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) >> Kent County Council v Z (Family Assistance Order or Supervision Order) [2017] EWFC B63 (18 July 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B63.html Cite as: [2017] EWFC B63 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
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.
Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE LAZARUS
B E T W E E N:
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
and
XZ
YZ
AZ&BZ CHILDREN
MS BAKER appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MS PARKES appeared on behalf of Respondent Mother
MR BRAITHWAITE appeared on behalf of Respondent Father
MR KONAREK appeared on behalf of the Children
JUDGMENT
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
HHJ LAZARUS:
INTRODUCTION
1 Today is the final hearing in relation to A born on xxx 2011 making her six and three quarters and B born on xxx 2013 making him four and three quarters. Their mother is XZ, their father is YZ and the children have a Children’s Guardian Ms Clarke who is not at court today, but has fully instructed the children’s solicitor. All the parties are represented. The application under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 was brought by Kent County Council.
2 The background issues are agreed and the threshold criteria are agreed. In very brief summary, the Local Authority’s concerns for some significant period, both prior to proceedings, and subsequent to their initiation, have been: the parent’s alcohol misuse, the parent’s vulnerable mental health, father’s aggression resulting from mental health and alcohol misuse, and the parent’s lack of engagement with the Local Authority and insight into the Local Authority’s concerns.
3 Having summarised those concerns, I say from the outset that it is clear that these parents have, since those concerns crystallised and leading to the start of these proceedings, respectively taken enormous strides, for which this court is very grateful on behalf of the children. It means that the children are living with Mrs Z and that the plan is for them to remain living with Mrs Z. Mr Z is seeking extensive help for a wide range of very troubling emotional problems, which have led to historical very serious alcohol misuse on his part. The mother has freed herself from the habit of alcohol dependency and one can only hope, and I do so sincerely, that both parents manage to maintain their good steps forward with the children in mind.
BACKGROUND
4 Now I very briefly summarise the history that is relevant to the final order that I am going to make today. The family first became known to the Local Authority in April 2016 following a police referral when the father was driving under the influence of alcohol with the children in his vehicle when the police stopped him. He was convicted of that leading to a 16-week imprisonment and was suspended for 24 months. The father was again caught by police drink-driving later in April following an accident in which he drove away and, again, he was convicted and sentenced to 18 weeks suspended for 24 months. On this occasion, however, the children were not in the car. The police, when they attended the family home after that incident, found both parents intoxicated and it became clear that alcohol was a very significant problem within this family home. There was then a referral made by the children’s school in May 2016.
5 In June 2016 the social worker visited the home and found mother caring for the children again while intoxicated through alcohol and the father was at the GP surgery, but heavily intoxicated. The situation worsened through that day and there were pre-proceedings discussions on 10 June where it was agreed that the parents would not care for the children without supervision by family or friends and this was agreed to be a 24-hour regime.
6 However, on a number of occasions thereafter mother was observed attempting to look after the children without supervision and in breach of the agreement. There were some six written agreements between May and December 2016, each of which the Local Authority considers were not fully met and their terms not observed properly by the parents. This led to the application being formally made in January of this year.
7 Since then the father has been assessed. He suffers from a complicated picture of emotional dysfunction, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol addiction, for which he is receiving on-going support and treatment. The mother has undertaken work with an appropriate service to treat her alcohol dependency. She wears a SCRAM bracelet; she has undergone recent comprehensive testing for substances following a concern and a referral in May of this year. I am delighted to read that those tests have come out negative, in the sense that they have not shown any untoward substances use by the mother. Her care of the children continues to be good enough and that has been noted and commended by the professionals in the case.
8 Some further concern was raised in relation to what appears to be a possibly emerging pattern of sexualised behaviour or sexually demonstrative behaviour by A, and some keep-safe work is in hand.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
9 The threshold criteria are agreed and I have seen a document setting out the threshold dated 9 June that requires some minor amendment at paragraph 8, but I am satisfied, under the headings ‘alcohol misuse and mental health issues’ which I do not propose to read out in detail here, that the threshold criteria under Section 31 of the Children Act are amply met in this case and that these children suffered and were at risk of suffering significant harm at the time that the Local Authority began its proceedings in January.
