England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SWANSEA COUNTY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF A, C & D (CHILDREN)

		25th May 2014

25^th May 2014

HER HONOUR JUDGE M EDWARDS:

1. This application concerns three children; A who is now sixteen years old; C who is nearly nine; and D who is six. Their sibling, B, was made the subject of a Final Care Order to the Applicants on 6^th May 2014 by consent.
2. The mother of all of the children is YZ who is now thirty-five years old. A and B's father was UV, now deceased. C and D's father is WX who is forty-four years old.
3. These proceedings involved a Fact Finding hearing over some ten days in February 2014 and extensive findings were made which included findings that WX had sexually abused B. I gave a lengthy judgment which summarised the background for the case and set out the findings as supported by the evidence. Consequently, I do not propose to repeat that exercise and this judgment should be read in conjunction with my earlier judgment. However, this is not and never was a single issue case.
4. One rather unusual aspect of this case was the length of time it had taken the Local Authority to instigate the proceedings. During that time, the children remained at home and were without any Orders in place. They were deprived of their own advocate and a Children's Guardian. The case was allowed to drift and inter-sibling relationships were damaged. B has been in foster care since January 2013, but her siblings have remained at home without any Orders until their removal on 9^th May 2014 under an Interim Care Order.
5. A was made the subject of an Interim Care Order in November 2013 because of concerns about his potential involvement in the criminal proceedings brought against WX arising from the same allegations of sexual abuse which have been proven in this Court.
6. The Local Authority's Plans for all three of the children involved removal into long-term foster care and that was a decision reached on 7^th May 2014. Because of the high level of concern about mother's response to that decision and the potential for significant physical and emotional harm to the children, I accepted that the threshold for interim removal was met. My judgment on that occasion was only intended to deal with the Local Authority's immediate concerns. Those concerns continue to be a live issue in this case and I accept as factually correct the diverse references in the trial bundle in relation to YZ's past suicide bids and the more recent indications by her that she would take her own life if she lost the children. These are set out in paragraphs 6.3 to 6.7 of the Local Authority's opening at B542.
7. YZ's stated position is that she accepts that WX is a paedophile who has abused B. She also accepts that the children should not return to her care immediately, but should remain in foster care for a period of some six or so months while she engages with therapeutic work identified as necessary by Professor G, the single joint expert psychologist who has provided written and oral evidence within these proceedings. Meanwhile, she would like to maintain regular twice-weekly contact with the children. She accepts that this will be the subject of further assessment and review.
8. WX's position has been to support a return of the children to YZ's care at the earliest possible opportunity, subject to the work being done. He wishes to maintain a level of weekly contact with the children. He has not engaged with these proceedings, although he has had the benefit of legal representation through his solicitors and Counsel throughout.
9. The Children's Guardian has played a pivotal role in this case and has succeeded in re-establishing inter-sibling contact against the odds. The children could not have had a more effective champion in their corner. She supports the Local Authority's amended Care Plans as provided to her today. There has been much inter-agency cooperation in these proceedings and it could not have been achieved without the expertise, experience and the dogged determination provided by CAFCASS Cymru via the Children's Guardian.
10. Towards the end of the February 2014 hearing, the Local Authority gave active consideration to the removal of the children from their mother's care. WX had been excluded from the household since January 2013, but there were increasing concerns about the enmeshment of the parents. However, on 19^th February 2014, when WX was in the middle of giving his evidence, YZ walked out of Court stating that she could not sit in the Court and listen to this "bullshit" any more and that he was an idiot. It was later clarified on YZ's behalf that her comments were in fact directed towards WX and not anyone else in the courtroom. She said that she wanted nothing more to do with him. There had been no indication up until then that the parents might separate and they had seemed very much together. YZ appeared to be supportive of WX throughout much of his evidence.
11. In a statement dated 16^th May 2014 (see F41, paragraph 9 and 10), YZ tells me she is single, that she does not love WX anymore, that she does not want to be in a relationship with a child abuser and that she knows she will never ever recommence her relationship with him. However, the evidence shows that on 25^th February 2014 (see N742) during the social worker's visit, YZ was asserting WX's innocence yet again, wanted him back and wanted her family reunited.
12. At a Core Group meeting on 4^th March 2014, she indicated that she was done with WX and that she had been speaking to his associates. However, by 12^th March 2014, at a meeting with A's social worker, it was clear that YZ did not accept the Court's findings.
13. On 14^th March 2014, WX rang YZ whilst she was at her solicitor's. YZ was angry with him and reported the call to Social Services.
14. On 18^th March 2014, she told the social worker that the relationship with WX was over, but she needed to know how he was and just wanted to phone.
15. On 20^th March 2014, YZ filed a position statement (see B516 to B529). She stated there that she accepted the Court's judgment, but on 28^th March 2014 she told PJ, the social worker, that she did not believe WX was "like that". In fact, she went further and said "I know that WX is not like that". This directly contradicts her position statement.
