England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE CHELMSFORD COUNTY COURT

No. IP13C01062

 

 

 

Chelmsford County & Family Court

Priory Place

New London Road

Chelmsford CM2 0PP

Thursday, 31^st July 2014

 

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE LYNN ROBERTS

(In Private)

 

 

B E T W E E N :

 

 

                                                      SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL                                      Applicant

 

-  and  -

 

                                                                     THE MOTHER                                         First Respondent

 

-  and  -

 

                                                                     THE FATHER                                     Second Respondent

 

-  and  -

 

                                                  BABY H (by her Children’s Guardian)                     Third Respondent

 

 

_________

 

 

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.

(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)

Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers

One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR

Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737

info@beverleynunnery.com

 

_________

 

 

J U D G M E N T

(As approved by the Judge)

A P P E A R A N C E S

 

 

 

MR. G. JENKINS (instructed by the Legal Department, Suffolk County Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

 

MISS D. FOTTRELL (instructed by Philcox Gray) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent Mother

 

MS. E. WEBB (Solicitor, of Kerseys Solicitors, Ipswich) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent Father

 

MRS. H. STEVENS (instructed by Sparlings Solicitors, Colchester) appeared on behalf of the Children’s Guardian.

 

_________

 

 

See: Baby H (appeal from care and placement orders) [2014] EWCC B76 (Fam) (24 February 2014)

 

JUDGE ROBERTS:

 

1                   I remain concerned with Baby H, who was born on 6 July 2013.  She is now one.  She is the daughter of the Mother and of the Father.

 

2                   This is the final hearing of the care proceedings brought by Suffolk County Council within a couple of days of Baby H’s birth.  In fact, it is the second final hearing.  The first one took place on 8 November last year in Ipswich before District Judge Hallett.  He made a final care order and a placement order.  The Mother successfully appealed those orders and soon after that Baby H was returned to her care on 27 May 2014 (Baby H (appeal from care and placement orders) [2014] EWCCB76 (Fam) (24 February 2014).  The local authority no longer seek a care order or placement order and instead seek a one-year supervision order.

 

3                   The parties are Suffolk, represented by Ms. Jenkins; The Mother, represented by Miss Fottrell;the Father, who does not attend - he is in custody - represented by Ms. Webb; and Baby H by her Guardian, Annette Garnham, represented by Ms. Stevens.  This hearing has proceeded by way of submissions but I have read much of the evidence which has been gathered during the course of the proceedings and notes from each advocate for today.

 

4                   It is a joy for everyone in this case to see and hear about the reunification of the Mother and Baby H.  The local authority and the Guardian acknowledge that Baby H is happy and thriving and developing, and I am told that it is the view of the health visitor as well and of course of her mother.  That is a credit to her mother, who has made huge strides over the past year to deal with very difficult situations and with many personal difficulties.  It is likely from what I have read and heard that the therapy which she has been undertaking for a year now on an almost weekly basis is key to these changes but I do not underestimate how much determination and commitment to Baby H has driven The Mother to get to where she is.

 

5                   The threshold document is agreed and reflects the fact that a year ago things were very different.  Baby H’s father had just been convicted of a serious sexual offence and been sentenced to a four-year term in prison.  Prior to the conviction, whilst being assessed during her pregnancy, The Mother was so under the influence of the Father that she preferred what she was being told by him to what the social workers were trying to impress upon her.  She was vulnerable and had previously been involved with a violent partner.  She had also had mental health issues and had made suicide attempts but had not addressed the underlying issues by way of any treatment.  Her psychologist, who has been instructed throughout the proceedings, was pessimistic about her chances of being able to parent her child or indeed engage in therapy, especially as The Mother and her family were denying the existence of a problem.  The local authority also doubted whether she could really work with them in Baby H’s best interests.

 

6                   Those matters which relate to The Mother have changed considerably.  It is a dynamic process.  I have given the mother credit for the progress she has made but I also recognise that she has received help, advice and support not only from her therapist and her family but also from the social worker, Miss Moore.  The issue I have to decide is whether there is a need now for a supervision order or whether Baby H’s continuing progress in her mother’s care can be sufficiently achieved by the local authority’s child in need procedure.  I have also been asked to consider how Baby H’s contact with her father should be dealt with.  I have to apply s.1 of the Children Act.  It is Baby H’s welfare which is my paramount consideration.  I have to consider Schedule 3 of the Children Act as to what it says about supervision orders.  I have to bear in mind what is known as the “no order” principle, whereby I should only make an order if it is better for the child than not making an order and, of course, I have to have in mind the Article 8 rights of Baby H and her mother to a private family life with interference by the state only as is necessary.

 

7                   I have been referred to and have reminded myself of the case of Re K, supervision orders, in which Mr. Justice Wall, as he then was, in October 1998 addressed the issue of whether there should be a supervision order or no order and set out some principles to be considered.  Mr. Jenkins made the point that these issues of whether there should be a supervision order or not are rarely fought out; that is why there are few reported cases, and I agree.  I have to say I remain unconvinced that the issue should have been fought out this time and I very much hope that doing so has not damaged important working relationships.

 

8                   The local authority wholly acknowledge how well things are going but consider that Baby H’s welfare requires the making of the order sought.  It would oblige them to do more work and remain involved for a period of a year, which would not necessarily be the case if Baby H were a child in need only.  Moreover, The Mother would be obliged to work with them under such an order.  They point to the matters which were in the threshold criteria and say that The Mother and Baby H still need the level of support which they are offering.  In particular, they say that the release in April next year of Baby H’s father from prison will inevitably put the mother under great stress, with possible impact on Baby H, and that the social worker’s involvement and input then will be necessary both to advise and support The Mother, to do a risk assessment of the Father, who is indicating he will want direct contact in time, and generally to ensure that Baby H is not destabilised in any way.

 

9                   The Mother says the order is not necessary.  She points to the great success of the return of Baby H to her care.  Much of what the local authority requires her to do as in the care plan and written agreement which she has signed she is doing and has initiated herself, she says.  Anything which the local authority deem necessary for her and/or Baby H to do can be suggested and carried out under a child in need plan.  She is fully aware that the Father’s release will be a stressful time for her and she is planning to attend a particular resource in preparation.  She thinks it wrong in view of the history that she should have such an order imposed and she does not wish to work with the particular social worker who was involved in advising the Court that Baby H should be adopted.  She is not prepared to participate in indirect contact but will allow a social worker to be a conduit between the Father and Baby H.

 

10              The Father supports the making of a supervision order.  He wants indirect contact and will accept twice a year.  He would like The Mother to respond to let him know how Baby H is progressing.  He wants his aunt and cousins to be able to write too.  In time, he will want direct contact but realises that he will have to be assessed first.  Ms. Webb suggested that the Court could express a view at this stage in principle about future direct contact but I made it clear that I could not do such a thing when there were so many unknowns.

 

11              The Guardian supports the local authority in asking for a supervision order and supports the two-way indirect contact sought by the Father but not any statement of expectation.  She fully acknowledges that the mother is doing well but considers that there are signs that the mother does not accept that support is necessary, such as trying to change the social worker and being resistant to attending everything that is suggested by the local authority.  She acknowledges the help and support from the family support worker, says the Guardian, but as that would end without a supervision order, she wonders why the mother opposes.  The Guardian says that it is work in progress and that the mother remains vulnerable.  A supervision order, she says, is necessary to ensure that all continues to go this well.  I agree with the Guardian. 

 

12              There was a passage in Miss Fottrell’s note for this hearing which said that the Mother and Baby H had been through a difficult and traumatic separation which the Court found was the result of judicial error.  That is not quite right but is perhaps how the Mother sees it.  I do not criticise the local authority for starting these proceedings or for seeking interim care orders at the start.  From what I have read, the Mother was not in a position to offer Baby H consistent, stable and emotionally nurturing care at that time.  She certainly is now.  The separation may well have been necessary.

 

13              In granting the appeal I did not say that Suffolk had got it all wrong.  I am not going to repeat all I said then but there is a tendency, I feel, on the mother’s part, not perhaps surprisingly, to forget where she was when this case started.  I agree with the local authority on the need to ensure that the Mother will continue to work with the local authority.  She has been doing so but that has been under an interim care order and then an interim supervision order.  Her persistence in wanting rid of the social worker does not impress me.  She knows I cannot order it so I do not know the point of repeating it in front of me, other than to emphasize her feelings about what has happened.  It would not be in Baby H’s interests to introduce a new worker whom Baby H does not know and who does not understand the full history of this difficult case.

 

14              I do not see the application of the local authority for a supervision order as remotely punitive, as the mother apparently does.  It is her perception which worries me a bit.  I consider it important for there to be continuing social work involvement at the level a supervision order requires, in particular because of the release of the Father next April.

 

15              The Guardian makes the point that for indirect contact to work properly, it needs to be two ways.  I cannot order the Mother to respond; I can only suggest that she does but I agree with the Guardian that the mother may have to put her own feelings aside about this.  It is not easy and she needs support and guidance on it.  As she has allowed the social worker to be in touch with her therapist, the social worker can perhaps guide the therapist to issues that the social worker can see coming up in a way which the mother may not be able to do.  Most of all though, the arrival of the Father on the scene has potential for destabilising the Mother and Baby H and when he is released I want to know that Miss Moore is on hand.  The Mother has not completely lost her vulnerability over the course of the year and the Father, who is adept at controlling younger and vulnerable women, has been in custody for the whole of these proceedings.  It is not at all clear to me how things will be on his release.  As he has expressed a wish to have direct contact, and bearing in mind that in all likelihood there will be no lawyers representing the Mother or the Father in any proceedings, experience tells me that having a social worker involved will be of great benefit if either parent instigates proceedings.

 

16              I see a supervision order as supportive and positive in helping the Mother to go on parenting Baby H as well as she is.  I see it promoting Baby H’s welfare and I so make it.  I do not intend to say anything more about contact in the hope that something has been agreed outside but maybe Miss Webb will tell me if anything further is needed.

 

__________