10 The threshold criteria being satisfied, it is open to me to consider making public law orders under Section 31 of the Children Act. My decisions today are governed by the welfare checklist factors under Section 1 of the Children Act; the welfare of A and B being my paramount concern. I am also guided by the need to only make orders where they are in the children’s interests to do so, and that the principle of the least intervention should be observed; and that where this court is interfering with the rights to respect to family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on human rights, that those engaged rights are balanced; where they compete with each other, that the children’s welfare needs are respected in that balancing exercise; and that any interference is therefore only proportionate and necessary to meeting the children’s best interests in the light of that balancing exercise.
ORDERS & ANALYSIS
11 The parties are effectively agreed that there should be an order involving the Local Authority at this stage. The disagreement lies in whether it should be a supervision order or a family assistance order and whether either of those orders should last for 6 months or 12 months.
12 The overwhelming welfare interests of these children, effectively conceded by the parents and urged upon me by the Local Authority and the Guardian, are reflected by the need for an order. These are children who have experienced the scary, worrying, distressing, destabilising experiences that flow from their parents not being in full control of their behaviour, nor emotional and substance use issues until recent times, and where ongoing effort and oversight will be required.
13 These are children therefore who have particular needs for stability, for their parents to be sober, for their parents to co-operate with other professionals in meeting the children’s needs at this particularly fragile time whilst sobriety is maintained and the children’s emotional needs are met in this new arrangement. Otherwise, the children have very typical characteristics of young children from a white British family, and of a little boy and a little girl. I have no doubt that they are very glad to be remaining in the care of their mother and that they want to see their father regularly.
14 I also have no doubt if they could express it, that they would wish their mother to continue on the positive path she has taken and their father to continue to receive the help that he needs.
15 The capacity of the mother to meet their needs has been shown over recent months during these proceedings. What is urged upon me, by both the parents is that, in the light of the steps that she has taken for which she must be commended, and for which the father himself is very grateful, is that this should be reflected in what is considered a less interventionist order, namely, a family assistance order, and that it should be for a lesser period than 12 months.
16 In considering the choice and effects of the relevant orders here, I bear in mind the difference between family assistance orders and supervision orders. A supervision order is a public law order and therefore in terms of the legal structure that it enshrines, those are the provisions within the legislation in relation to child protection matters. Additionally under Schedule 3 of the Children Act 1989 it is clear that a supervising officer from the Local Authority can require certain steps to be taken so that, for example, the children can be visited.
17 The family assistance order set out in section 16 of the Children Act bears a great deal of similarity to a supervision order in that both of them are designed to advise, assist and befriend the children, and effectively the family in doing so. However, a family assistance order requires the naming of individuals, and I can also direct that those individuals must update the family assistance allocated officer with any changes of address. Then in sub-sections 4 (b) and 6 it is clear that a family assistance order is enabled and therefore designed to work alongside child arrangements orders, such as may contain contact provisions, in order to give the court the power to direct the officer concerned to provide advice and assistance with regard to establishing, improving, and maintaining contact; and under sub-section 6, directing the officer concerned to report to the court on such matters, and whether any child arrangements order ought to be, for example, varied or discharged.
18 The family assistance order therefore does involve a very specific type of intervention and interference with the family, albeit that it does not fall under that part of the Children Act 1989 associated specifically with child protection. It can be a highly appropriate level of intervention and extremely useful in targeting support and attention in relation to core issues underpinned by a section 8 order, such as a Child Arrangements Order for a parent’s contact made in conjunction with a Special Guardianship Order. A supervision order grants a wider scope for the Local Authority to pursue its supervision plan within a child protection context, as opposed to the very specific directions made by the court relating to child assistance orders.