16. In her meetings with Professor G, she said that she did not accept the findings but would separate from WX.
17. She and WX were then assessed by DJ, an Independent Social Worker who was jointly instructed in these proceedings to prepare a report on the family dynamics.
18. Since the Finding of Fact hearing it is also right that YZ has raised some hopes that she could develop the insight she needs to protect the children from future harm. AT N752 I read that on 4^th March 2014 YZ seemed to accept that something probably had happened between B and WX and she seemed intent on removing his personal belongings from her home on that date.
19. PJ, the social worker, had also organised for YZ to attend Women's Aid and took her to a meeting. Unfortunately, YZ failed to act on Women's Aid's advice and take advantage of the weekly group sessions, and I accept the social worker's evidence about this.
20. However, as against this, during the time which has elapsed since the Finding of Fact hearing, WX has been in telephone contact with A. YZ has known this and has not been willing or able to stop it. This is in direct contravention of the Child Protection Agreement dated 6^th February 2013 and all the clear and consistent advice given to her by the Local Authority and the Children's Guardian. WX has texted messages to YZ via A and told A, for example, to wish his mother happy birthday from him.
21. YZ has talked of appealing the Finding of Fact judgment and has said that she wanted WX to appeal. YZ has described the Local Authority as corrupt.
22. YZ communicated with WX on two occasions by a note sent via the children during contact sessions. On 28^th March 2014, YZ said that she had transferred £100 into her account from WX's account using on-line banking. On 30^th April 2014, A told his social worker he thought his parents would get back together again (see N816).
23. YZ also allowed the children to come into contact with a family friend despite the social worker's clear advice that she should not do so.
24. The notable feature in this case is the time and effort that the Local Authority as a whole, and PJ in particular, has put into trying to keep the children at home with their mother. However, the expert reports of Professor G and DJ, together with all the other evidence, forced the Local Authority to concede that this was no longer possible, and with the benefit of hindsight much of the Local Authority's recordings and evidence since the Finding of Fact hearing confirm and illustrate the experts' findings.
25. Professor G's reports are dated 28^th March 2014 and 4^th April 2014 (see H67 to H161 and the responses to written questions at H167 to H184). In her opinion, WX presents a medium risk of future sexual offending, but as he rejects the Court's findings, professionals cannot explore his motivation or underlying risk factors. Risk management strategies are impossible to formulate and implement and his anti-social attitudes and behaviour make collaborative working difficult. He is highly unlikely to work openly and honestly with social workers. His history of substance misuse, which he minimises, places him at high risk of relapse at times of stress. WX has refused to cooperate with alcohol testing within these proceedings.
26. YZ has a number of significant clinical difficulties and problematic personality traits. She has particular problems with anger management. YZ will not be able to protect the children from the sexual risk posed by WX unless she accepted that he poses a risk of harm. As long as WX remains part of this family, YZ would not be able to protect the children. If YZ was able to show that she could effect a total separation from WX and could work collaboratively with the Local Authority, then she may be able to parent the children. However, she would need to put all of her energy into engaging with the recommended therapy which would take at least eighteen months, possibly several years.
27. Professor G accepted during her evidence that mother has shown a considerable degree of non-compliance with the Local Authority's expectations which casts doubt on her motivation to change.
28. Subject to the Court's findings, Professor G accepted that there are features in this case capable of exploding the idea of collaborative working. Having considered all of the documents and information, she accepted that she would not now recommend therapy.
29. Professor G emphasised her agreement with DJ's analysis, which she described as a very good piece of work which was very credible and convincing.
30. In light of all of the information, Professor G concluded that YZ had not assumed the responsibility for effecting change and continued to place the responsibility on others to effect change for her. Her failure to attend weekly Women's Aid meetings and her inability to work with professionals was analogous to giving somebody a trial course of medication. The first step is to see if someone will actually take the medication. Professor G considered that YZ was in fact working against the professionals in this case.
31. DJ's evidence was clear and unequivocal. Neither parent has any insight into why they should separate. They continue to collaborate as parents and speak affectionately and warmly about each other. They see the situation in terms of "them", by which is meant the Authorities and the outside world, and "us", the family. There is no protective plan that could be put in place to safeguard these children whilst ever they remain at home and YZ described WX as "a good father and partner".
32. DJ interviewed YZ in April 2014. An aspect of DJ's evidence which caused the Local Authority to re-think its Care Plans was her assessment of the children's attachment behaviours. DJ considers that C and D had insecure attachment patterns and it is to the social worker's credit that she now accepts DJ's evidence, which is further illustrated by the children's response to removal into foster care.
33. I accept the evidence of Professor G, DJ and PJ.
