British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
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) >>
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 132 (B) (07 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/132.html
Cite as:
[2025] EWFC 132 (B)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF 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.
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 132 (B) |
|
|
Case No: RG24C50047 |
IN THE SLOUGH FAMILY COURT
|
|
Courtroom No. 1 The Law Courts Windsor Road Slough SL1 2HE
|
|
|
7th March 2025 |
B e f o r e :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARD CASE
____________________
|
ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
|
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
M, FA AND FC
|
|
____________________
Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd
291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG
Tel: 020 7269 0370
legal@ubiqus.com
____________________
MS DAMAJ appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MS HARRILL appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother
NO APPEARANCE by or on behalf of the Second Respondent Father
MR KHARAUD appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent Father
MR DARLOW appears on behalf of the children through their Guardian
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ RICHARD CASE:
- I am concerned with three children. For the purposes of anonymity, I am going to refer to them as CA, a boy who is in his early teens; CB, a girl who is a pre-teenager, and CC, an infant. I am going to refer to their mother as "the mother", and there are two fathers. The father of CA and CB is FA, and the father of CC is FC. I mean no discourtesy to the parents. I do that for the purpose of anonymisation with a view to the publication of the judgment.
- The mother has parental responsibility, and both the fathers have parental responsibility for the children who are theirs. Before the Court today, Ms Damaj represents the Local Authority, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Ms Harrill represents the mother. FA is not present, he is not represented in these proceedings, and he has refused a production order for his attendance today. Mr Kharaud represents FC, and Mr Darlow represents the Guardian Ms Sutherland.
- The hearing has been listed today as an adjourned IRH/early final hearing, following a fact-finding hearing, which concluded with my judgment on 4 November 2024 with neutral citation [2024] EWFC 317 (B).
- I take the background from the Local Authority's position statement filed for the previous hearing, noting that they did not file a case summary for today until half an hour before the case was due to commence. Within that previous position statement, they say the following:
(1) CC is the first child of M and FC, both of whom hold parental responsibility for him.
(2) CA and CB are CC's older half-siblings from the mother's previous relationship with FA. M and FA both hold parental responsibility for both children. CA and CB do not have contact with their father, who is in prison currently.
(3) CC was admitted to hospital on 8 March 2024, following which he was found to be suffering with skull fractures and a bleed on the brain.
(4) The Local Authority issued proceedings on 18 March 2024 and were granted an interim care order in respect of CC on 19 March 2024, and an interim supervision order in respect of CA and CB on the same date.
(5) A fact-finding hearing took place on 24 October 2024 before HHJ Case. Judgment was handed down in November 2024. Findings of physical harm were made against FC for harming CC on 27 February 2024, whilst heavily under the influence of alcohol The Court also found FC has further caused CC emotional harm.
(6) On 6 November 2024, the Court approved CC's transition to the care of his mother…
From paragraph four of the Guardian's position statement
Following the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, CC has returned to the care of his mother. The interim care order to which he had been subject was discharged, and he was made the subject of an interim supervision order. His older half-siblings CA and CB have remained in their mother's care throughout these proceedings, subject to interim supervision orders.
- I made these findings in my judgment of 4 November 2024:
(1) CC suffered multi-compartmental bilateral subdural collections containing haemorrhage surrounding the brain.
(3) CC suffered two fractures to the right parietal bone.
(5) The injuries were sustained whilst in the care of FC on 27 February 2024. There was either a single impact with greater force than would be occasioned by an accidental fall from a carer's arms, or two separate instances of shaking and impact. On the evidence, I cannot say one is more likely than the other. If it were a single impact, [as a deliberate attack?], it required greater force than an accidental drop from a carer's arms. If it were a combination of shaking and an impact, the impact may have been accidental, such as by dropping CC, but the shaking could not have been. It was deliberate.
(6) FC has inflicted significant harm on CC through physical injury and emotionally through persisting in denying his responsibility for his actions, which has led to CC's separation from M, and all this when his ultimate position was that he admitted causing the physical injuries through culpable accident, albeit I have gone further to find he inflicted them. FC has engaged in a deliberate and cynical attempt to conceal the true facts and has at almost every turn sought to evade and minimise his responsibility.
