G & Ors (Children) [2015] EWFC B144 (7 April 2015)

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR:

1. I am concerned with the welfare of five children:

A, who was born on 15^th March 1998, so now aged 17;

B, born on 17^th August 1999, so now aged 15 years 7 months;

C, born on 3^rd January 2001, now aged 14 years and 2 months;

D, born on 26^th November 2011, now aged 3 years 4 months; and

E, born on 28^th January 2013, now aged 2 years and 2 months.

They are all the children of M, who is aged 34, and the youngest two children have F as their father. He is aged 41. Care proceedings were initiated on 25^th November 2013 and it was thought that they had been concluded in July 2014 with the making of supervision orders.

2. M has two other children:

G, aged 10 years 8 months; and

H, aged 9 years 8 months,

who both live with their father, Z, under a residence order which was made upon, I think, 3^rd September 2012 following them being placed by mother in his care in October 2011 when she was in a relationship with F.

3. The local authority plan in respect of B and C, who have been separately represented in these proceedings, is to place them into foster care. The plan for D and E is adoption, placement orders having been issued on 28^th January 2015. Given that A is now 17, he will remain at home without orders because of his age. The guardian supports the local authority plans whilst the mother, M, wishes all the children to remain in her care. F recognises that he is not in a position to care for his sons but he supports his children remaining with their mother. He is strongly opposed to adoption in respect of his boys.

4. I have heard evidence from Marie Carver, the social worker who has been involved with these children throughout the proceedings; also from Gemma Gregory, who took up a referral from Safer Families in July 2014 and worked to support M, normally once a week, in her role as housing and independent living outreach worker. Stuart Jennings, a support worker with Barnado’s, also gave evidence before me. He had been asked by Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council to become involved with M and give her support and assistance. M, herself, gave evidence. F did not but, of course, I have his evidence in statement form. I also heard evidence from the guardian.

5. This case had been listed initially for nine days. It was an overestimate and was reduced to five days. If the case had been given five days free of other work, it would have completed comfortably, including submissions and judgment. Because of pressure of other work, the evidence was completed but I had to request written submissions from the advocates. I am grateful to them for completing their submissions promptly and I can only apologise that, unfortunately, my lists have been so heavy I was unable to give judgment earlier; in fact, last week, as I had intended.

6. I saw A and B in my chambers before the case commenced. C did not come to see me. Both A and B were very keen to inform me of their wish to be together as a family at home with their mother. They made it clear in their discussions with me that they wanted to be at home all together and they wanted to be with their mother.

7. It is the local authority who bring this case and they must prove it on the balance of probability. There is no argument put before the court in respect of a threshold criteria for the purpose of section 31 of the Children Act 1989. It is accepted by all that it has been established that the threshold was met as at the date that the local authority commenced protective measures. The hearing concentrated on the welfare stage of the proceedings. The court, in considering the evidence within the case, must look at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which sections set out the welfare checklists which assist the court in assessing the evidence.

8. There are also a number of authorities which give guidance as to the approach that the court should take. The case of Re: B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33, decided by the Supreme Court, and Re: B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA 1146, decided in the Court of Appeal, bring up-to-date the very careful deliberations which the court must undertake. Baroness Hale of Richmond in Re: B set out:

“An order compulsorily severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if ‘justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests’. In other words, the test is one of necessity. Nothing else will do.”

9. In Re: A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, the President, Sir James Munby, underlined the fundamental principles which the court must apply. In that case, the President quoted from Re: L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 in which Mr Justice Hedley set out that:

“Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”

10. In Re: J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222, Lord Justice Aitkens summarised the position, that the court must adopt, at paragraph 56 of that case:

“The fundamental principles underlined by the President in Re A, which, as I say, are not new and are based on statute or the highest authority or both, can, I think, be summarised thus:

i) In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is to be ordered, to demonstrate that ‘nothing else will do’, when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child's welfare.

ii) If the local authority's case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove. If a local authority asserts that a parent ‘does not admit, recognise or acknowledge’ that a matter of concern to the authority is the case, then if that matter of concern is put in issue, it is for the local authority to prove it is the case and, furthermore, that the matter of concern ‘has the significance attributed to it by the local authority’.

iii) Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority, although admissible, has strict limitations if a parent challenges that hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing. If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first hand evidence, it may find itself in ‘great, or indeed insuperable’ difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged.”

“vi) It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges, bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other. The State will not take away the children of ‘those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs’ simply because those facts are established. It must be demonstrated by the local authority, in the first place, that by reason of one or more of those facts, the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm. Even if that is demonstrated, adoption will not be ordered unless it is demonstrated by the local authority that ‘nothing else will do’ when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child's welfare. The court must guard against ‘social engineering’.

vii) When a judge considers the evidence, he must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and, to use a metaphor, examine the canvas overall.

viii) In considering a local authority's application for a care order for adoption the judge must have regard to the ‘welfare checklist’ in section1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and that in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The judge must also treat, as a paramount consideration, the child's welfare ‘throughout his life’ in accordance with section 1(2) of the 2002 Act. In dispensing with the parents' consent, the judge must apply section 52(1)(b) as explained in Re P (Placement Orders, parental consent) [2008] 2 RLR 625.”