34. Both parents in this case love their children, but neither is in a position to care for them at this point in time. They each have significant issues in relation to their parenting capacity which cannot be resolved in the short or medium term. Neither parent truly accepts this Court's judgment and insofar as YZ pays lip service to accepting it, she needs to take on board all the implications which flow from the findings and she needs to internalise the risk posed by WX. During her evidence, she was clear that she would be without WX, who is her 'rock', if he was a risk. She herself does not see the risk.
35. YZ is not capable of working collaboratively with the Local Authority and professionals at this point in time and her accusations that A's social worker and Dr D have lied under oath are scurrilous and slanderous. She has accused the Local Authority of being corrupt and making things up. She told me she strongly believes this.
36. I find that her conversation with KT, A's social worker on 12^th March 2014 was designed to intimidate KTand that there was no good reason for YZ to search for KT's personal details on Facebook.
37. YZ may have effected her physical separation from WX, but I accept that they are still emotionally and psychologically enmeshed. During her oral evidence, she referred to her relationship in the present tense, before correcting herself. There has been indirect contact via A's phone and WX's role and importance in his children's lives has been maintained by YZ.
38. YZ and WX's approach at the earlier hearing was to challenge each and every case note and recording. During her oral evidence, it is quite clear that YZ continues to adopt this approach even in the absence of WX. Collaborative working with such an individual is a hopeless exercise.
39. YZ has shown a remarkable ability to cut herself off from B, her own child, and from PJ, a trusted source of support, yet cannot demonstrate a similar capacity to cut herself off from WX. They use similar phrases and descriptions to professionals, they each separately warned professionals before the inter-sibling contact that B's behaviour would be unmanageable when she kicks off. As B's social worker puts it, YZ insists on putting WX back up on his pedestal despite everything she now knows.
40. YZ was unconvincing in her evidence as to her remark on 28^th March 2014, when she referred to having spoken to WX (see N783). I find that there is some form of on-going communication between them. She also accepts having discussed matters with "WX's boys", meaning his work colleagues.
41. YZ has continued to portray B in a negative light by refusing to accept her own and WX's responsibility for the family's predicament. She also fails to accept and acknowledge that the siblings have a right to a relationship as between themselves which is just as important, if not more important in some respects, than their relationship with their parents.
42. The Children's Guardian supports the Local Authority's Final Care Plans which now provide for C and D to be placed together in foster care and for A to be placed separately in foster care with the requisite therapy. Inter-sibling contact involving B will take place at least fortnightly and their contact with YZ will continue twice weekly until it is re-assessed. The purpose and nature of the assessment are fully set out in the Care Plans. Mother's continued resistance to inter-sibling contact since the February 2014 hearing has been emotionally abusive and I hope that the recent improvement in her attitude continues; she has a long way to go.
43. A needs time to develop his own interests and to start to establish his independence given his age. His Plan reflects that. C and D's contact with their mother may well need to be adjusted if they are to settle long-term with alternative carers.
44. Each child's background and their development is set out and in the local Authority's written opening (see B543 to B547) and their needs and how those are to be met are set out in the Care Plans. These aspects of the evidence are unchallenged save for WX's wish to continue with monthly contact.
45. WX asks me to make a Contact Order in his favour which will require the Local Authority to afford him weekly contact. He would also like that contact to take place for longer and to be based in the community. As I find the Local Authority's Plans as endorsed by the Children's Guardian are entirely in accordance with and meet the children's welfare needs, there is no need for me to make a separate Order.
46. WX has not been able to maintain weekly contact during the proceedings and this has had a considerable impact on the children and on C in particular. The contact has to be at a level that WX can maintain long term. A has shown a reluctance to attend contact on occasions. There is no plan for the children to return to WX's care at any point in the future.
47. Because of the risks posed by WX and his propensity to try and get away with surreptitious communication with the children during contact, it has to be supervised in a centre. In any event, the contact centre manager is unlikely to sanction community-based supervision. This contact does not need to be frequent so as to maintain bonds and attachments; these children have a well-established sense of identity and WX needs to concentrate on making the contact an enjoyable experience.
48. I have considered and applied the 'welfare checklist' and made each child's welfare my paramount consideration. I make the Final Care Orders as sought by the Local Authority and supported by the Children's Guardian and I approve the Final Care Plans.
49. I cannot sanction an adjournment to enable YZ to embark on therapy when there is such a poor prognosis from Professor G and such therapy is likely to take years, not months. These children have been in limbo since at least January 2013. After sixteen months of intense professional scrutiny, they now deserve the chance to settle down and get on with their lives in as normal a setting as possible.
50. Despite what YZ and WX may think, there is no secrecy surrounding how and why this Court makes its decisions. Provided the identity of the parties can be protected and nothing leads to the identification of children, my judgment in the Finding of Fact hearing will be placed on BAILII as soon as all the redaction and anonymisation has been approved by myself.
51. Accordingly, I make the Orders sought.

End of judgment