England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF S (A CHILD)

		11th February, 2014

11th February, 2014

JUDGE SCARRATT:

1. The background of this case I take from the local authority's case summary. The child S was born on 7th January 2013 and, therefore, she is just one year old. Her mother (M) is CR, her father (F) is WN. The parents live together. They are not married. The F is named on S's birth certificate and he, thus, shares parental responsibility for her. The application for a care order in respect of S was issued on 15th July 2013 and the application for a placement order in respect of S was issued on 13th January of this year.

All parties are represented. S is represented by her guardian. The history goes back some little time, when in June 2012 there was a referral to social services concerning the M. There were concerns about her pregnancy, vulnerability and health in respect of epileptic seizures, or what was thought to be epilepsy, and also recent and ongoing contact with her father, TR, who was suspected of sexually abusing the M when she was about six years old. These investigations proceeded and I have looked at the chronology in some detail in the court bundle. The local authority was concerned about the M's relationship with her own father and what might have happened, although there were no criminal proceedings and no fact finding has taken place, but they were very concerned about the M's vulnerability and there was, certainly on the face of the papers, a history of eating disorder and alcohol abuse. Consequently, the local authority appointed a family nurse, a Miss Kelly Irvine, for the family. There is a report from Miss Irvine in the bundle. She sets out a number of concerns about the parents' ability to provide good enough parenting for S. I will refer to that later in this judgment. The M was referred to the local children's centre and did not attend as she should have done, and there were various concerns during the pregnancy which are documented in the bundle. The child was born. The parents went to live with the paternal grandfather. The local authority were concerned about isolation as far as M was concerned, the controlling aspect of the F and, above all, about the M's seemingly limited skills in cleaning and food preparation and hygiene in general. The local authority was concerned that she needed a lot of practical help. The parents obtained a flat together and lived there with S shortly after she was born. The local authority, in the chronology, set out their continuing concerns about hygiene, hazards and general concerns about how the parents could cope and were coping with the baby. The local authority have also been concerned during this time about the F's domestic violence - again in the chronology, there have been several reported incidents and I will refer, again, to that aspect of the case later. The local authority were concerned, too, that S was left with the maternal grandfather, against whom allegations had been made concerning sexual abuse, and also his associates, who had convictions for sexual abuse, who were around at that time, and one of whom S was taken into contact with. And so it was that the local authority became really very concerned and consequently care proceedings were issued.

2. Various directions were given. Parenting assessments of the parents have taken place - I will come to those in a minute. The paternal grandmother put herself forward, as did the maternal grandmother, as potential carers for S if it was found that the parents could not care for her; both of those assessments were negative, although, as far as the maternal grandmother is concerned, I think it right to say that she withdrew her application to be a carer. A special guardianship assessment was undertaken of the paternal grandmother by Mr Bishop, an independent social worker, and his conclusion was negative in respect of the grandmother, Mrs W. The matter was also referred to a number of experts, and I will come to them in a moment. That is a very brief background of this case. It is right to say - and I will descend into more detail in a moment - that during the course of these proceedings S and the M were placed in a residential foster placement with a Mrs Smith, an experienced foster carer. That broke down and S is now with foster carers. She is, I am told, thriving and I am told that contact between her and her parents has on the whole been good.
3. The law to which I have to have regard, is well known, and the recent decision in Re B-S is at the forefront of my mind. There are two applications before the court today. One is by the local authority for a care order and the second is for a placement order. I remind myself that the local authority brings the case, it is up to the local authority to prove its case; the parents need to prove nothing. And it is for the local authority to satisfy me that the threshold set out in s.31 of the Children Act 1989 is met. The welfare of the child is paramount - s.1 of the Children Act - and I have the welfare checklist at s.1(3) of that Act well in mind. I also have well in mind the draconian nature of the orders sought, and I particularly have in mind the recent decision in Re B, a child [2013] The Supreme Court, page 33, where the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that:

"Only in exceptional circumstances were care orders with a view to adoption to be considered the appropriate outcome of public law proceedings. Such an order was an order of last resort and could only be justified by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare and only where necessary to protect the interests of the child, where nothing else will do."