- The parties' positions for this hearing are as follows. The Local Authority invite me to make six-month final supervision orders in respect of all three children. In relation to contact between the children and their fathers and the living arrangements, it was recorded on the face of the previous order, and will be recorded on the face of the order today, the following:
The final care plan is agreed between the Local Authority, the mother, and the Children's Guardian, namely:
(1) The children shall reside with their mother under the framework of a child arrangements lives with order.
(2) There should be a supervision order to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for a period of six months.
(3) There should be no order for the children to spend time with their respective fathers, it being agreed that:
(a) in relation to FC:
(i) Shall have letterbox contact with CC once a year, to be arranged through the Local Authority during the currency of the supervision order and thereafter through suitable agreement with third parties.
(ii) The Local Authority will review the arrangements in advance of the expiration of the supervision order.
(iii) FC will need to engage in a risk assessment and evidence that he has undertaken programmes in respect of domestic abuse and substance misuse before any direct contact can be considered.
(b) In respect of FA:
(i) On his release from prison, anticipated in April 2025, the Local Authority will complete a risk assessment of FA, taking into account the wishes and feelings of CA and CB before any contact takes place.
(ii) Subject to the risk assessment, the mother does not oppose supervised contact being supervised by agreed family members.
That, as I indicate, sets out the agreed position between the Local Authority, M and the Guardian.
- As far as FA is concerned, as I have indicated already, he has refused to attend today, and he has not filed a final witness statement.
- As far as FC is concerned, he is represented but has not attended today, and those who represent him are without instruction.
- Before turning to the evidence, I want to say two things, first of all, I approve the care plan and will make the orders that the Local Authority, Mother and Guardian are agreed I should make. Secondly, I echo the comments of Mr Darlow on behalf of the Guardian, who complements the Local Authority social work team in this case. He records, on behalf of the Guardian and I endorse, their open approach to the proceedings and compliments them on having developed a relationship with M that has enabled M to maintain and sustain changes and enables me to make the final orders that I am invited to make today.
- As far as the evidence for today is concerned, in particular, I have had regard to the Local Authority's final evidence at page Z514, M's final evidence at Z566 and the supervision order support plans at Z506, Z550 and Z558. I have also made reference to the Guardian's final analysis, which I cannot find in the bundle that has been filed at court.
- As far as the law is concerned on welfare, my paramount concern is the children's welfare and in assessing whether to make an order I must take into account the matters set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. I must have regard to the realistic options put forward, taking a holistic and balanced as opposed to linear approach to them consistent with the guidance given in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. In reaching a final decision, I must start from the position that the least interventionist alternative is to be preferred, applying section 1(5) of the Children Act, and I must not make an order unless I consider that doing so would be better for children than making no order.
- I also remind myself that I must have regard to Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and pursuant to Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life)[2003] 2 FLR 813 I must not make a public law order unless I am satisfied it is both necessary and proportionate and no other less radical form of order would achieve the need to promote the welfare of the child. In relation to the making of child arrangement orders, the same principles in section 1(3) and section 1(5) of the Children Act apply, and my paramount concern is the welfare of the children. I have determined that threshold has been met on the basis of the findings that I made at the fact-finding hearing.
- Turning then to matters of welfare, as far as the children's wishes and feelings are concerned, CA and CB, the Guardian reports, have been consistently clear. They want to live with M, and they want CC to remain living with them. CC, the Guardian says, is too young to express his views, but he has been observed to be comfortable in the home environment and he appears to have developed close relationships with his mother and siblings.
- As far as the children's age, sex, and background or particular circumstances are concerned, the Guardian says that whilst CC has thankfully made an excellent recovery, the long-term effects of his injuries and his development are currently unknown. He makes reference to CA having ongoing domestic abuse support from an independent domestic violence advisor, and a referral having been made for CB to have similar support.
- The Guardian describes CA as being in good physical health, not suffering from any significant illnesses, but with a diagnosis of ADHD managed without medication. CA, she says, accesses mainstream education, and whilst there are occasional issues with concentration and impulsivity, he is generally achieving well. She says he has been exposed to domestic abuse and a series of risky adults through his mother's intimate relationships. She describes his father, FA, being in prison and to FA being cared for in the home by FC when CC was injured.
