England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

 

Case No: UK13C00438

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT PORTSMOUTH

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF A, B, C, D and E (CHILDREN)

 

Date: 18 December 2014

 

Before :

 

His Honour Judge Mark V Horton

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Miss McKenna and Mrs Henstock-Turner instructed by Hampshire County Council

Miss Campbell QC and Miss Street instructed by Biscoes Law on behalf of M

Mr Ker Reid and Miss Iten instructed by CBW solicitors on behalf of F

Mr Parsons of Access Law representing A

Mr Belcher of the Child law Partnership representing B

Ms Gough instructed by the Children's Legal Practice on behalf of C, D and E

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

 

Hearing dates: 25, 26, 27, 28 November 2014 and 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 December 2014

-           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

 

JUDGMENT

See also:
[2015] EWFC B186
[2014] EWFC B226

 

 

1. As this judgment will be published widely I have decided to use letters that bear no relationship to this family's real names in this judgment. The same goes for their foster carers as the children are still living with them. I have prepared an appendix which contains the full names of those involved in this case who I do not name. This will not form part of the judgment that I approve for publication. I hope the family will forgive the impersonal feel that this gives this document but it is essential to protect their anonymity particularly as the proceedings will be adjourned pending further assessment.
2. This is my second judgment. The first delivered on 7 April 2014 will need to be professionally transcribed, anonymised and published alongside this judgment. During this hearing I have been able to work from an agreed Counsel's note of that judgment but given the circumstances of this case it needs to be transcribed.
3. This hearing concerns the welfare of 5 children.
4. The children are A aged 15 represented by her solicitor Mr Parsons; B aged nearly 14 represented by his solicitor Mr Belcher and C a female aged 7, D a male aged 4 ½ and E a male aged 3 represented by their Children's Guardian Ms Edney and their learned counsel Ms Gough. A and B are living with foster carers who I shall refer to as FC1 and C, D and E with foster carers who I shall refer to as FC2.
5. The children's mother is M. She has been represented by Miss Campbell QC, Miss Street of counsel and her solicitor Miss Hansford.
6. The children's father is F. He has been represented by Mr Ker-Reid and Miss Iten of counsel. His solicitor is Miss Coates.
7. The local authority that brings these care proceedings is Hampshire County Council (HCC or LA depending on context). It has been represented by Miss McKenna and Mrs Henstock-Turner of counsel. The LA solicitor currently with conduct is Mr Penny. The solicitor with conduct up until the first final hearing was Ms Melanie Kingsley. As I commented in my first judgment Ms Kingsley has never attended court
8. The children's current social worker is Ms Gibson. I make it clear from the outset that Ms Gibson has absolutely no connection with the social workers or managers whom I shall be criticising in this judgment other than having the same employer. Whilst the F makes some criticism of her even if accurate or fair, her work and her opinions as they developed must be viewed in the context of the exceptional and dynamic nature of this case. I note and give her praise straight away for the fact that she has managed to build a working relationship with both parents despite a situation where all trust between parents and LA had unsurprisingly broken down and for her flexibility of mind, reacting as she did to the changing evidential landscape.
9. The applications
10. The LA issued care proceedings on 12 July 2013. In it the LA applied for care orders for all 5 children. The LA is still pursuing its applications but the care plans for each child have materially changed over the course of the proceedings.
11. The parties' positions

12.      There is complete agreement amongst the parties, with which I agree that this hearing should be adjourned. Whilst this may seem unconscionable after 17 months within court proceedings it is in my judgment wholly necessary in the exceptional and lamentable circumstances of this case. Without such an adjournment no party particularly the family can have a fair trial.

13.      It is agreed that I should make interim care orders for all the children in order to:

a.        Ascertain whether the parents can effect change in their interactions as parents; in respect of their management of issues arising from their own childhood experiences through CBT and Parenting work and with professionals;

b.        To afford this family a full and fair assessment, an opportunity not previously made fully available to them;

c.        To avoid the risk of an unjust outcome for all;

d.        To achieve rehabilitation of all or some of the children if at all possible to their parents care.

