IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment is 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.

IN THE FAMILY COURT	CASE NO: BH14C00106
BH14Z00014/15/16	
	                                       	
SITTING AT BOURNEMOUTH 		

		

IN Re H (Minors)
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOND 

	

	
MISS HARMAN INSTRUCTED BY jacobs and reeves FOR THE MOTHER

MISS YOUINGS FOR THE BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

MISS PRESTON FOR THE CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN 

		

	
JUDGMENT

		

1.	The children concerned in this application are E born on 16th April 2006, F born on 28th August 2009 and R born on 1st May 2012.  
2.	The mother of all three children issued an application dated 25th February 2014 in respect of all the children for permission to apply to revoke the placement orders made on 8th May 2013.  E is the father of F and E.  He played no part in these proceedings.  The father of R is D, (the father).  
3.	It was agreed that this hearing should proceed by way of submissions only and without any oral evidence.
4.	Starting at A8 is the judgment which I delivered dated 8th May 2013 in the care and placement proceedings.  In paragraph 2 of that judgment I said as follows:
“On 31st January 2013 I handed down a judgment following a Fact-Finding Hearing.  That judgment begins at page A69 of the trial bundle.  It contains a detailed history of the matter and should be read in conjunction with this judgment.
3.	At the conclusion of the Fact-Finding hearing the court made findings that: 
(a)	the father did not properly supervise F in the shower on 17th July 2012; 
(b)	F suffered non-accidental bruising on 17th July 2012 inflicted by the father; 
(c)	The mother had failed to protect all of the children as alleged in the Schedule of Findings sought dated 8th January 2013 although allegation 6 was not proved.
4.	The mother and father said they have now separated.  At the present hearing the reality of the mother’s physical and emotional separation is a principle issue which also goes to her ability to protect the children from future harm.
5.	Dr Wass has prepared a report on the parents in which she finds good things to say about the mother’s parenting of the children.  She however concludes:
(a)	that the mother has an emeshed relationship style and is likely to be vulnerable within her relationships; 
(b)	that she did not earlier end the relationship (with the father of F and E) because she was afraid she would not cope alone although she knew that her children were distressed by the violence and relationship difficulties; 
(c)	presenting what was described as a moderate level of pathology that suggests that she may benefit from further assessment and intervention by CNHT.  
6.	As to the father Dr Wass concluded that he poses a significant risk of physical abuse to any children in his sole care.”
  