- She also reports CA to have had, and perhaps still have, significant worries about what happened to CC and about future contact between CC and FC, worries about M's wellbeing and her relationship choices. The Guardian says it is essential that he receives consistent and safe care, allowing him to reduce his level of perceived responsibility for the wellbeing of the family. He is said to speak positively of the intervention by the independent domestic violence advisor.
- As far as CB is concerned, the Guardian describes her as being lively and chatty. She has recently transitioned to secondary school and has reported struggling with the move from a smaller setting, where she knew the staff well and received good pastoral care, to a larger and busier setting. She says that CB can at times struggle with frustration and emotional regulation, but there are no significant behavioural concerns. She notes that CB may present with some neurodivergent traits, and she has been referred for an autistic spectrum and ADHD assessment. However, her presentation may, the Guardian says, also be representative of the trauma that she experienced in her earlier years. As I indicated earlier, referrals have been made for her to access the same support CA is getting from the independent domestic violence advisor.
- CC is reported by the Guardian to have recovered extremely well from his injuries with no currently identified physical health issues, apart from eczema, which is reviewed by a dermatologist. She says that given the nature of the injuries, there remains some uncertainty about any future impact that that may have on his development, and I note in that respect that M is continuing to engage with paediatricians.
- As far as a likely effect of change in circumstances is concerned, all three children are at home with M under interim supervision orders. There will be no change for them in their day-to-day arrangements by reason of me making a final six-month supervision order and lives with mother orders.
- As far as the capability of the parents are concerned, let me start with M. The Guardian describes her day-to-day care of the children as having been consistently of a good enough standard, apart from a short period in 2022 when the home conditions were reported to have deteriorated. The Guardian says that it is acknowledged that she has a history of vulnerability in her relationships and difficulty in leaving relationships that are unhealthy or risky, and at times that has caused her children to suffer significant harm. However, she has consistently acknowledged that fact, not sought to minimise it or deny responsibility for it, despite, the Guardian says, having been a victim herself.
- She is described as having sought domestic abuse work online. She has accessed the Freedom Programme. She has shared details of her learning and made links between that and her experiences. The Guardian says it is clear that she has taken real value from the intervention, and she has committed herself to it wholeheartedly. The Guardian also says that M has acknowledged the relationship between her self-esteem, mood and relationships, and has engaged in a period of cognitive behavioural therapy and sought support from her GP, particularly after the fact-finding hearing when she was struggling to come to terms with the findings that were made and the evidence that she had heard.
- The independent social worker who assessed her described her, the Guardian reports, as "an incredibly resilient woman", who is "working incredibly hard to make positive changes. She is determined not to allow this pattern to continue". The Guardian says that she would concur with that entirely and knows that the allocated social worker has identified ongoing support for M in that regard.
- Lastly, the Guardian records that CA and CB are very protective of M, particularly in relation to relationships. The Guardian says that they will need continued support not to take on that responsibility, and M is well aware of the need for them to continue to address that by way of the domestic abuse support provided by the independent domestic violence advisor that I have already made reference to.
- I say at this point that it is to M's enormous credit that we are in the position that we are in today. She herself has gone through a very traumatic experience but has demonstrated her ability to meet all three children's needs on an ongoing basis, and I commend her for that.
- As far as FA is concerned, the Guardian reports him not to be in a position to care for his children by virtue of his current imprisonment and wider concerns about his criminality and risk-taking behaviours. She says to his credit he has recognised that and has not sought to be assessed, nor to disrupt the children's placement in M's care. He has expressed a wish to resume a relationship with the children, and, as I have already indicated, she endorses the proposal for a risk assessment in that respect.
- As far as FC is concerned, I have indicated already that he is not currently engaging with the proceedings. In fact, my recollection is he has not done so since I made the findings against him. The Guardian says that he has failed to make any meaningful efforts to address his difficulties with drugs and alcohol, failed to engage with substance misuse services despite referrals from the social worker.
- She makes reference to the parenting assessment completed by the independent social worker. She quotes from that in this way:
"I was struck by how FC spoke solely about how he felt and how hard it had been for him, yet he did not once acknowledge the fact that it was he who caused CC's injury and that this had been proven.
When I suggested the past months must have been a horrendous time for CC, FC spoke about how it had in fact been difficult for him because he couldn't go to work and had to keep attending meetings. It often felt as though he spoke as if he were the victim in the situation".