14.      The plan is for M and F to have therapy aimed at helping them deal with issues that have prevented them parenting consistently and effectively in the past and for them to undergo alongside this therapy a full parenting assessment by an organisation called Symbol, which specialises in such assessments. The cost of the therapy and Symbol will be paid for by HCC. After a 12 week period it will be possible according to Dr Halari to assess whether the parents are able to effect change, the likely timescale and amount of that change and whether any changes are likely to be maintained. At that point it is agreed that I will hold a further review hearing which will be part of this final hearing, in order to give further case management directions.

15. The need for the adjournment has been entirely caused by the failure of HCC particularly the social workers and lawyers in charge of the case until the first part of this final hearing in March 2014, to fairly and properly assess this family and comply with the requirements for disclosure and fair trial. I make it clear that I do not include in this criticism the current social work team or Mrs Henstock-Turner who is a member of the independent Bar and who represented the LA at the first part of the hearing. She has throughout acted with the highest integrity and in the best traditions of her profession. I particularly remember during the March/April hearing having to adjourn whilst she sought advice from senior colleagues within her Chambers as to whether she could continue with the case. Obviously I do not know what that professional embarrassment was about but it demonstrates the difficulties she was then grappling with and underlines the reason for my comments.
16. The hearing
17. This is the fourth time that a final hearing has been listed. The matter was case managed by the justices from issue until 6 January 2014 when the case was transferred to Portsmouth County Court. The case was allocated to me on 6 January when HHJ Levey directed an urgent directions hearing on 7 February. I thereafter made a number of case management orders that were in some important respects not complied with. The first part of the final hearing started on the 31 March but had to be adjourned due to material non-disclosure by the LA and the need for a thorough reassessment of this family's circumstances and capabilities by an independent social worker. Mrs Randall carried out that task and I on behalf of the children am indebted to her. I tried to hold a final hearing in August but the hearing had to be adjourned yet again due to further late material disclosure by the LA and the need for the mother to have an intermediary. The need for an intermediary had come about due to Mrs Randall identifying a need for a psychological report on both parents, M in particular. Dr Halari carried out a full psychological assessment of them. She identified significant previously undiagnosed learning, processing and communication difficulties in M and some difficulties in F. The summer hearing had to be vacated as the mother's solicitor rightly identified that her client needed the services of an intermediary both during the hearing and during pre-hearing preparation. The services of Communicourt were eventually secured. This was not easy as the Legal Aid Agency initially refused to pay for their work outside of court. The situation reached such an impasse that I had to transfer the matter to Mr Justice Baker the Western Circuit Family Division Liaison Judge in order to resolve the funding issue. That issue was resolved although not until a substantial delay had occurred due to the actions of the LAA. I am happy to record that no such funding difficulty was encountered with Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service who rightly regarded the use of an intermediary in court as akin to using an interpreter of a foreign language. The mother has therefore had the assistance of Miss Winterbottom from Communicourt throughout this hearing. I extend my thanks to her for the excellent job she has done. I am convinced that her involvement has enabled M to fully access the court process and has saved a substantial amount of court time.
18. I fixed further dates in early September 2014 but these had to be vacated due to the increased time estimate, difficulties with funding Communicourt and the need to assess alternative carers put forward by the parents, the Gs.
19. Due to difficulties with getting funding for Communicourt, the need for M to have a proper amount of time to go through the written evidence, the time estimate which had grown to 14 days and the advocates' and my availability I was not able to relist the matter until 25 November 2014. Even then the hearing dates had to be split over several weeks.
20. I managed thanks to the excellent legal representation that all parties have had to start this hearing on time and to complete the necessary evidence with sufficient time to allow for written submissions and written judgment. Due to the need to have frequent breaks during the court day following advice from Miss Winterbottom at a 'Ground Rules' hearing, I was prepared to sit each day at 10 am, to have shorter lunch breaks and to sit a little later than normal. This pattern worked well and I am satisfied M and F were fully able to concentrate and take part in the proceedings.
21. The Issues
1. Threshold: I must decide the true characterisation of the neglect the children suffered including the failure of A and B to attend schooling; the children's health problems and the home conditions.
2. Whether there were any breaches of this family's human rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and if so their extent and impact. The main areas I need to consider are:

                        i.    The removal of the children from their parents' care and the failure of HCC once it knew of the unlawfulness, to redress it. Whilst the unlawfulness and failure to remedy are conceded there are important facts that I must decide;

                      ii.    Failure to disclose material evidence namely the Comprehensive Core Assessment prepared by Ms X the social worker who was allocated this case from 2011 until June 2013. Whilst this breach is conceded the circumstances surrounding it needs analysis and findings.

                    iii.    Denial of fair opportunity to participate in decision making. This is accepted.

                      iv.    Failure to set up and maintain regular family and sibling contact until at least the 31 March 2014. This is accepted.

3. The remedy or remedies for any breaches;
4. The wasted costs of the first part of this final hearing in March.
21. Chronology
22. I have been provided by the parties with several different chronologies, designed to assist them put forward their cases. Ms Gough has at my request also compiled a procedural chronology in order to highlight the tortured route that this case has taken and the multiple failures to comply with court orders in particular by the LA. In order to keep this judgment to a reasonable size I will not repeat the chronology of events in detail in the body of this judgment but I will annexe to this judgment Ms Gough's chronology prepared for this final hearing as in my judgment it represents a concise time line from which to work. It will need to be anonymised in due course. I will supplement it as necessary from the other excellent documents in particular the 'Chronology of Recordings By Category' prepared by the mother's team and 'Appendix 2:Wrongful Non-Disclosure and ART 6 Breaches' document contained in the father's closing submissions.
23. The evidence
24. I have read or been referred to the relevant parts of over 60,000 pages of documents. I have heard the oral evidence of Sarah Walker Smart the children's social worker from June 2013 to April 2014; a housing officer with the Borough Council; Dr Halari Consultant Psychologist; Kim Goode Team Manager for Ms X and Sarah Walker Smart up until April 2014 and currently working for HCC on the Isle of Wight; Lisa Humphreys District Service Manager for Kim Goode, Ms X and Sarah Walker Smart up until the end of the April 2014 hearing and currently Assistant Director of Children's Services in Lambeth Borough Council; Helen Randall independent social worker; Shirley Gibson the children's current social worker; a worker from the family centre who assessed the parents in Autumn 2013 and Ms Mason a speech and language expert from Communicourt instructed as an expert witness.
25. Again with a view to keeping this judgment to manageable proportions I intend referring to the evidence as and when I need to in reaching my conclusions on the issues that I need to decide.
26. The Law applicable to this case
27. The threshold criteria . Unless this criteria is proved the state has no power to intervene in a family's life.
28. Under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989:
29. "A court may only make a care order or a supervision order if it is satisfied: a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and b) that the harm of likelihood of harm is attributable to: (i) the care given to the child or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him or (ii) the child being beyond parental control."
30. General principles applicable to cases involving disputed facts .
31. Firstly, the burden of proof rests on the Local Authority. It is the Local Authority that brings these proceedings and identifies the findings that they invite the court to make. Therefore, the burden of proving the allegations rests with them and to that extent the fact-finding component of care proceedings remains essentially adversarial.
32. Secondly, as conclusively established by the House of Lords in Re B [2008] UKHL 35, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. If the Local Authority proves a fact or allegation on the balance of probabilities this court will treat that fact or allegation as established and all future decisions concerning the children will be based on that finding or allegation. Equally, if the Local Authority fails to prove a fact or allegation this court will disregard that fact or allegation completely. In assessing whether or not a fact is proved to have been more probable than not,: "Common-sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had to whatever extent is appropriate to inherent probabilities," (per Lord Hoffman in Re B at paragraph (15).
33. Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence. The court must be careful to avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence. As Munby LJ (as he then was) observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12,: "It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation."
34. Fourth, when considering a case of suspected child abuse, the court "invariably surveys a wide canvas," per Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P, in Re U, Re B (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 567, and must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. As Dame Elizabeth observed in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ.558,: "Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion of whether the case put forward by the Local Authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof."