Those matters succinctly set out the approach that the court must have and the approach which I have undertaken.

11. The involvement of the local authority and this family began in June of 2011 when referrals were received from the police and the neighbourhood residence team concerning poor parenting of the older children, A, B and C, including poor home conditions, lack of supervision and antisocial behaviour. Advice and support were provided to the family at this stage. In October 2011, it was reported that a violent assault had taken place upon M by F. A, B and C were made subject to child protection plans under the category of physical abuse, replaced in May 2012 by children in need plans. In October 2012, all five children became subject to child protection plans under the category of emotional abuse. The concern at the time was the ongoing volatile relationship between M and F. However, it is clear from the referrals to which I have referred that there were other concerns at the time that the local authority had become involved. The local authority were concerned that M was placing the children’s safety in jeopardy by giving the address of the family to F. It was said that M failed to work openly and honestly with the local authority at that time, particularly in relation to her relationship with F.

12. The first court hearing was a private law application brought by F on 12^th August 2013 for contact with D and E. In October 2012, the police had been called to the property and subsequent enquiries pointed to M and F still being in a relationship. H and G remained in the care of their father and C moved to his maternal grandmother’s home. The children expressed the view that they were fearful or felt less safe when F was around. In February 2013, the family was supported to move into what was called a “safe house.” It is said that within two days F knew the address of that property.

13. F was admitted to Establishment A on a voluntary basis on 1^st July 2013. In her statement dated 19^th November 2013, Marie Carver refers to A as having taken on the role of the man of the house and that M appeared to be quite dependent upon him. A was described as a quiet, sensitive young man who had a strong sense of family values. From speaking to A directly, it is clear to me that he wishes his family to remain together. The social worker, Marie Carver, however, told the court that she had noticed a change in A’s recent attitude to supporting his mother.

14. Both B and C have spent time residing with their maternal grandmother. B returned to the family home some two weeks or so before the final hearing as she said she felt left out at her grandmother’s house. C returned to the family home at an earlier date, it seems probably around January 2014, although it is not absolutely clear what the position may be. M had indicated that when C went to live with his maternal grandmother in 2011, she found his behaviour difficult to manage and deal with. It is clear from the evidence recorded earlier in the proceedings that the children were fearful of F and B disclosed upon occasion to the domestic violence worker that she had not wanted to go to school for fear that her mother would be hurt by F when she was not there. The difficulties in this family are clearly of a longstanding nature. The children’s attendance at school was, at that time, described as “fluctuating.” When A was absent from school, he would say that he had been helping out at home.

15. In January 2012, when the children and M had moved into a four-bedroomed local authority-owned house, the home conditions were described as very poor, possibly as a result of M’s low mood. A family support worker was tasked with assisting and home conditions, at that stage, improved. When M and the children moved to a safe house in the Durham area in February 2013, the home conditions, again, further deteriorated and it is said that there was a deterioration in the hygiene of D and E. The social worker expressed the view that M’s mood impacted upon her motivation to maintain the basic care of her children. There were concerns that the obsessive relationship that F demonstrated in respect of D and E was overwhelming for them and the threats of violence and volatile exchanges between mother and father impacted upon the children. At times, M acknowledged the risk, particularly after F had frightened the family and, at times, she would make excuses for him, particularly when she was on good terms with him. The situation at home, therefore, also fluctuated.

16. The local authority took the view that the children’s safety had been put at risk due to M’s ongoing relationship with F and that she had very little understanding of her children’s needs. In her statement dated 19^th November 2013, Marie Carver expressed the view, set out at C40 within the bundle:

“It is the view of the local authority that no further assessments will be carried out in respect of M. The local authority has now been involved with M and her children for over two years. Assessments in respect of M show she is able to meet the basic needs of her children. However, she is unable to meet their physical or emotional needs despite intensive support. Assessments demonstrate that M pays lip service only to any agreed plan which will protect her children and takes active steps to maintain contact with F.”

This statement set out the local authority view in November 2013.

17. At C41, Marie Carver provides a list of reasons why she believed a plan of permanence should be pursued. She set out, by way of bullet points:

“● M is unable to prioritise the needs of her children above that of her relationship with F;

· M’s lack of insight into the physical and emotional risk F poses to his children;

· M minimising F’s violent and aggressive behaviour and her trying to protect him;

· M’s inability to work in an open and honest way with professionals;

· M undermining the professional support offered to her, exposing the children to risk of harm, e.g. disclosing the addresses of the safe houses to F;

· F’s obsessive and paranoid behaviour towards his two sons;

· F’s aggressiveness towards M in the presence of his sons with little regard for the presence of the older children;

· F’s illicit drug misuse;

· F’s threatening and aggressive behaviour towards staff and patients within Establishment A when, on one occasion, the children were present.”

