of the public brought the Police to the mother’s home. There had been shouting and banging heard coming from the mother’s home address. That had been throughout the night and in the early hours of the morning on the 30 ^th March. Due to concerns about all of that the Police attended and when they arrived at the property shouting could still be heard coming from the inside. So the person who had made the 999 call had been correct in so doing. There was no evidence of any other person in the house at all.

5.                   The Officers arriving were very concerned about KS’s presentation. She was very upset. She had make-up running down her face. She said she had been upset because her hoover was broken. B was seen asleep on the sofa. The Police then went outside to make their own enquiries and when they were still outside heard further shouting coming from the property. Some running water was heard. KS has explained through her Counsel, Miss Porter, who attended today at short notice, that she was running a bath or in the shower. KS was seen by the Police to be making herself sick and was gagging. In-between being sick she was heard to shout:

“Get the fuck off me. Get off me you cunt. Leave me alone. Get the fuck off me. Why don’t you just fucking leave me alone?”

6.                   All of that of course was while B was in the house. In fact the Kingswood Mental Health Team were alerted and although they felt there was no obvious psychotic symptoms, they were of the view that this could be the early signs of psychosis but they did not at that stage undertake a full mental health assessment.

7.                   The very next day, on the 31 ^st March, further concerns of a similar nature sounding like domestic abuse, mother shouting and so on, were raised by another member of the public, having heard KS shouting again and knowing that a young child was there, that person was concerned about the welfare of that child. Again, the Police attended, the Duty Social Worker attended in tandem with them and KS denied there was anything wrong. It is very plain indeed that those two Police call-outs are serious. Nobody can allege here that the Police are lying. They attended. We will have in time full disclosure of those attendances.

8.                   In the background I should say that, in relation to the supervised contact that had been set up for JB, he had failed to attend on quite a number of occasions. On the 29 ^th December, then on the 5 ^th February, again on the 19 ^th February, not having phoned to say he was not attending and therefore obviously there being inconvenience about that. He did not attend on 5 ^th March. On 3 ^rd March during an assessment session with the mother she said that she had not considered domestic abuse to have been a significant feature in her former relationship and she did not consider JB’s alcohol use to be a concern. That is some of the background history.

9.                   Again father failed to attend contact on the 13 ^th March. There was another call by a concerned neighbour on 17 ^th March that B may have been left alone at home by KS. That was said to be unsubstantiated. So there was a proper investigation and that was not proven. I bear that fully in mind.

10.               The health visitor was a little bit concerned about B’s weight loss on the 26 ^th of that month and was going to ensure that mother gave proper nutrition. There were then those two occasions on the 30 ^th and 31 ^st March. That would have been enough, as it were but we then have a catalogue of further precipitating events. Accordingly this is not just a small change but a real elevation of risks and concerns about B’s safety in her mother’s care.

11.               Quite properly, because of course B is subject to a Supervision Order and therefore the Local Authority have full statutory duties in relation to that, an unannounced visit was undertaken to the home of the mother. Nobody was at home. Another one was undertaken on the next day, 9 ^th April, and again nobody was at home. I stress that of course the mother is entitled to go out. She is entitled to visit friends and her sister who I am told today has a new baby. She is entitled to go out shopping and so on and pursue events and activities with B but there was concern that her phone was out of use and she did not reply to any texts.

12.               I am aware from what I heard from her Counsel today that she has an old mobile phone, she did not have a charger with her but I am afraid it is the responsibility of everybody to ensure that they have a fully charged phone, particularly when a Supervision Order is in place and when there is this concerning background occurring only a few months after the Supervision Order was made in November.

13.               There was further worrying information from a neighbour that KS had not been seen since the Tuesday. In fact B had been seen leaving the property on that morning of the 9 ^th April with the father. Now of course the father is not to have unsupervised contact with the mother. That was part and parcel of His Honour Judge Scarratt’s very careful Order and the wording of that and the Contact Timetable which had been set up with JB, advantage of which as I have stated already has not been taken at all properly since December. The neighbour reported that JB drove off with B in a dark blue car and another male was driving that vehicle.