- The Guardian says that until FC takes responsibility for his actions and begins to acknowledge the lifelong impact of these actions on those around him and accesses support for the underlying risks that he poses by his substance misuse and domestically abusive behaviour and aggression, he will continue to pose a risk to any child in his care. She records his current commitment to contact with CC as being inconsistent. She reports that as CC grows and develops, he will have to learn of what his father did to him and will inevitably have questions for both his parents.
- At present there is no evidence that FC has developed the necessary responsibility and insight in order to be able to answer those questions for CC and meet his emotional needs. She concludes that until he engages with professional support, he is not able to meet CC's needs even during a supervised direct contact session.
- As far as risks of harm are concerned, those really are covered by what I have already said about M, FA and FC.
- Turning then to the range of orders, the Guardian supports the children remaining in the care of M, given her commitment to further intervention to address ongoing difficulties and the strengths that she had outlined previously in her report. She recommends consideration of lives with orders in respect of all three children having regard to (1) the risks posed by FC and (2) FA's impending release from prison.
- As far as the choice between making no order and support continuing to be provided solely under a child in need plan and making a six-month supervision order is concerned, the Guardian says that whilst it is hoped that M will continue to seek the Local Authority's guidance, there may be greater challenges around that if her mental health were to deteriorate or if she were to form a new intimate relationship, and through her submissions indicates support for the making of a final supervision order on the basis that during the course of that final supervision order, FA will be released from prison and the Local Authority can assist with supporting contact between FA and CA and CB.
- Turning finally then to my analysis, the social worker sets out a very helpful summary in her final evidence of the holistic assessment that is required by Re B-S. In favour of the making of six-month supervision orders is the children remaining with M, there being no change in their circumstances, M having been positively assessed and having demonstrated an ability to care safely for all three children.
- The only factor against making a supervision order is the previous risky relationships that M has engaged in with FA and FC and the risk of FA and FC seeking to have contact with the children prior to any risk assessment. That risk can be mitigated by the work that M continues to undertake and by the support the Local Authority offer under the supervision order support plans. The paternal grandparents, that is the parents of FA, have been positively assessed, but that would be a placement away from M with whom the children have always lived, it would be contrary to CA and CB's wishes, and in the circumstances where there's a positive assessment of M, there is no need to consider it further.
- The final alternative is making no public law order at all. Whilst that has the advantage of bringing to an end children social care's involvement with the children, at least in terms of court orders, perhaps not in terms of statutory working, it would bring with it the risks inherent in resumption of contact between the children and FA and FC. In addition, the Local Authority would not have the same level of oversight of the continuing work that CA and CB are engaging in or, in the case of CB, seem to be engaging in.
- On balance, therefore, I am satisfied that it is in the children's welfare interest for me to make six-month supervision orders. It is necessary and proportionate to the risks that I have identified. The duration of six months is the least interventionist whilst meeting the children's welfare needs.
- I was concerned whether child arrangements lives with orders were proportionate and necessary in the welfare interests of the children, whether making those orders might be contrary to section 1(5) of the Children Act. However, I bear in mind the support from the Local Authority, Mother and the Guardian for those orders being made, and I recognise that it makes it clear to the world at large that the children live with M and that may assist her in providing care for them in the future. There is no disadvantage to the children in me making those orders and it enables a framework under which contact with FA and FC might in the future take place.
- In those circumstances then, as I am invited to, I make child arrangements orders for the children to live with M. I make six-month supervision orders in respect of each of the children, and I approve the supervision order support plans.
- I want to address myself finally directly to M before concluding my judgment. I hope she will forgive me for reading out what I wanted to say. I want to make sure I get it right.
- You have gone through a terrible experience. I want to thank you for your positive and full engagement in the process of getting to the truth. I know it has been painful and difficult for you. I also want to thank you for your full engagement in the process of assessing what is best for these very special children. You have come out the other side of this difficult time, demonstrating resilience and all the qualities that are necessary to ensure that the children thrive in your care, and you remain healthy and safe to care for them, which is to your enormous credit. I want to finish by wishing you all the very best of success and lots of joy in the years to come. That is the conclusion of my judgment.
End of Judgment