It is noticeable that the reasons, save for M’s inability to work in an open and honest way with professionals, all refer to the risks which arise in respect of her relationship with F. The support of the safeguarding domestic violence worker and support from Safer Families had not, it was stated, brought about positive change as far as M and her relationship with F was concerned.

18. C was still living with the maternal grandmother and the plan was to place A and B there also and a plan for adoption for the younger two children. Interim supervision orders had been granted in respect of D and E in October 2013. In her statement dated 19^th May 2014, Marie Carver detailed that M had engaged with the local authority, especially the domestic violence worker, and consistently stated that the relationship with F was at an end and, having read Dr Ince’s report, it seems that she acknowledged a greater understanding of the risks to herself and her children which F posed. The health visitor, in January 2014, raised concerns about D’s social skills and described him as “hyper” and using swearwords. On 19^th March 2014, M said that she was struggling to cope with B’s behaviour. She reported that B had been taking drugs and returning home very late. M was worried B might be pregnant as B had admitted to her mother that she had had unprotected sex. M reported that B had been verbally abusive to her and that there had been arguments, both in the house and taken outside into the garden.

19. The risks and concerns about F remained as a very significant factor in the local authority’s planning for the children, particularly in light of Dr Ince’s conclusion in his addendum report dated 29^th April 2014. Dr Ince set out, at 6.16 of that report:

“Overall, it is, therefore, my opinion that the risk posed by F will remain constant for some considerable period of time and, whilst there may be diminishing effect that occurs naturally given the passage of time due to a gradual acceptance of circumstances, although not necessarily with any involving agreement, I would suggest that, were he to be discharged back to the Gateshead area and M to remain within the same area, that this would both jeopardise the practical arrangements of an absence of any direct contact while also leading to significant temptation and distress for F that it is likely to lead to both a detrimental impact upon his mental state and, due to his level of impulsivity, the likelihood that he would breach conditions with the relevant, subsequent increased risk as detailed previously.”

20. At C61, in the 19^th May 2014 statement, Marie Carver summarised the assessment carried out by the local authority. At 8.2.1, she set out that:

“Throughout the proceedings, there has been ongoing social work assessment in relation to E and D and C, B and A, taking into account their developing needs, the care they are receiving and the family and environmental factors impacting upon both. There are no significant concerns in the basic care M is offering any of the children. It would appear M’s mental health issues in the form of depression does impact upon the level of basic care offered to her children. This is understandable, especially as the ongoing court proceedings are causing a great deal of stress upon M. MGM is providing C with a high level of care. There has never been any concerns expressed in respect of the care C receives from his grandmother. M does appear to attempt to ensure the whereabouts of her older children. However, this becomes more difficult as they get older and more independent. There can be no doubt that M loves all of her children. M feels under enormous pressure as she attempts to demonstrate to the local authority the safety of her children whilst remaining in her care. This dilemma has impacted upon M’s mental health. To her credit, she has acted appropriately and accessed appropriate intervention from her family doctor.”

The social worker considered, at that stage, a number of options, balancing the positives and negatives involved in each.

21. The local authority identified as negatives in respect of an adoption plan for E and D that the secrecy which would have to surround the adoption may not be realistically achievable and that the reality of the situation is that the local authority would find it extremely difficult to identify carers who match the needs of the children due to the high risk of F jeopardising the placement and safety of his children, the adoptive family and their own family. The local authority took the view at that stage, on balance, that the children should be maintained in the family. C had been residing with his grandmother for approximately, I think, four years by then but he then returned home without the knowledge of the social workers in or around January 2014. It was said the risk factors in respect of F could be managed. On 22^nd July 2014 at IRH a plan was put forward for residence and the making of a twelve-month supervision order. At the time of this hearing before me, F has remained detained in hospital but, clearly, his mental health has improved and he has presented well throughout this hearing. He has had no direct contact with the children since September 2014. Thus far, he has behaved impeccably during the pressure of this contested hearing.

22. On 9^th October 2014, at a rapidly convened decision-making meeting, it was decided that the plan for the children was to be changed, with D and E being placed for adoption and B and C in long-term foster care. The local authority case, which has been put before this court, is that within a matter of days after the supervision order was imposed, the situation seriously deteriorated. It became known that C had gone missing. He had informed his mother and grandmother that he was going on a holiday with a friend from school. Neither M nor the maternal grandmother confirmed the arrangements with the friends or family of the school friend or checked that what C was saying was correct.

23. On 7^th August, A saw the school friend in the park and the friend informed A that C had not been on holiday with them nor had the school friend, in fact, seen C all week. M informed the local authority and the police and a nationwide search was undertaken to locate C. B took part in a video, described as begging C to come home. On 8^th August, the police located C in Portsmouth with Z, G and H. Although Z informed the police that he had asked MGM for permission to take C away on holiday, MGM and M denied this to the police. It is unclear exactly what did occur but it does not add up that either mother or the maternal grandmother had been informed of C’s whereabouts. However, on 8^th August, M found out that B had known all the time that C was with Z. M was understandably very upset and angry with both C and B. Upon his return, C was indicating that he wished to go and live with Z and G and H. He gave detailed reasons to the social worker why he would prefer to live with them.