35. Fifth, expert evidence may come from a variety of specialists. Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of experts those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence and the final decision is that of the judge not the expert.
36. Sixth, witnesses in cases do tell lies. If I conclude that a witness has lied then I must analyse why the lie has been told and in doing so should recognise that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion, emotional pressure or a desire to conceal other misconduct either their own or others. Further the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720).
37. Seventh, hearsay evidence is admissible in family cases and is relied upon in this case. However, where it is disputed, care must be taken before accepting such as evidence as it has not been tested by cross examination. In analysing such evidence I must have regard to the circumstances under which such evidence was made, who made it, whether it was made in the course of their employment or under a public duty and whether they have any agenda of their own to pursue which might affect its reliability.
38. Eighth, finally, if I find the threshold criteria satisfied with respect of one child it does not necessarily mean that the criteria is satisfied with respect to another child in the same family. Each child must be considered separately. Re J [2013] UKSC 9 @ 33.
39. Threshold
40. There is rightly no dispute that the threshold criteria are proved in this case. The parents have accepted as much and have prepared a document entitled "Threshold As Agreed By The Parents" dated 9 December 2014. I will annexe this document to this judgment for ease of reference by professionals subsequently working with the family. It will need anonymising.
41. In short the parents accept that the children suffered neglect and that they were unable to sustain all the changes suggested in the Child Protection Plan of 4 October 2011. The LA does not think these admissions go far enough.
42. The parents accept that they failed consistently to engage with professionals concerned with the educational welfare of the children; that they were convicted of an offence for their children's non-attendance and that the children's failure to attend limited their social interaction outside of the family home. This admission the LA says is a minimisation of the effects of their failure.
43. The parents accept that all the children at the time of their reception into care were medically obese and two were morbidly obese. Again the LA views this as minimisation.
44. They also accept that C, D and E were significantly delayed in receiving their immunisations although they had had them all by 2 July 2013.
45. In addition the LA submits that I should make findings about the home conditions given that the parents make no concessions about them.
46. Resolution of disputes about threshold
47. Education
48. The chronology that I annexe to this judgment clearly shows that A and B effectively failed to attend school from early 2005 until their receipt into care and were thus unable to access the advantages that such attendance would have brought to their emotional, social, educational and physical development. In 2012 A and B's attendance was in reality non existent. The reasons for this failure are rooted in the parents difficulties that the psychological and parenting work will seek to address. I understand their concerns about A and B being bullied and that there may have been days when they were genuinely unwell but the overall picture is a dire one.
49. The effect on A and B was in my judgment very significant and has taken a considerable amount of effort to address. A and B are to be congratulated for the progress they have made since being with FC1 and I am pleased that the parents recognise and support this progress. I do want the parents to understand that this was a serious failure attributable to them although I know and accept it was not done through a lack of love or concern for their children but through their inability to set clear, consistent boundaries.
50. Health
51. Weight
52. At the time the children came into care they were all overweight. The parents accept that all were medically obese and two were morbidly obese. I accept that the parents have said they recognise that the children should not have been so overweight and that they both recognise and take pleasure in the significant improvement that there has been in them since being in care.
53. The parents should be in no doubt that such excessive weight will have negatively affected the children's self esteem and health and if it had not been successfully addressed could have caused them very serious health problems. Having said this I accept that their inability to control the children's eating was again due to their problems with boundary setting generally and due to the difficulties that the further work will address.
54. Immunisations
55. I accept that the parents' inability to consent to immunisations was largely due to not having a full understanding of their importance or a realistic understanding of the potential risks which were not as great as their researches showed. I do not think any further findings are necessary over and above the concessions made.
56. Other health concerns
57. I am very grateful to Miss Campbell QC and Miss Street for their analysis of the documentary entries relating to health appointments.
58. This is not a case where no medical help was ever sought or advice taken. There are a large number of entries showing contact with health professionals on a wide range of issues. Appointments were missed such as follow up ones for A and I am concerned that B's operation was delayed by a what seems to me to be 4 years. This must have affected him badly. However, overall the picture is that the parents were aware of the health needs of their children and sought medical help when necessary even if they did not always follow it up with the vigour that they should.
59. Home environment
60. Once again I am very grateful to the mother's team and to their chronology.
61. There were 7 people living in a 2 bed property. It was not big enough. This was not the parent's fault. I find it hard to believe that the housing department of the Council did not know that the home was so overcrowded. If they did not then whilst some responsibility will fall upon the parents some must fall on the Children's Department and the Council itself. Both agencies had gained access to the property and both would have therefore known how many people were living there. If they did not they should have.
62. The sleeping arrangements were at times unacceptable for children of different ages and genders. There was simply not enough space and I am satisfied that at times the parents found it difficult to maintain their home to an appropriate standard bearing in mind they were caring for 5 children and at times M especially, found it hard to cope.
63. Generally the home conditions fluctuated throughout the period of LA involvement. Sometimes they were unacceptable and sometimes improvements had been achieved and conditions were deemed acceptable. This is not an unusual pattern in cases such as these and I do not see anything that makes this a particularly bad case. I would not wish anyone especially the parents, to think I am minimising the effect on the children of living in such variable and sometimes unacceptable conditions I am not. It affects a child's development in many different spheres and the maintenance of an acceptable home is of great importance to a child's development in every way.
64. I turn now to the state of the home at the date of removal namely 17 July 2013
65. I have in reaching my conclusions on this aspect had particular regard to the evidence of the Housing Officer, Ms Walker-Smart, the written evidence of the parents, photographs taken on 20 June and 16 July 2013, an e mail from the Council's surveyor and the footage of the Body Worn Camera.
66. The e mail from the surveyor is particularly helpful. He describes the home as being in a "very poor state of repair" and to have been "very cluttered and unclean with various areas of minor damage to the fabric of the building". According to the Housing Officer a lot of the repairs had not been reported and that it was the tenant's obligation to do so.
67. I am satisfied that the following is a fair summary of the state of the home on the 17 July 2013.
68. The home required significant work done to it. A ceiling had fallen down due to an upstairs leak. The leak had not been repaired properly as F says and the ceiling therefore could not be repaired. I accept that this had been reported. There were other problems. The boiler needed replacing, the gas had been capped, there were some minor wiring problems and there was a need for decoration. The condition of the home gave the impression of being cluttered, overcrowded and neglected. The bathroom was inaccessible as the body cam showed and the bedrooms were cluttered and unusable. As far as I can see the family were living in one room on the ground floor.
69. I am satisfied that the property had not been condemned by the housing department nor was it dangerous, although I am satisfied that the family needed re-housing as a matter of urgency. I make it clear I am not concluding that the LA had grounds based on housing issues to remove the children and it does not contend that. I simply make the point that the house was too small for them and was in a state. In short the family needed help.
70. Generally with respect to housing conditions and threshold I am satisfied that the parents could have done more to keep their home in an acceptable state when judged from the standard of the reasonable parent including informing or badgering the housing department about the problems with the property and that their failure to do so caused the children to be placed at risk of significant harm. There was clearly much work to be done given the state of it in July 2013. However, as the mother submits the problems were swiftly remedied after the children were removed and the parents did not have to move out. Further, the parents' failure must be viewed in the light of the difficulties they have and which prevented them addressing these issues consistently. The therapy and parenting work will address the underlying problems that caused this.
71. The way forward for threshold issues
72. For the future I accept the good sense of the mother's submissions that Action Plans covering education, health and housing need to be agreed and put in place. Those prepared by the mother's team seem to me to be a good starting point for discussion.
73. Breaches of the family's Human Rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention
74. The factual matrix underpinning the breaches
75. Removal
76. Social worker Ms X was allocated to these children on 27 October 2011 and remained their social worker until Sarah Walker Smart was allocated the case in June 2013. During this time she formed a working relationship with the family.
77. She was clearly concerned at A and B's lack of schooling, failure to engage fully with health professionals and issues of basic neglect. Such was her concern that she initiated the PLO process on 12 April 2012. The PLO letter was clear and Ms X spelt out what was required. See Mrs Randall's comments at D131.
78. As early as 11 May 2012 Ms X had identified that the parents were unsure how to work with professionals and that the parents become aggressive and hostile.
79. By April 2013 Mrs Randall's opinion based on the recordings of Ms X was that little had really been achieved during 18 months of PLO process. D133
80. In late Spring early summer 2013 Ms X obtained a new post within the authority. She made her last visit to the family on 4 June 2013. By this time Ms X had begun compiling information for Core Assessments on all the children and it was made a condition of her leaving that she completed Comprehensive Core Assessments. I heard evidence that I accept that Lisa Humphreys and Kim Goode were exasperated by Ms X's failure to complete them.
81. The new social worker allocated to the children was Sarah Walker Smart. She was new to this team and relatively inexperienced in child protection work. Her manager remained Kim Goode who was and is extremely experienced in such work having been in it for 18 years.
82. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart carried out an introductory joint visit on 20 June 2013. I am satisfied that Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart found a situation that they had not been fully prepared for by Ms X's case recordings. This was not only in relation to the condition of the home and children but also the attitude of the parents. The mother in particular was difficult and hostile. I pause there to record that whilst I make criticism of the parents it must be seen in the context of their then unidentified difficulties and the attitude of Kim Goode who I am quite sure did nothing to calm the situation. I have seen and heard Ms Goode. She is a strong willed, forceful, opinionated person who it would be difficult to challenge effectively or at all. Her manner of answering during cross examination amply demonstrated this.
83. As a result of what they saw and as a result of there having been 18 months without sustained change Ms Goode and Ms Walker Smart decided that the case should be taken to a legal strategy meeting. This took place on 24 June 2013. see K136.
84. It was decided that the Comprehensive Core Assessment "with concerns" should be concluded as soon as possible, that care proceedings should be instigated and that a new PLO letter would be written. This was delivered to the parents on 27 June which was the same date as Sarah Walker Smart's first statement.
85. On 11 July Ms Walker Smart visited the home and found things largely the same as before but that the children's presentation was "Ok".
86. On 12 July Care Proceedings were issued and on the 15 July directions given including a direction for the LA to file and serve the "current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers". A21
87. Also on this date the Housing Officer visited the home. He was clearly concerned by the condition of the property; a number of problems with the condition of the property that had not been reported and the overcrowding but I am satisfied he does not "condemn" it or say that it is dangerous. He did believe that the family should be temporarily or permanently re-housed.
88. On 15 July the court made directions including giving a hearing date for a contested ICO.
89. On 16 July Ms Walker Smart spoke to the Housing Officer. She purportedly interpreted what he said as the house was condemned, dangerous and unfit for the family to remain in. It is clear from Ms Walker Smart's e mail of the same date that she was trying to get Mr Sibley to say that the property was unsafe and dilapidated due to the parents' neglect and makes it clear that "we are planning to remove the children" and "need as much evidence as possible based on the home conditions being unsafe".
90. I am satisfied that by this date Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart had decided that the children should be removed from their parents care and that they intended to bolster their case by involving the housing department. This is clear from the wording of the e mail and I interpret the e mail as pressure being put on the Housing Officer. It was clear from his evidence to me that he was not prepared to do so.
91. Lisa Humphreys told me that she had approved the cost of B&B and that she had not approved the removal of the children from their parents. This does not fit in with the content of the e mail and I have trouble believing that Kim Goode would construct a plan for removal without the approval of her DSM.
92. On 17 July at 09:00 Sarah Walker Smart made a visit to the home. It was she said her view that the children were "no longer safe in the home and that if they remained they could experience significant harm". In reality I doubt that anything was very much different from before and I am certain that the grounds for immediate separation were not there. She reported on what she saw to Kim Goode.