5.	This application is brought pursuant to Section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.  By Section 24(2) the mother needs the permission of the court to make an application to revoke the existing placement order.  By virtue of Section 24(3) there is a two stage test.  First, the court has to be satisfied that there has been a change in the mother’s circumstances since the placement orders were made.  That change does not have to be significant but has to be of a nature and degree sufficient to permit the court to allow it to re-open consideration of the case.  If the court comes to the view that the change of circumstances has been sufficient, the court then has a discretion as to whether to grant permission.  The court has to consider the question of whether the mother has shown that her case has solidity. The prospects of success relate to the achieving revocation of the placement order and not necessarily the return of the children to her care. 
6.	The mother’s statement in support of her application is dated 31st March 2014 and appears at B1 of the trial bundle.  Exhibited to that statement is a letter dated 7th March 2014 from the Butterfly Foundation.  The mother has regularly done voluntary work with Butterfly which is a local domestic violence charity which supports women, men, children and young people who have been affected by domestic violence.  The author of the letter describes mother’s work at the Foundation. It is reported that the mother has demonstrated that she understood the control tactics her perpetrator had used and that she recognised them and would know not to engage with that type of person again.  The second exhibit at B11 is a letter from the mother’s psychological wellbeing practitioner.  It is reported that the mother completed treatment as had been agreed having attended four sessions of CBT.  
7.	In her statement at B3 the mother now accepted that at the time of the previous proceedings she did not consider that the father had caused F’s injuries.  She did not know about the father’s past. She said that if she does have a new partner in the future she would keep him away from the children and would make enquiries with regard to his past if the relationship was to be a long-term one.  In paragraph 9 at B4 the mother describes her present support network and the attitude to the two fathers of her children.  She reports that as a result of the sessions she has attended she is now emotionally stronger than she was and in what she describes as the right mindset to have the children back home with her.
8.	The children’s social worker Hayley Rumkee has filed a statement on behalf of the Local Authority dated 29th April 2014.  In paragraph 5 of that statement the social worker describes how she has met the mother on two occasions and has spoken to her over the telephone.  It is accepted on behalf of the Local Authority that the mother has made changes and improvements in her circumstances which include the ending of her relationship with the father.  The fact that the mother has undertaken CBT and undertaken the voluntary work with the Butterfly Foundation are both signs of positive progress.  
9.	The social worker still has concerns.  She described a meeting at the office on 7th October which the mother attended.  There was a lengthy discussion from which the social worker formed the opinion that the mother still did not appear to acknowledge or show any real insight into the impact of the injuries upon F.  The social worker was further concerned at the mother’s statement to the effect that if she had not taken F to the doctor the children would not have been taken away.
10.	There was a further meeting with the mother on 25th April following her consultation with Dr Wass and the Guardian.  From this it was clear to the social worker that the father had made a number of attempts to contact her since his release from prison in February. She had only very recently begun to consider applying for a non-molestation order against the father.  Once again the social worker was left with the feeling that the mother’s approach was somewhat superficial in respect of the possible risk to her children.
11.	Starting at paragraph 6 the social worker has conducted a detailed consideration of the Welfare Checklist.
12.	I have considered that and adopt it for the purposes of this judgment.  At paragraph 7 the social worker has set out an analysis of the placement options for the children together with the pros and cons.  It is a detailed and careful analysis and concludes that an adoptive placement is most likely to offer the children a safe, secure and loving environment.
13.	The children remain together in a foster placement and, although they have not been “placed for adoption,” the foster parents have been approved as adopters for the children. 
14.	Maranne Wass’ addendum psychological report in respect of the mother is dated 25th April 2014.
15.	In Section 4 of that report Maranne Wass describes how she carried out an up-dating clinical interview with the mother during which the mother’s father made some comments.  She also carried out some psychometric testing.  In paragraph 4.7 Maranne Wass describes the mother’s account of her attending the Pattern Changing Course.  Paragraph 4.7 reads, in part, as follows: 
“(The mother) told me that she has completed this course now on four separate occasions, three times during her partnership with (the father of the elder children) and the last time during her pregnancy with R.  When asked what she had learned from these courses, her account was very limited and I gained little impression that she has taken a great deal of learning from the intervention.”   
16.	And later: 
“The mother offered no insights into the early stages of an abusive relationship and seemed to be describing the situation in a mature relationship.  Despite her four attendances on this programme, I did not feel that the mother has learned how to judge the likelihood of abuse from a partner or how to move cautiously into such relationships.”   
17.	And at 4.8: 
“Given that she had attended the course of (sic) three previous occasions before meeting the father, it is clear that she had allowed him to move into the home with herself and her children extremely quickly.  Additionally, having attended the course for a fourth time before the birth of R, (the mother) continued to maintain that her relationship with (the father) was positive throughout the social care involvement with her family and when talking with me during my original assessment.”
18.	And later in the same paragraph:
“If (the mother’s) account of (the father’s) behaviour is now correct, her previous presentation of this was misleading.” 
19.	In paragraph 4.17 Maranne Wass relates a conversation with the mother and her father in which it was related that (the father) had said “I’ll stick E up in the attic for punishment.”  
20.	In Section 5 of her report Maranne Wass gives her opinion.  In paragraph 5.1 it is said that the mother continues to present as lacking in insight into her children’s experiences within her relationships, both with the father of the elder children and with (the father).  In paragraph 5.2 Maranne Wass reports as follows:
“The statements made by (the mother’s) father about (the father’s) threat to put E into the attic ‘as punishment,’ the mother’s calm acceptance of this statement despite protesting that she had never been told this before, and her lack of reaction to such a suggestion, in my view mirror her staunch support for the father during 2013 and her minimisation of the children’s traumatic experiences.  I had serious concerns regarding the protective capacity of both (the mother) and her father in relation to the potential risk to E of such actions.  Additionally, I would have no confidence in the mother’s father’s capacity to provide appropriate support to enhance protection of the children were they to be returned to their mother’s care.”    
21.	In the remaining part of Section 5 Maranne Wass expresses further concerns about the mother.  It is said that the mother did not appear to regard the relationship with (the father) as ended.  It is also said that given the mother’s relationship and attributional styles, Maranne Wass was not confident that the mother has any additional skills or understanding that would enable her to extricate herself from a dangerous and risky relationship.  Maranne Wass felt that the mother’s understanding of her children’s potential needs should they return to her care is very limited.