24. M told the court that she felt stabbed in the back by her children and that she could not trust them. She also described that when C came back, he was really nasty to her. In evidence, M said that B told her that Z told her not to tell her mother and gave her some drugs. M described B as coming in stoned. The relationship between B and her mother was clearly very strained and, on 12^th October, M and B argued and B left the family home and failed to return. In the early hours of the morning, B was found at her uncle’s house in Consett. B had been told that she was not allowed to stay at her uncle’s house and B had been open in stating her uncle gave her cannabis and allowed her to have sex with her boyfriend when in his care.

25. It is clear that M was having great difficulties in providing and enforcing appropriate boundaries for both C and B. The attendance of both B and C at school became a matter of increasing concern. In November, the education welfare officer reported that the school were becoming increasingly concerned about both C’s and B’s non-attendance. B was frequently not returning home at night, running off to her uncle’s or auntie’s. B smashed a window at M’s property when the young children were inside and, earlier in August, C had thrown a box of eggs at the kitchen window.

26. On 22^nd November, C was shot in the leg with an air rifle and had to have an operation to remove the pellets from his leg. The police were informed but neither M nor C, both of whom knew exactly who it was who had shot C, would give the name to the police, they said, for fear of repercussion. It seems that it was a boy who lived over the road who had shot C and a boy who continues to be friendly with A. Although M denied that this boy came into the house, which was the understanding of the social worker, mother said that he did come to the wall and that she was not happy about it. It does not seem, however, that M has stopped it happening and the boy still comes at the wall. She told me that she does not want A or C to mix with him but, she said, A is 17 and she stated, “There is nothing I can do and C has known these people since he was a baby.”

27. In her statement at C100, at 7.18, Marie Carver described the home conditions when she attended the property on 13^th October 2014. She said:

“Home conditions can only be described as deplorable despite all of the practical support in place by Safer Families. Every room in the house was cluttered and dirty. The stairs were hardly accessible and I questioned if the brown moulds observed on the carpet were human excrement or dogs'. M informed me this was chocolate. The bedrooms could only be described as disgusting and M was fully aware home conditions were not acceptable. To exacerbate the disgusting home conditions, M had three dogs in her care that she was attempting to mate for financial gain, resulting in the garden being covered in dog faeces and making it unhygienic for the children to play in the garden.”

M told me in evidence that she only had two dogs and it was wrong that she was attempting to mate them for financial gain.

28. At 7.20, Marie Carver set out that:

“When the change of plan had been explained to M, she ran into the living room shouting and screaming at C, who was lying under a quilt, ‘Are you happy now? This is all your fucking fault.’ She then ran out of the front door. C was visibly shaking and I explained to him that it was not his fault at all. Throughout this incident, A had remained in bed. This was A’s usual routine, staying in bed until bedtime. A has no motivation to attend training and educational establishments. A home visit was undertaken to MGM’s house as I was concerned in respect of M’s mental health. The change of plan was explained to her and she was asked to ensure M’s safety, which she agreed to. At this point, B came into the house. She had not been to school. MGM shouted at her, saying, ‘This is all due to you for not doing as you’re told.’ B was very upset. It was explained to MGM that this was not an appropriate way to talk to B.”

29. M accepted in oral evidence that, in October 2014, home conditions were, indeed, deplorable but said that it was bad but not so bad that E and D should not be there. In her written statement, in fact, M did not accept the social worker’s description. In oral evidence, M told the court that she had bought the two dogs as Christmas presents for B and A and that they were supposed to look after them, which they did not, and M then had to undertake the role of managing them. She said she warned the kids that she would get rid of them but she says, “I was soft.” She said she asked her mother and brother to have them and explained that when dog muck, as she referred to it, was seen on the floor, she had rushed out to the doctors without having time to clean up but there had been no repeat of the awful home conditions once she got rid of the dogs.

30. C’s pastoral care tutor described C as being a lost and sad boy. Prior to the summer holiday, C had been described as a lively, mischievous boy who was now presenting as flat, with no motivation. He had told the social worker, upon his return from his time with Z, about his unhappiness in the home, describing mother as screaming and shouting at them all and throwing items and swearing. He said he wanted to live with Z. M, in oral evidence, did not accept that C presented as emotionally flat or depressed. She said:

“It’s just the school bit that has changed. We have a laugh in the house. He is not depressed. He is a bored teenager because he is not at school.”

C has not attended school fulltime since September 2014 and, for many months now, he has not gone at all.

31. Prior to the supervision order being made, although the children’s attendance at school did cause some concern, there was not the flat refusal by B and C, as there now is or has been, to attend school. Mother attributes C’s failure to attend school to, “Being petrified. He thinks as soon as he steps out of the door, someone will take him.” However, she also said, “C goes out with his friends from school. He goes to the Metro Centre and park.” It does seem to me that C does not have the same fear of being hauled off by Social Services in the evenings as it is said that he does during the day. One can only question this situation. Stuart Jennings from Barnado’s described C as presenting as a really surly, closed boy who was quite unhappy. C seems to spend his time upstairs in his room until his friends come out of school. A also seems to spend his time in his bedroom lacking motivation. I have no reason to question what the social worker and, indeed, the guardian say in respect of A and C.