14.               JB, when questioned about the matter denied having been to the property, and denied having had any contact with KS. It was checked as to whether the father had details of KS’s sister, K, but he said that he did not like K and therefore would not provide an address to assist the Local Authority. In my judgment that refusal was entirely frustrating the access of the Local Authority to the child, a child subject to a Supervision Order. Of course that is one of the reasons in particular that an Emergency Protection Order can be made if access to the child is frustrated.

15.               JS’s property was visited perfectly properly by Miss Alison Wilson a Senior Practitioner and the Duty Social Worker on that day. The log about that states that he would not allow full access to each room in his home. JS through his Counsel today has stated that the social worker was allowed to every room in the house and that the mother and B were not found there on that occasion. He again refused to send a further message to KS’s sister to get an address in order that K’s address could be visited to check if mother and B were indeed there. So that matter could very properly have been resolved and concerns ameliorated on that day but were not because of the father’s actions.

16.               What then happened was that KS’s sister was visited by the Police but mother and child were not there. In fact she said that she had not seen her sister for five weeks. Therefore the suggestion by mother today through her Counsel that she had been visiting there and was going because of the new baby seems not to be borne out by the enquiries that have been made.

17.               Then further attempts were made by Miss Wilson to find the mother and to try and contact her. At 11 o’clock at night on the 10 ^th April B and her mother were indeed found at the home of JB. They were apparently walking towards that property at 11 o’clock on that night. That is not an appropriate time for the child to be out and about.

18.               JB had then the next day on the 11 ^th April contacted the Out of Hours Service saying he wanted B returned to his care alleging that KS had gone to his house the previous evening following a breakdown, that I understand to be an emotional and mental breakdown, and KS had advised that he could care for B. Of course that would simply not be acceptable whatsoever given the findings of His Honour Judge Scarratt. It is not for the parents themselves to alter the current arrangement for B’s residence.

19.               KS herself also phoned the Out of Hours Service maintaining that she had been staying at her sister’s property and had gone to JB’s address just to get some money at 11 o’clock at night.

20.               So there is all of that. There are a whole catalogue of concerns here. I do not, and cannot find, that the Police overreacted in any way on when they took the Police Protection Order and emergency procedures for B on Friday evening at 10 o’clock and placed her with foster carers over the weekend.

21.               The very real concern is that KS would disappear again with B and would not be readily contactable or readily found. There has been it seems to me a lack of honesty about her whereabouts during those vital two or three days, the fact that she now says she is going to attend play sessions and will stay in for the Health Visitor to attend and would be in for unannounced visits appears not to be sufficient reassurance at all given the circumstances of the last couple of weeks.

22.               I am concerned also that the parents may have had an element of collusion here, that they have not been working honestly and openly with the Local Authority and of course they are required to do that within the terms of the Supervision Order.

23.               What the parents have done today, and particularly BS’s own presentation throughout the hearing, does really nothing to instil any further confidence in the Court or the Local Authority or in this little girl’s Guardian’s mind at all. For today’s purposes therefore I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that B would be likely to suffer significant harm if returned to the mother’s care forthwith.

24.               I am very concerned indeed about that frustrating of access to the Local Authority. It does not begin to answer the Supervision Order. Accordingly I have no hesitation whatsoever in granting an Emergency Protection Order forthwith as sought by the Local Authority under Section 44 (1) (a) (i) of the Children Act. There is no way that I can depart from the highly experienced Social Worker’s and Guardian’s professional views today. I am simply not satisfied that B’s safety could be properly safeguarded.

25.               Also, draconian though the Order is and removal is acknowledged to be, I must always do what is instinctively required to protect a child’s welfare. I therefore make that Emergency Protection Order for eight days in the usual way. There will I am sure be contact arrangements made for the mother in particular to see B, to reassure B, although I am told that in fact she has settled very well, has not been upset and has not been asking after her mother until last night. I am satisfied therefore that she is well looked after for what I hope will be a temporary interim basis.

26.               I am aware that the Local Authority are very likely to issue Section 31 Proceedings very shortly and therefore there will need to be a further Hearing before the eight days expires. Accordingly that Emergency Protection Order will take effect forthwith.

AVTS REF: 6094/H4846