The starting point was explained in Re C and B, a well known case, where Hale LJ stated as follows:

"Cutting off all contact in the relationship between a child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child."

These are draconian orders that the local authority are seeking and, of course, the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Re B-C (children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 further clarifies that:

"Children should be brought up in their natural family, ideally by the natural parents or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child's welfare makes that not possible. The court must consider all the options before coming to a decision. What these options are will depend upon the circumstances of the particular cases. They range, in principle, from the making of no order at one end of the spectrum to the making of an adoption order at the other."

Again, directing the court to the draconian nature of the order sought by the local authority. Again, in Re B-C, it is stated that:

"The court's assessment of the parents' ability to discharge their responsibilities towards the child must take into account the assistance and support which the authorities would offer."

And then it cites, again, Re B, where Lord Neuberger said as follows:

"Before making an adoption order in such a case, the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities or others providing the requisite assistance and support, underlining the fact that every avenue has to be explored to see whether or not it is at all possible for a child to be reunited and brought up by his or her family."

And so, the case before the court is for a care order in respect of S and a placement order in respect of S. The local authority's case for those orders is supported by the guardian, who represents S. The parents' position is, very clearly, that they would wish S to be returned to them as a couple so that they can parent her throughout her minority. The parents' case, furthermore, is that, if that is not possible, if S cannot be returned to the parents, then she should be cared for by Mrs W, the paternal grandmother. Those are the positions of the parties.

4. In this case I have heard evidence from each of the parents, from the foster carer, Mrs Smith, from both social workers (the current social worker and the previous social worker), I have heard from the paternal grandmother, I have also heard from Mr Brian Bishop, the independent social worker who assessed the paternal grandmother in the light of her application for a special guardianship order. I have read the court bundles. I have read, especially, the evidence of Dr Jones, the psychiatrist reporting as to the mother's mental health, and Annie Stubbley, the psychologist reporting on both parents. I have also, as I have already mentioned, read a report from the family nurse, Miss Kelly Irvine. She sets out a number of concerns in respect of the parents' ability to provide good enough parenting for S. I have looked at the cognitive assessment of Mr Dowsett. He opines that:

"The mother has average intellectual ability but that she does not have learning difficulties."

There are medical reports concerning the mother's health, and Dr Redmond reports that:

"The mother probably suffers from epilepsy and possible non-epileptic attacks with a psychological basis."

In reaching the decisions I have, I have based them on all of the evidence; that is, the written evidence in the bundles - some of it is challenged, some is not - and the oral evidence of the witnesses that I have heard. If in this extempore judgment I do not mention parts of the evidence, oral or written, it is not because I have ignored it or forgotten it; it is just that other parts are more relevant.

5. The experts' evidence comprises, as I have mentioned already, of a psychiatrist, Dr Jones. She reported in October of last year. She was not called to give evidence; her evidence is accepted by the parties. She concluded - and I read these conclusions, having read the reports as set out in the local authority summary - that:

"The mother presented as immature and child-like. She struggled to keep herself safe. She had self-harmed and been victimised in relationships. She struggled to mature emotionally and had severe personality problems. She engaged in relationships, particularly with men, who are at risk of sexually exploiting her or emotionally or physically abusing her."

She concluded that this was a lady who had significant problems functioning in practical ways, and she mentioned especially the fact, as indeed I heard in evidence from the M herself, that she has a very close relationship with her F, the maternal grandfather, and the psychiatrist, Dr Jones, thought that the mother could turn a blind eye to the risks posed by him and his associates. It is right to record that those conclusions reached by Dr Jones were reached despite the fact that Dr Jones did not have access to the M's medical records, but that was her unchallenged evidence.

6. Annie Stubbley, the psychologist, reported in respect of both the M and the F. Again, she was not called to give evidence and that evidence is, therefore, unchallenged. In short, she opined, as far as the M is concerned, that:

"The M would be unable to recognise early grooming behaviour and S would be in those circumstances at an increased risk of sexual abuse. That risk was significant having regard to the maternal grandfather's known associations with a number of sex offenders ..."

and their names appeared in evidence in this case, and she took note of M's limited alternative social support network. She considered that M, and S in her care, would remain vulnerable to exploitation, and she thought that that would be the case until any psychotherapeutic work was undertaken - work identified by Dr Jones. Miss Stubbley thought the M unable to consistently prioritise S's needs above her own, and the psychologist considered the M unable to start the psychotherapeutic work to address her personality difficulties until she considered and accepted the benefits of such therapy and was willing to engage. That work would last some year to 18 months. She also thought that both parents would benefit from some form of educative parenting programme to help them to identify and manage any risk of sexual abuse to S. She further considered in respect of the F that the M's relationship with her own father was a likely source of conflict in the relationship between the parents.

"The F may be more open to considering whether the maternal grandfather may pose a risk of sexual abuse to S."

She considered that:

"The F underestimated the difficulties that he and M were likely to face in their relationship - exemplified by their reconciliation before completing work that he accepted to be necessary."

She, Miss Stubbley, identified F having problems with inter-personal relationships and, again, she pointed out that a year to 18 months of psychotherapy would be required by the F to address the issues that she sets out underlying the psychological root of his problems. She did not consider that short courses, such as CDAP, to deal with his domestic violence would address all of the concerns.

7. This has been a short case but it is no less important because of that, for the reasons as I have explained, concerning the draconian nature of the orders sought. The evidence has taken about a day and, in the context of care cases, that is not a long case. I intend to summarise the salient points of the oral evidence that I heard.
8. Mrs Smith, the foster carer, assured the court that she had given a balanced report and had not concentrated on the negatives. Mrs Smith ran the home where the M and S went to live when the court allowed there to be a mother and baby foster placement. The M has alleged that the foster carer concentrated on the negatives, but Mrs Smith's evidence, which chimed with her written evidence, was that, "The M was very oppositional" and not motivated. As she put it in evidence, she did not improve from "first base": "She didn't take my advice" and the police were called when the placement broke down. There appears to have been a bit of a struggle. M was not prepared, Mrs Smith stated in evidence, to keep S safe and to ensure S's safety. She did acknowledge the stress involved in being in such a placement and she felt that the M felt at times stressed in a placement, being watched, as it were, and she did note some improvements on the M's part, although she was unable to maintain, Mrs Smith said, the improvements that she noted.
9. The current social worker, Miss Sarah Griffin, gave evidence. She was cross-examined by the parents. She placed quite considerable weight on an announced visit very recently to the parents' home. That took place on 17th January this year. She told me that the home was in quite a state. She painted a vivid picture of very poor housekeeping and home-making, and in answer to the guardian in cross-examination, she described the home circumstances as "filthy". She considered there to be no significant change in the parents' behaviour and outlook. She was very concerned about the M's very close relationship with her father, who had allegedly sexually abused M, as I have said, when the M herself was a child. She was concerned about domestic violence, although she accepted that there were no reported incidents of late. That chimed with the F's evidence. She confirmed that the trigger to these proceedings was in fact the M's involvement with her father's associates, including his partner, who herself has a conviction for sexual abuse, and these associates were known sex offenders. She was very concerned about the M's vulnerability, as she saw it, to grooming. As Miss Griffin said:

"I am not sure she would see through it."

The social worker was less confident, now that S was older and more mobile, that the parents would cope if S came home. The tenor of her evidence was that, despite telling her that they would do this and that, it just was not happening. She said to the court:

"They don't seem to be able to pull it altogether."

She considered all the parents' difficulties to be deep-rooted. Nothing had changed significantly, even with the local authority involvement and these ongoing proceedings. She also considered the relationship between the M and F to be itself fragile.