32. The concerns for E and D have been their insufficient nursery attendance and their developmental delay, which has been described by the nursery. Marie Carver described a lot of violence from D to E and it being reciprocated. She told the court that she had never seen young children so vicious to each other when fighting. E and D both use bad language, E apparently more so than D. Neither child is reaching their potential and their development is below the standard. M describes them as normal, boisterous little boys who pick up the language of the older children. She told the court that she encourages the older ones not to swear in front of the little ones.

33. It has been remarked upon that D and E both use swearwords within the correct context. The boys are kept separate at nursery in order to prevent them fighting and arguing. The nursery have described the boys’ play as rough and tumble. Gemma Gregory described the children as very boisterous, just playing, being boys. She had seen them fighting but not being vicious but she has heard them swearing. Stuart Jennings said the same: rough and boisterous but not vicious, nothing beyond rough and tumble. He has never heard the children swear. The guardian described having seen D and E throwing toys and uncontrolled by their mother.

34. Marie Carver described a home visit in January 2015. At 7.47 of her statement, she sets out:

“On 23^rd January, an unannounced home visit was carried out. Home conditions were very untidy and both boys were suffering from diarrhoea and colds. M had hardly slept the previous evening and was understandably tired. D and E did not present as being unwell, although they both had snotty noses. However, the boys were both bored and under stimulated and they responded by acting in the most appalling behaviours I have ever witnessed in children so young. The boys were kicking and fighting each other. The kicking and hitting was so severe that I had to remind myself how old the children actually were. E threw a toy aimed at me but hitting D. D had a red mark on his head and he became upset. He then became angry and attacked E. There were no other words to describe this. E had an egg on the side of his head where D had previously thrown an object. Throughout all of this commotion, E was constantly saying, “Fuck off,” and trying to spit. He said this word with such ferocity and appeared to understand what it meant. M tried to manage her sons' behaviours but failed. Neither child took any notice of what M was saying to them and they continued to fight each other. When I encouraged D to sit next to me with a book, he did so willingly. He enjoyed me reading to him and it really calmed both him and the situation down for a short period of time. However, E also wanted me to read to him and the children began to fight again.”

35. It is apparent that there are different descriptions of the concerning aspects identified by Children’s Services in respect of D and E. The health visitor, in February 2015, described E as a lovely little boy reaching his milestones and yet the nursery were clear about the slow development of both boys. Gemma Gregory and Stuart Jennings do not seem to have seen the extreme behaviour described by Marie Carver or the guardian and the nursery refers to rough and tumble. The nursery have taken steps to keep both boys separate and, of course, the nursery do control the behaviour of each of the boys. Stuart Jennings has not seen the extreme behaviour and nor has he heard the boys swear. Everyone else who has come into contact with the boys describes their in-context swearing. The children’s guardian has seen quiet times when A was reading to D. She has also seen D and E uncontrolled by M.

36. I am satisfied that Marie Carver and the guardian, who are the professionals with responsibility for D and E and had the opportunity to observe M’s abilities to provide appropriate parenting, have both highlighted their concerns about the behaviour of D and E, and the nursery, who are in the best position to gauge the developmental achievements of D and E, have been clear about the developmental delay of both. Thus, I am satisfied that the local authority have established those concerns in relation to D and E.

37. In May 2014, the local authority supported the plan for the children to remain with their mother, save for C who lived with his grandmother. The court was told at the time that it had been a difficult and fine-balancing act to come to a decision as to what would best meet the needs of each of the children. The concerns in respect of M’s care of her children were expressed at that time but it was hoped that, with the prospect of adoption no longer at the forefront of the local authority planning and with professional support, M would have the capacity to provide good enough parenting for the children. However, the local authority, in their continuing involvement with the family, state that a cycle of inconsistent parenting has been established which has had a negative impact upon the children’s physical and emotional development. It is apparent to the court that M has the ability to provide good enough parenting but not able to maintain it. There have been concerns about the parenting which M is able to provide since 2011 and that concern has continued at varying degrees until the local authority put forward the plan that they place before the court.

38. It is also apparent, as the guardian stated, that in respect of each of the children, M has routines for the children when they cooperate but when they do not agree to do what she asks, she has no strategies to push through to ensure what happens and that the outcome is satisfactory and not detrimental to the welfare of these children. This pattern has continued. All the older children and M have been aware that this hearing was coming up and yet C has not been to school since the beginning of the academic year. B went once on the day that the hearing started, as she had told me that she would. As far as I know, she has not maintained it. M failed to keep appointments at school, which had been negotiated or re-negotiated to suit mother’s convenience, in respect of C. M told me that the school had told her now to wait until after the court case to arrange any further appointments. B returned to her mother’s care but a fortnight ago, following upon mother previously having required B to leave.

39. In her statement dated 18^th February 2015, M sets out at paragraph 27:

“In relation to C and B, ideally I would like them to continue to live with me. I accept that B, over recent months, has been very difficult to manage. She has been pushing boundaries with me and this cannot be good for the rest of the children. At the present time, I believe that if she was returned to my care, then this may cause further difficulties. I believe that her behaviour has improved while she has been living with my mother. I believe that she does not push the boundaries as much with my mother as she did with me. B has settled well at my mother’s home. I believe that it is in her interest to remain there at the present time. I have noted that my own relationship with B has improved while she has been staying at my mother’s home. I would be hopeful that, in future, B may be able to return to reside with me. At the present time, I believe that she should remain living at my mother’s home.”

In her evidence in front of me, M told me that it was a joint decision for B to return home. B was feeling left out, the same description that had been given for the reason for C returning home. She told me: “Me and the two older boys sat down and had a talk. C was happy if they don’t argue.” M told me, in respect of B, everyone deserves a second chance. She told me that since B came back, they had not had any arguments. She agreed that C and B had a difficult relationship throughout their lives.

40. It is unrealistic, I find, to expect that everything now will be fine. In his submission on behalf of the guardian, Mr McCain sets out at paragraph 11:

“Mother’s acknowledgement of an explanation for the deterioration in her care of the children does not reflect a genuine understanding of the concerns. Her statement, oral evidence and discussions with professionals show an ongoing willingness to deflect responsibility onto others, particularly Z, B and the Social Services.”

This attitude, I find, was apparent throughout M’s evidence.

41. It was apparent, throughout the evidence, that mother and the children blamed Marie Carver. M said that after May 2014, when the local authority said the children could stay at home, that Marie always said that if things go wrong she will remove the children. The children knew that and, it seems, from mother’s evidence, that she took the view it was this pressure which caused the difficulties. M said, “It was always in the kids’ head, the issue about taking the children off us.” M said that Marie Carver promised her stuff. The fence was mentioned, failure to get a skip. She told me:

“I asked for a one-to-one for me and B and it didn’t happen. I was told that the alarm system, which had been promised, was not forthcoming. Marie Carver said it was lack of funding.”

42. B and C were blamed by grandmother and mother respectively for the change of the local authority plan. In cross-examination, it was put that the unauthorised holiday of C was a situation challenging on many levels and that not much support was given to M to deal with it. Also, that when C was shot, not much support was brought in. It was not accepted by the local authority that little support was given but, even if that was the case, M and C would not cooperate with the police to provide evidence in respect of C being shot and the unauthorised holiday arose because of the failure of M to make appropriate enquiries as to where her son was to be and it is apparent that the perpetrator of the attack upon C is still tolerated in the near vicinity of the home by mother and, indeed, by A and the other children.

43. M has blamed her depression for her inability to offer consistent parenting and is hopeful for the future as her medication has been changed. However, as Mr McCain sets out, this explanation is simplistic at best and, further, it is an explanation which has been used on previous occasions. Mother’s explanation for the impact of her medication upon her mental health and her ability to parent is equally inconsistent, says Mr McCain at paragraph 13. In her oral evidence, she stated that going to the general practitioner and changing medication did make a difference. “Within two weeks, I was putting in boundaries that helped me a lot.” After the chronic decline in the home circumstances in summer 2014, this claim is not consistent with her report to the children’s guardian only a matter of weeks earlier, in or around June 2014, that:

“She is taking medication for depression and it has lifted her mood. She says that she has become more aware of her own contribution to the situation.”

44. Sadly, I must agree with the guardian that, as evidenced in respect of Gemma Gregory and Stuart Jennings, M can collaborate well with agencies tasked with assisting her and giving her motivation. This factor was seen prior to May 2014. Gemma Gregory and Stuart Jennings have undoubtedly been of assistance and support to M. Home conditions have been brought up to a reasonable standard, as they had been in the past, but the improvement is not maintained when intensive support is withdrawn and time passes. Neither Gemma Gregory nor Stuart Jennings, who have done well in supporting M, have a full knowledge of past concerns. Their job is the here and now and strategies to deal with the problems here and now. Unfortunately, they have not been able to sufficiently motivate mother, or provide strategies which M has been able to operate successfully, to mitigate the severe emotional difficulties for these children within the household and in mother’s care and to enable the children to reach their potential by ensuring school or nursery attendance.

45. The current situation for all the children demonstrates that, although mother can provide an acceptable level of parenting, it is unlikely that the positives, which, at times, have been identified, can or will be sustained. Inevitably, there has been consideration of the situation in July 2014 when, both the local authority and approved by the court, supervision orders were made and deemed appropriate. It is submitted by the advocates on behalf of the family that the local authority were aware then of the difficulties in the mother’s parenting and that many of the criticisms now levelled have been known throughout. However, the improvements prior to May 2014 were not maintained and, within weeks of the supervision order being imposed, home standards were poor and the school attendance, which had fluctuated, in fact faltered to such an extent in the new term that attendance was largely non-existent in respect of C and B.