19 In this case, there are not planned to be child arrangements orders. I have, in fact, seen supervision care plans and indeed I have also seen an additional draft document entitled ‘written supervision plan’, which is a two page agreement which would work, effectively as an annexe to the final care plans. The final care plans set out the background to which I have already referred, and I note that Mrs Z is successfully supervising Mr Z’s contact in the community. Her recent addendum final statement, dated today’s date 18 July, indicates that she is content with managing that, and that it is proving to be a satisfactory way of proceeding. The draft written supervision plan annexe, to which I have already referred, is intended to cover some contingencies that flow from the fact that Mr and Mrs Z continue to be in direct contact with each other, and that there may, or indeed may not, be some prospect of Mr and Mrs Z re-forming their relationship. It seeks to draw some boundaries in relation to those issues, and sets out terms of the agreement to keep the Local Authority informed, and the nature of the co-operation proposed and expected of the parents.
20 As such there is no child arrangements order necessary; the question of contact is agreed. It would not appear to be necessary or in the interests of the children for there to be a separate child arrangements order.
21 There must also arise a concern that simply to put in place a family assistance order, even with the further directions open to the court under 4 (b) and sub-section 6, would not seem, in my view and particularly given the background history, to be an adequate set of measures to support this family and to provide the Local Authority with the recognition of and underpinning for an ongoing and important child protection role.
22 The supervision plan, the final care plan and the written supervision plan, in its draft form, anticipate the Local Authority continuing to engage with this family. There is some ongoing work to be provided, and there is to be ongoing monitoring of the functioning of both parents and the family. I bear in mind the history of previous agreements between May and December of last year, which did not prove up to the task of preventing the crises in this family, nor did those agreements achieve the parents’ compliance to avoid the initiation of proceedings.
23 I also note, from the expert and professional reports that I have read, that Mr Z has a particularly difficult history. He faces very challenging emotional problems for which I feel and express a great deal of compassion. However, where there is that combination of factors in association with the abuse of alcohol, and abuse of alcohol by both parents, it is a trite point to note that escaping from alcohol dependence in any form is an extremely difficult, challenging and long-term task where there are potential pitfalls and problems at various turns in the road of life. I do not want to underestimate that these parents are at the start of that process. It is for those reasons that I reflect that the capacity of these parents to meet their children’s needs is very heavily contingent upon their co-operation, not simply with the Local Authority, but with their own ambitions for themselves to remain sober and well. That will continue to be a very challenging task for a good deal longer than a 6 month period. These are therefore clearly, in my judgment, wide-ranging child protection matters, rather than simply difficult child arrangements orders issues.
24 These are also matters, which for the children’s sake, need to be attended to for a period longer than 6 months and I consider therefore, looking at the matters overall and conducting a balancing exercise with all of the welfare checklist factors in mind, that it is in the children’s best interest for there to be 12 month supervision orders made in relation to each of them. That will protect their interests and support this family for the period of time that is properly required in this case given the history that I have referred to.
26 I note, finally, before I close, that there is concern about how productive any work with the Local Authority can be under any order where there has been a breakdown in the relationship, the direct relationship, between a social worker and family members. I am particularly mindful of A, who, at the age of six and three quarters, has apparently been expressing anxiety about her relationship with the social worker. I would expect adults to be able to get over such difficulties, but for children it is far more difficult and this is a child who must be at an emotionally fragile stage of her life, for the reasons that I have referred to.
27 I have no power to require the Local Authority to change their social worker, but it is clear that if I am granting a 12 month supervision order on the basis that I have set out, that it must be hoped that the Local Authority will look towards co-working this case for a brief period of time so that a newly allocated social worker can take it up, to provide a fresh start for the supervision order. I say this without any criticism whatsoever of this social worker. I make no findings as to how any party or any professional has acted but, in order for this order to function as it is intended to function, it is going to be important for the Local Authority to consider these steps very seriously, and I would expect that to be reflected in the recital to today’s order.
End of Judgment