10. I heard evidence from Mrs W, the paternal grandmother, who I have allowed to sit in court with the permission of the parties. She assured the court that she would assist the local authority with life story work if it was required, and she said S was her own flesh and blood. She denied that she was less than committed to having S at home with her. It was pointed out to her in cross-examination that she had left it late to obtain legal advice as to her position in these proceedings, and indeed medical reports about her own health. She disagreed with Mr Bishop's report that she could not provide what Mr Bishop called "the optimum safe placement" for S. Mr Bishop was particularly emphasizing the risk to S through contact with the maternal grandfather and the consequent risk of grooming.
11. Mr Bishop, the independent social worker, was himself cross-examined, but he did not resile from his conclusion in his report that S should not be placed with Mrs W, her grandmother. He did not feel that she appreciated the significance of what had occurred, especially as regards contact with the maternal grandfather and his associates with convictions for sexual abuse. She gave the impression, certainly to Mr Bishop, that she did not in fact have great familial support.
12. I heard from the previous social worker, Miss Nichol Young. She confirmed the local authority's case that its involvement was because of the M leaving S in the care of a convicted sex abuser and her association with friends or associates of her F. She was also very concerned as to the home conditions - and I take note of the chronology in the bundle as to that and examples set out therein - and she was also concerned with the parents' ability to care for themselves, leaving aside S, and their reluctance to seek help. This was a view expressed, too, in the evidence, both written and oral, of Miss Griffin, the current social worker.
13. I paid great attention to the parents' oral evidence. The M, when asked about her relationship with the F, saw no problems with it. She described it as "brilliant". She did not consider now that there were any anger management problems and she would prove this, she told me, if S was returned to their care. She emphasized to the court that she would protect S from her F and from any sexual abuse and from any grooming. She said she had learnt a lot. "People are not what they seem", she said. But she did accept her closeness to her F and her emotional dependency upon him. She herself - and I give her credit for being candid - described her home conditions as, "Bad but improved". She said that in the foster placement with Mrs Smith, she, Mrs Smith, was violent to her, that she was taught nothing after the second week there, and she asked the court for another chance to be a good parent. She said that her partner, the F, was more supportive, that she obtained more support from him, that they would not struggle "as we once did", she said. She told me that she had no relationship with her own M. She was not oppositional, as described by the foster carer. She disputed that evidence. She thought it was a personality clash between Mrs Smith and herself. She put the fact of S and her meeting the sexual abusers as, "A horrible coincidence" and she, again, repeated the fact that she had learnt a lot, that she now would not trust people at face value, and she agreed it was a bad decision to allow Mr Kruger (her father's associate) to take images of her whilst she was wearing her underwear.
14. F told me that he was not as stressed as he was. He told me that his anger management was much better and he felt it was under control, and in fact, again to be fair to the F, he said that he was "disgusted" with his previous violence to women. He told me how he was addressing the problems. He had had a telephone appointment with KCA recently and others with East Kent ITEC. He hoped to attend CDAP. He contacted them last May but was awaiting appointments. It seemed to me that he was attempting to address these problems, if very late in the day - and I note how recent some of his contacts to these various establishments are.
15. The guardian provided the court with a full analysis. She was cross-examined by the parties. She did not resile from her conclusions, nor from her support of the local authority and its care plan. She emphasized to the court the multiple risk factors in this case. They all remained, in her view. She particularly emphasized, in the light of the dicta in Re BS concerning support packages from local authorities, that one could not expect the social worker to be present all of the time overseeing every detail of family life if S was returned to the parents. She said that it was not practical for the local authority to provide that care. She said in evidence that, despite the paternal grandmother's best efforts in trying to get her son and his partner to clean up the flat and change their housekeeping methods, she was unable to effect the change needed, and the guardian considered that she would be in an unenviable position if S was returned to the parents. She thought the M's problems deep-seated and she agreed with Miss Stubbley's report - in fact, she described Miss Stubbley's report (the psychologist) as a very good report. Importantly - and I particularly took note of this evidence - she felt that S did not have an attachment to anyone and she thought that this was worthy of note, and it is something that Miss Stubbley comments on, too, in her report. She gave the F credit for looking out for suitable courses but she felt that these courses would not tackle the underlying cause of his psychological difficulties - and in that sense she supported what Miss Stubbley had opined in her report. As far as both parents were concerned, she said that the advised therapy (12 to 18 months) was outside of S's timescales. She emphasized that she, too, had observed some of the concerns of the foster carer. She thought that the M was in fact very oppositional to the foster carer, Mrs Smith. She saw when she visited the foster placement - and gave quite a vivid picture in evidence - what she described as the totally unacceptable standards of, for example, washing up piled up for some days, and she reminded the court that at the first hearing the guardian did not support the local authority's case; the guardian wanted to see whether this child could be placed with the parents and at that first hearing she was instrumental, she reminded the court, in obtaining a residential assessment for mother and baby. She gave an example, too, of how, when she was sitting in a room next door to S and her M, she could not hear any conversation, and this troubled her. She thought that there should be almost non-stop communication between M and baby, and she did not hear M in a way that she thought was appropriate. She considered that S not responding was poor interaction between M and daughter. She found the M at times - as did Mrs Smith - was not open for advice. Again, towards the end of her evidence, she repeated her concern about the multiple risk factors in this case. She was happy to hear about the F's positive contact with his daughter.

