(sitting at BASINGSTOKE COUNTY COURT)
B e f o r e :
____________________
Hampshire County Council |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
Mother |
First Respondent |
|
Father |
Second Respondent |
|
Child (through her Children's Guardian Jo Paice) |
Third Respondent |
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ Miller QC :
This case involves a young girl called Child, born on the 26th August 2005, making her now aged 8. Her mother is "Mother" aged 44 and her father is "Father", aged 42.
The parties had a relationship between 2003-6, as a result of which Child was conceived. They separated in May 2006 when Child was 9 months old. In October 2007 an order was made for shared residence, after which Child spent 5 nights a week with her mother and 2 with her father, which remained in place until 2012 when Child was almost 5.
Mother did appear on the first day of the hearing, whereas she had not appeared on many earlier occasions at court, or had left before the hearing concluded. I was told that Mother's position is that she still maintains that Child has told her spontaneously of the abuse she has suffered at her father's hands, but she accepted that the court would not be in a position to make findings of sexual abuse on the evidence available. The unsatisfactory nature of the allegations is now compounded by the expert psychological report of MG. She confirms what the Guardian, some Social workers and indeed the police have suspected as the case has developed, that Child's allegations have arisen from the concerning relationship between Mother and daughter. MG found in terms that the allegations against Father are false.
Many different allegations have been reported by Mother as having come from Child, but as Ms Howe has pointed out on behalf of the Local Authority, they fall into two categories: matters that have been repeated by Child to professionals in some form (but often without a sinister gloss) and matters that have never been referred to by Child in speaking to anyone other than allegedly to Mother, and in some cases specifically denied by Child. When Child was questioned by the police in August 2012, she did refer to the matters that Mother initially alleged she had said (the boobies and walking game) but the police took the view that there was nothing untoward in what she said. There have been times when she has repeated the actual allegations to professionals, for example to the art therapist at CAMHS, but there has been little consistency in what Child has said. In my experience, allegations from children are more likely to be true when spoken about freely and given context by a child, but there has never been any here.
Threshold has not been conceded by Mother, so I need next to look at this matter.
An interim care order has been made in this case already. The Local Authority do not ask that I make any change currently to Child's status, but that the interim care order is renewed as appropriate and that I approve the care plan for rehabilitation to her Father. MG is to be asked to prepare an addendum report on the next phase of the rehabilitation. If it goes successfully, the case will return to court in about 3 months' time for a Residence Order to be made to Father, and for contact to Mother to be reviewed. I turn therefore to the care plan.
Contact for Mother will take place, but MG was clear that it needs to be very tightly managed. She agreed that there should be no contact for a short time while the placement is made, although a letter to Child could be appropriate from Mother.
HHJ JANE MILLER QC
4th December 2013