46. The guardian highlighted that what she saw as missing, and being the key in relation to the older children, was the making them aware and imposing consequences if they did not comply. The guardian’s concern and fear was that the situation with the older children would reproduce itself and that the disadvantages for the children were, in fact, manifesting themselves earlier in the hierarchy of the family.

47. The court must, of course, balance the positives and negatives of the local authority’s plans. In relation to the older children, B and C, as Miss Lugg points out, are polite children with a wish to keep the family together. However, they have not acted upon that wish in a proactive way, i.e. by attending school. B and C do not want to go into foster care. B, at an earlier stage, when her mother was suggesting it was possibly appropriate, refused to go. They have told their mother they will run away and it is apparent that they have the resourcefulness to do so. It is of concern to the guardian and the court that the local authority have not identified specialist foster placements thus far and it is a specialist placement which is required. An emergency placement is not going to meet the needs of these children and they are still children. As the guardian says, if a foster placement is not attempted because the kids do not agree, they are running the show and they are not getting it right.

48. If I am considering the welfare of these children, as I must, doing nothing, I find, is not an option. They will be disadvantaged throughout the rest of their lives. As the guardian says, if they run away from where they are supposed to be, they will be brought back. All the things about C and B putting themselves at risk have already happened and are continuing to happen whilst they are at home. In respect of D and E, the outcome of adoption is resisted by both M and F. F said that he will track his children down wherever they may be. He has said that he will not rest until he has done so.

49. When the future of D and E was being considered in May, both the local authority and guardian saw this attitude of F as a relevant and negative factor in considering adoption. It formed part of the balance sheet which the guardian considered. She stated, at E120 in her analysis:

“I am of the view that the balancing exercise undertaken by the local authority has provided a thorough appraisal of the options for the children. However, whilst I acknowledge the difficulties associated with family-finding in relation to adoption, there is no assessment from that team which provides a clear account of how such a search could be managed and the likelihood of success. I consider the removal of D and E from home and a failed attempt to find an adoptive placement with possibly limited family contact to be the worst outcome for them. Even with an assessment, there is no guarantee that a placement will be found. In the balance against that is a situation where the risks are known, which has family support and some level of cooperation and where measures to address the risks, although not eliminate them, are either already in place or achievable in short order. I have found this analysis of the issues very difficult and I support the local authority plan supported by supervision orders in relation to all of the children for a year.”

50. The local authority weighed the various positives and negatives of all the options, including option three, as they termed it, namely M living at home with four children and C with his grandmother. Obviously, it meant the family could remain together and there would be no significant and fundamental change for the children to cope with. The negatives were identified as largely arising from F’s involvement. Adoption was considered, part of which consideration was that:

“The secrecy which would have to surround adoption may not be realistically achievable and the reality of the situation is that the local authority would find it extremely difficult to identify carers who match the needs of the children due to the high risk of F jeopardising the placement and safety of his children, the adoptive family and their own family.”

As referred to before.

51. The conclusion at 11.3, at C67, had been:

“Therefore, following careful consideration, the local authority would give preference to option three. This is not without trepidation. However, the local authority are of the view this option would be more advantageous in trying to achieve the best outcome for all of the children as well as keeping them safe. The children have remained in the care of their mother and grandmother during the course of the current proceedings. M has given her assurance she is committed to working with professionals in the future.”

There was some optimism at that time that option three could work.

52. The reality has been that M has been unable to meet the emotional and practical needs of the children which would allow them to reach their potential. In respect of C and D, their welfare throughout their lives is the paramount concern of this court. If one considers section 1(4) in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the evidence of what has occurred in the months since making the supervision order indicates that M cannot meet the emotional or, at times, physical needs of the children. The deterioration within the family home occurred within two weeks of the IRH taking place on 22^nd July 2014. At the time of the beginning of the general decline, M was receiving support on a very frequent, almost daily, basis. The unsuitable home conditions developed within a very short period of time and M, herself, has said in evidence before the court that the conditions were unacceptable. The living conditions were brought up to an acceptable standard but they cannot be maintained, as observed on various occasions in the time since 22^nd July when unannounced visits have taken place. Sadly, the court is detailing matters which have occurred and been noticed on various occasions since 2011.

53. It is not just, however, the home conditions and physical needs. It is the inability of M to meet the emotional needs of her children. B and C have poor relationships with each other and their mother. B has only been home for two weeks after an extended period when M would not have her in the house and yet M has told the court her optimistic views that everything will work out. M cannot get either C or B to go to school regularly and, in respect of B, to prevent B placing herself at serious risk of sexual harm and exposure to drug use. C and B have moved to and fro from their mother’s to their grandmother’s care and back again. Both have expressed the view that, while living at grandmother’s, they felt left out. Although all expressed the wish for the family to remain together, in fact, the family is not a cohesive unit. It is only on rare occasions that, in fact, all the family have been together and, when they have, the difficulties have been apparent.