22.	Finally at paragraph 5.9 Maranne Wass says as follows: 
“(The mother’s) continued presentation with an external locus of control and with an insecure relationship style, do present her with some difficulties in establishing secure, positive and supportive relationships.  These aspects of her functioning are clearly enduring.  However, these do not meet the criteria for access to mental health services and are not within the scope of National Health psychological resources, other than that which she has already received.  If she were to be motivated to process and change these aspects of her functioning, (the mother) would have to engage with therapy, which is likely to require a psychodynamic element and therefore be a medium-term intervention (possibly up to twelve months’ duration), within the independent sector.  (The mother) is not presenting currently, as so motivated.  In any event, this would be a costly exercise with an uncertain outcome, giving her difficulties in securing positive and enduring change to her experiences of Pattern Changing Courses.” 
23.	The Guardian’s report is dated 1st May 2014.  At page 4 of that report the Guardian urges that the court should look with extreme caution at the improvements that the mother claims to have achieved.  The Guardian is concerned that the mother appears to have forgotten the seriousness of her earlier failure to protect.  She refers to the fact that she had made a mistake which the Guardian describes as a considerable understatement in his view. It is said that she made a series of mistakes which started with allowing the father to move in with her when she knew very little about him.  On 11th April the Guardian reported that the mother told him that she felt she was being punished for the father’s crimes.  It is said that she did not acknowledge her part in trying to cover up those crimes and appeared to feel victimised by the decisions subsequently made by the court.
24.	When considering the analysis conducted by Maranne Wass, the Guardian was concerned to learn that the mother appears to have struck up a friendship with a man who is himself unable to see his children. While reporting that she did not have or want to have a relationship with a man it appeared that she was closer to this man than she asserted.
25.	In paragraph 8 of his report the Guardian concludes that there is insufficient evidence of improvement in the mother to warrant the disruption of the plan for adoption.  
26.	In her submissions on behalf of the mother Miss Harman submits that the mother has made great efforts to change and improve her circumstances and that this amounts to sufficient to re-open the issue.  In so far as the mother continues to suffer from anxiety and depression it is said that the mother can control depression with the help of her father and her network of support.  It is pointed out that on four occasions she attended and completed the Pattern Changing Course and attended four sessions of DBT.  It is conceded that originally Maranne Wass recommended that there should be twelve such sessions but the mother is in a difficulty because she was discharged by the Mental Health Team in September 2013 (B11).  Notwithstanding that I was told that the mother accepts the necessity of undertaking a further eight sessions and has made the necessary application.  She is waiting to hear whether she will be accepted.  
27.	It is pointed out that in relation to her friend it is no more than a friendship and is unlikely to develop further.  In any event she would seek disclosure of his history should the relationship develop.  As to the father it is accepted that she has received death threats from him via Face book.  She contacted the police who said that they were unable to take any action.  I was told that on the day following this hearing the mother intends to make a Without Notice Application for a non-molestation injunction.
28.	Finally as appears from B22 the mother has applied to attend a Health and Social Care Programme to learn about Adult Social Care.  
29.	For all these reasons it is strongly contended on behalf of the mother that she has shown a sufficient change in circumstances to open the door for the court to consider the revocation of the placement orders and to give the mother permission to make such an application.  
30.	On behalf of the Local Authority it is accepted that the mother has made progress but it is said that the change is superficial.  For example, although the mother was discharged in September 2013 by the Mental Health Team it was only two weeks ago that she applied to Gateway to be accepted for the further eight sessions of DBT.
31.	With reference to the analysis set out in the social worker’s statement it is submitted on behalf of the Local Authority that the mother has not shown sufficient change and therefore her application falls at the first hurdle.
32.	On behalf of the Guardian it is pointed out that he has met the mother on two occasions following the final hearing.  The Guardian retains serious concerns about the mother’s understanding and capacity to protect the children.  The mother reported that the father has tried to contact her but the mother had failed to change her mobile telephone number up to the time of the Guardian’s final report. It is only now that the mother is making an application for an injunction against the father.  With reference to paragraph 5.2 of Maranne Wass’ report and C68 it is submitted that there has not been sufficient progress by the mother in that she still does not accept responsibility for the impact upon F and the other children of what the court had found to have occurred.  Miss Preston also referred to the delay that would be caused by a re-opening of this matter.  The Guardian accepts the Local Authority’s analysis of the situation and submits that the evidence does not support the mother’s contention that she has shown sufficient change in her circumstances.
33.	The evidence of the social worker and the report of Maranne Wass reveal significant and enduring concerns about the mother’s parenting capacity and understanding of risk.  In my judgment she remains vulnerable to involvement in a risky relationship with a dangerous partner.  She does not appear to have gained sufficient understanding from the Pattern Change Courses that she has undertaken.  I do not think that, even now, she accepts the court’s earlier Findings about the father’s behaviour and her own collusion with him.  At paragraph 73 of my earlier judgment of A26 I said as follows: 
“I agree with Miss O’Hara’s assessment that the mother remains an enigma in that she has shown some good parenting and has regularly attended contact but has also displayed a glaring inability to do what is required of her to allow for the safe return of her children.”  
34.	I think that assessment is still valid.                     
35.	The report of Maranne Wass in paragraphs 4.21-4.23 in relation to her friendship with her male friend is, in the context of this case, a worrying indicator.  In addition the emergence, as reported in paragraph 4.17 about the possibility of E being put in the attic for punishment raises significant concerns as Maranne Wass reports. 
36.	While the mother has taken some practical steps to change her situation I agree that the change is superficial and that her underlying emotional and psychological circumstances have not changed. For all these reasons I have come to the conclusion that the mother has not been able to demonstrate a sufficient change in her circumstances.
37.	If, however, I am wrong about that and when I consider the question: “whether in all the circumstances, including the mother’s prospects of success in securing revocation of the placement order and the child’s interests , leave should be given” I am not able to find that the mother has shown a sufficiently solid case to allow her to proceed.
38.	In coming to this conclusion I have also considered the welfare of these children (which is not my paramount concern but remains a consideration) and have in mind the contents of the Checklist.  I have also considered the evidence of the mother, the social worker and the reports of Maranne Wass and the guardian. 
39.	The mother’s application is therefore dismissed.                           

Dated this     day of                2014
…………………………………………..
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOND