[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> L & Ors (Children : care proceedings) [2017] EWHC 2081 (Fam) (05 May 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/2081.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 2081 (Fam)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(The Family Court

		Strand London WC2A 2LL
		5th May 2017

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN:

1. In this matter I am concerned with four children: L, who was born on 20^th January 2016, and is 1; M who was born on 18^th June 2014, and is aged 2; N who was born on 14^th January 2012, and is aged 5; O who was born on 3^rd February 2010, and is aged 7. The children have been living in foster care since 26^th October of last year, when interim care orders were made in respect of them.
2. As is common in public law care proceedings, the parents were asked to identify at an early stage all possible alternate carers if the court determined the children could not return to the care of one or both parents. The mother put forward the maternal grandmother, who, like the mother, is Latvian but lives in this jurisdiction. The father put forward three family members, including the paternal grandmother. They are, like the father, Lithuanian, but reside in this country.
3. The viability assessments in respect of all of those family members were negative. They did not recommend them as potential carers, nor did they recommend a full assessment being undertaken. All of those family members were served with the reports on 8^th December. It was made plain on the face of the documents provided to each of those family members and to the parents that any challenge to those assessments was to be notified to the local authority by 15^th December. No challenge was received at all from any family member.
4. I note that throughout these proceedings both the mother and the father have had the benefit of separate legal representation. This matter came before me in Northampton on 28^th April of this year. At that hearing, quite astonishingly, it was agreed by the local authority and the parents that a timetable for a decision by the local authority as to the best interests decision, and of an agency decision maker decision, should take place, culminating in a decision at the end of June, with an IRH being re-listed some time in August. That was a delay of three months, when these proceedings have been afoot since October of last year. I made it plain that I would not tolerate such a delay.
5. I ordered the Director of Children's Services of the local authority, or her deputy, or another senior manager to file a statement setting out all steps that have been taken to move the matter on in a more timely fashion. I am immensely grateful to the Director of Children's Services of the local authority, who, in a statement apologised for the fruitless hearing last Friday, and set out the steps that the local authority had taken to improve the timetable; thus, now, all necessary steps will be taken on the basis that the various reports are translated into Russian so that they parents may be taken through the documents, so that a placement application, if the agency decision maker approves a plan for adoption in respect of each child, will be issued on Monday, 15^th May in readiness for what is currently set as an IRH on 16^th May before a district judge.
6. Given the history of this matter, which I shall turn to more fully in a moment, I re-allocate these proceedings to me, and the IRH will be listed before me on either 17^th, 18^th or 19^th May.
7. At the hearing on 28^th April the mother indicated through her counsel that the maternal grandmother might now challenge the viability assessment of her. I directed the mother to file a statement setting out chapter and verse of every issue that the grandmother took with the statement. No statement has been filed. I am told that it was not possible for her solicitors to obtain the appropriate interpreter. In any event, I am told that the grandmother has sought legal advice and may challenge the assessment. As matter stand, there is no challenge to the negative viability assessment of the maternal grandmother. Accordingly, in my judgment the local authority may proceed on the basis of the negative viability assessment of the maternal grandmother. There is no need for any further assessment to be undertaken.
8. The Guardian takes the view that time should be taken for an independent social worker to re-undertake viability assessments of the maternal grandmother, and/or of the three paternal family members who were assessed, and/or the paternal grandfather, but I have not been given today a timetable as to when that would be achieved because no contact has been made with the independent social worker. For my part, I see no basis at all for imperilling the timetable of this case, where we are concerned with four very young children, who have now spent seven months of their young lives in foster care and for whom a final decision needs to be made without any further delay.
9. In relation to the father, on the last occasion he indicated that he was going to put his father forward. Today, I am told that not only does he seek to have his father assessed, the three family members, including his mother, who were negatively assessed, wish, apparently, to challenge those assessments. I have be given no explanation as to why those three family members have not sought to challenge those assessments prior to today. I am not told any basis upon which they take issue with the assessment of each of them.
10. The paternal grandfather does not even know that he is being put forward as a potential carer. I cannot begin to understand how the father can put forward his father without having discussed with him whether he is even able or prepared to care for all four children. He is still married to the paternal grandmother, but they live separately and apart, she in this jurisdiction, he in Lithuania. He is 55 years of age, he lives alone and he has a full-time job. Five years ago he suffered a heart attack. How it can be thought that he could possibly be an appropriate alternate carer for four young children ranging in ages from 1 to 7, I cannot begin to conceive.
11. It strikes me very clearly, any other matter apart, there is utterly no prospect, no realistic prospect, of this paternal grandfather being assessed positively as a carer for his four grandchildren. I am reinforced in refusing any assessment of him because of the adverse impact it would have on the timetable. Whether it was a simple and quick Skype assessment, of which I see no purpose at all, or whether it is a longer piece of work undertaken by the independent social worker, which would seriously imperil the timetable, it is simply not merited. Nor is a further assessment merited in respect of all the other family members referred to above. I am well alive to the fact that the local authority plan may well be for these children to be adopted. I am well alive to the fact that I have to be satisfied when considering that plan that nothing else will do in the welfare best interests of the children.
12. The message has to go out loud and clear that these very late challenges to viability assessments, or the very late identification of family member will only be countenanced by the Family Court if there is exceptionally good reason as to why they have not hitherto come forward, and the assessment of them does not have an adverse effect upon the timetable for determining the future of the children. As it is, these proceedings will not be concluded within twenty-six weeks. That is regrettable. But, it is my duty, and it is the welfare best interests of the children that these proceedings are determined, whatever the outcome, as soon as ever possible.
13. Accordingly, the application for the assessment of the grandfather is refused.
14. There is no written challenge presented by any of the paternal family members, and, once again, the local authority may proceed on the basis of the negative viability assessments filed to date. In coming to that conclusion, I recognise and acknowledge that I have come to a different view than that of the children's Guardian. I do so because in my judgment the Guardian: (a) has failed to provide a timetable as to when these further assessments could be undertaken and completed, and (b) the Guardian has not, in my judgment, had proper regard to the severe, adverse consequence for these children of any further unwarranted delay.
15. I am particularly fortified in reaching my conclusion because I am given no detail whatsoever of the basis upon which any family member seeks to challenge the assessment, other than they do not agree with the result. I also cannot understand why these challenges, or attempts to challenge, emerged so late in the day, when both parties have had perfectly competent legal representatives advising them throughout the entirety of these proceedings.
16. This judgment will be transcribed at the joint expense of the parties.
______________________