54. E and D are still young enough to be able to transfer their attachments and the plan would be to place them together. Their needs would be met. Obviously they would lose the opportunity to grow up with their siblings but the age gap is considerable and the risks for D and E are demonstrated by the problems identified for C and B and, to a lesser extent, A. D and E require a stable and consistent environment rather than the chaotic and abusive environment which C has described as existing in the family home. The view of Dr Ince, in respect of F, has already been referred to in that the risk posed by F will remain constant for some considerable period of time. Dr Rampling F’s last treating clinician, sets out his view in his report dated 2^nd March 2015. He states that:

“In my opinion, while it was reasonable on the then available evidence to postulate clinical diagnoses of dissocial and paranoid personality disorders, the results of the IPD suggest that F does not, in fact, have a personality disorder although he probably does show traits of several such disorders, including dissocial, paranoid and emotionally unstable personality types. Such traits have likely contributed to F’s history of criminal violence; his well-documented willingness to resort to violence as a problem-solving strategy despite experiences that might ordinarily be expected to disincline one to pursue such a course of action; his lack of close friendships; his proneness to blame others; his propensity to hold grudges, such as against Z specifically; his tendency to misperceive reasonable management as critical and counterproductive; and his relatively low threshold for the discharge of aggression. During his tenure in secure services, definite improvement has been evidenced in these areas. In my opinion, it is likely he will benefit from further work in this area.”

Clearly, there has been an improvement and, clearly, further work is required.

55. Thus, the risks to D and E within their birth family from F will remain at a significant level although, as the guardian states, an accurate assessment of the risks to them, or to any of the children, remains difficult to judge. The effect upon the children of ceasing to be members of their birth family will impact upon their sense of identity and there will be short-term disruption for them. However, the children have not experienced settled family life with their mother over a number of years. The question the court must consider in respect of D and E is whether it can be established that no other option will do. Other options have been tried. In July, it was not the conclusion that no other option would do and there was some optimism that the family could be kept together but the evidence since then is that M has not been able to provide adequate care for her children and the pattern of ineffective parenting has been repeated to the detriment of each of the children.

56. I am satisfied that the position now reached is that nothing else will do. M loves all her children and would wish to do her best for them and, as she says, prevent them making the mistakes that she did but, sadly, she does not have the ability or capacity to maintain the care her children need. It is not, as was submitted, social engineering. It is necessary to enable E and D to develop and reach their potential, just as it is necessary that C and B are given the opportunity, albeit late in the day, for them to achieve and benefit from firm and consistent parenting, even if there are difficulties imposing a foster placement upon them. Without the imposition of such a foster placement, they will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives.

57. The guardian has taken issue with some of the details of the local authority plans. The local authority has now confirmed their intention to undertake a nationwide search for a placement. The guardian was concerned that a local placement may bring with it a high level of risk in respect of the security of the placement. A specialist placement for B and C separately is required. I have not dealt with the contact arrangements and will not do so unless required. The guardian described the local authority proposals for contact in respect of B as probably insufficient. I will not make specific orders in relation for D and C pending placement. The situation will need to be carefully monitored at that time. Thus, upon the balance of the evidence and the findings that I have made, I am satisfied that the local authority plans for these children are the correct plans to maintain their welfare. The local authority have before me an application for a placement order.

THE JUDGE: I do not know if the parties, through their advocates, wish me to deal with that at this time or whether you require a short break before I consider the application for the placement order. Mr Finch? Mr Spain?

MR SPAIN: I think I would be content for you to proceed.

THE JUDGE: Mr Finch?

MR FINCH: Well, I am just going to take some very brief instructions—

THE JUDGE: Yes.

MR FINCH: —if [my ladyship?] does not mind.

THE JUDGE: Well, I will rise if you are taking brief instructions.

[A short adjournment follows]

MR FINCH: Thank you, my lady. I have no submissions, thank you.

THE JUDGE: I will deal with the application which the local authority make in this matter for a placement order.

58. I have before me the application under section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I also have the statement of facts and the necessary report prepared by Maria Carver and dated… I am afraid I cannot find a date on that but I have the report in front of me. I am not going to go through all the factual matters or the detail of the judgment I have just given. Obviously, the matters that are set out within that judgment are relevant to the placement application. Neither parent consents. It is understandable that they do not do so but, upon the basis of the findings that I have made, I am satisfied that the welfare of D and E requires that I dispense with consent.

59. I have regard to those matters set out in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, as referred to within the judgment that I have just given, and I remind myself that it is the welfare of D and E throughout their lives that is my paramount concern. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a placement order in respect of each of them is appropriate and that nothing else will do. I do not intend to distress the parents any further by going through any of the further detail or repeating what I have already said. Therefore, there will be a placement order in respect of each of the children. That is supported by the guardian within the analysis that she has filed. So those are the orders that the court will make.

[Judgment ends]

	[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) >> G & Ors (Children) [2015] EWFC B144 (7 April 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B144.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B144

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)