So, that is the oral evidence - the guardian not changing the conclusion contained within her report. I have considered all of that evidence.

16. The parents wish S to be returned to them or, if not them, to Mrs W, the paternal grandmother. The guardian of S supports the local authority's care plan, which is placement for adoption. The threshold criteria are conceded by the parents, save for paragraph 4 in respect of neglect. On that point, I do find the threshold met. I accept the evidence of the social workers, and the guardian in particular, as to S's lack of attachment to anyone, and I find that the condition of the parents' home has not really improved at all; I place some reliance upon the announced visit on 17th January - a few weeks ago - and I find that the parents lack motivation to improve themselves and their skills. I accept that evidence from Mrs Smith and the social workers. I am particularly concerned that the M does not appear to appreciate the concerns of the local authority in respect of her father and his associates and the importance of guarding against grooming by potential abusers. There is ample evidence, in my judgment, to suggest that they could each have done more to satisfy the local authority and the guardian that, within S's timescales, they could have addressed the very well documented problems that existed and have existed for some time and which I find they were aware of - not least their home conditions and motivation. Where evidence conflicts, I prefer the evidence of the local authority and the guardian. The threshold criteria, I find are met.
17. I move on to deal with where S should live. The evidence - and I remind myself, again, that this is an evidence-based exercise - leads me inexorably to the conclusion that S's best interests - her welfare being paramount - lie with her being placed outside of her family. I accept the evidence of the guardian and the local authority's care plan. M pleads with the court to have a second chance, and whilst I fully accept that S is much loved by her parents - the photos I have seen show a bonny baby - and I have heard good reports of contact sessions, she, at just one year of age, cannot wait for these parents to change. I have considerable doubts, as does the local authority and the guardian, that these parents can change within S's time-frames. I find a lack of motivation on their part and I point to the residential assessment, the F's slowness at organising the courses that he told me about, the state of the home, even on an announced visit and less than a month ago, and the experts' reports, too, which point to underlying difficulties which are outside of S's time-frames if they are to be treated and dealt with. I accept the evidence of Mr Bishop as far as Mrs W is concerned. Whilst I think she will be able to assist very well with life story work for S, she is in no position to have her live with her on a permanent basis. I am not satisfied, like Mr Bishop, that she is as committed as she would like to think, or indeed thinks herself. That is not to say that she does not love S dearly and want the best for her. I bear in mind the draconian nature of the orders sought. They are to be made as a last resort. I have dealt with the law and, in particular, with the authority of Re B-S. I have concluded that S's welfare can only be promoted through a care order, the threshold criteria having been met. If returned to her parents' sole care, she would, in my judgment, be at risk of significant harm. I therefore make a care order in respect of S.
18. The parents oppose placement for adoption. I am quite satisfied that all avenues and options have been explored and analyzed. I stand back and look at all those options - the global approach, as detailed in Re B-S. I am wholly satisfied that S's welfare now and for the remainder of her minority will be in an adoptive placement. I have considered the welfare and adoption checklist as set out in statute. I have considered her welfare now and in the future and as an adopted person. The parents do not consent to such a course. I understand their position. I therefore dispense with their consent, S's welfare requiring me so to dispense. I make a placement order in respect of S.
19. I do appreciate how sad the parents will be with these orders and I have more than once acknowledged their love for their daughter. I hope that once the dust settles, if it ever does, that they will appreciate that this court has done what is best for S and not necessarily what the parents might wish. She is the first priority in the court's eyes. I hope that they can meet with any potential adopters, as this may assist them with coming to terms with these orders and, of course, it will assist S as she moves forward. Their assistance with life story work and this judgment will also help S know all about them, their love for her and why she was unable to live with them. This is the judgment of the court.