93. At 11:17 that day Kim Goode set out an action plan. That action plan clearly expected the police to use their administrative powers to remove the children. She does record that if the police won't agree to do so then the mother is to be asked to go to B&B with the children. Ms Walker Smart never offered this option to the mother and I am satisfied from the video footage and her evidence that this option was never in her mind. It is probable that Kim Goode never discussed this option with her.
94. At 15:30 that day a joint police and social services visit took place. The LA accepts that the visit and removal was unlawful and breached the family's Human Rights. The details of the breaches are set out later in this judgment.
95. I have viewed the Body Worn Camera footage. I can well see why the LA makes the admissions it does. The removal was a flagrant breach of this family's Human Rights. There were insufficient grounds for such action and it is clear the police felt that too as they did not try to use their administrative powers; the correct procedure was not followed; no true consent was obtained, and that which was obtained came from F under duress. Further he did not have power to give consent for the older two children as he did not have parental responsibility a fact Ms Walker Smart should have known.
96. I am asked by F to find that the use of the police was a manipulation to coerce the parents. I am not satisfied that the social workers were deliberately trying to manipulate the police although I am satisfied that the effect on the parents was to coerce them. The parents, mother in particular could be verbally aggressive and had been so to Ms Goode. In circumstances where it had been decided to remove the children from their parents and it could reasonably be anticipated that the parents could be hostile, it would be appropriate to involve the police to avoid there being a breach of the peace. However, the video footage shows that the situation was badly handled with 8 police officers and two social workers descending on the parents and presenting them with no choice but to relinquish their children. There were no grounds for such removal, there was no discussion, no alternatives offered and it was clearly the intention of Ms Walker Smart to remove the children from their parents' care come what may by asking for consent to s20 accommodation if the police did not act.
97. Factual matrix underpinning the failure to disclose material evidence
98. This relates to the Comprehensive Core Assessment that Ms X completed and sent to Kim Goode for what has been described "Quality Assurance".
99. Ms X completed writing her CCA on 18 June 2013. See P125. The Assessment contained both positives and negatives. It was therefore a balanced report. She e mailed it to Kim Goode.
100. On 27 June 2013 Sarah Walker Smart swore her first statement asking the Court to read her statement along with the " Core Assessment (July 2013) completed by Ms X" (my emphasis).
101. On 10 July Ms Melanie Kingsley asked Kim Goode to forward Ms X's core Assessment. Kim Goode replied saying she just wanted to "pad out the conclusion before it goes off".
102. On 15 July the court directed the LA to file and serve the "current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers".
103. On 16 July Kim Goode made substantial changes to Ms X's Comprehensive Core Assessment (CCA) which are recorded by the word processing programme by way of tracked changes. All the substantive changes made are negative. The changes change the tenor and conclusions of the report completely. The picture painted by it is now wholly negative and would if accepted, have the effect of substantially improving the LA's case for removal of the children, probably permanently. In my judgment these changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite and were not a proper use of the Quality Assurance system.
104. Ms X never approved the changes.
105. Kim Goode sent the track changed document to Sarah Walker Smart on 17 July at 13:02 who made few if any and no substantial changes. She could not make many changes as she had little knowledge of the family due to her brief involvement. She signed the assessment as if it were her own and it was served on 6 August.
106. Ms X's CCA was not filed in accordance with the court order.
107. An order was made for the CCA to be filed by 30 July. Ms X's version was never filed.
108. Solicitors for the parents asked on numerous occasions for the disclosure of the document referred to in Ms Walker Smart's statement and for any documents prepared by Ms X.
109. On 22 August 2013 Melanie Kingsley in response stated in an e mail:
     "an assessment was started by Ms X but not concluded. The decision was taken that because Ms X no longer works for the department, the new social worker SW would compile an entirely new assessment, as it would not be appropriate for her to complete another person's partially completed piece of work. Accordingly Sarah Walker-Smart wrote and filed a new Core Assessment which is in this bundle. There is nothing outstanding from Ms X which may be filed with the parties"
110. I am satisfied that this e mail gave a deliberate and entirely false impression. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart knew that Ms X had completed her assessment. The problem was that Kim Goode did not like it. In her opinion it did not fit in with her assessment of the family's circumstances. Kim Goode knew Ms X had completed it because she had changed it. Ms Walker Smart knew Ms X had completed it as she had seen the tracked changed document which was obviously based on Ms X's completed work.
111. I am also satisfied that the legal department knew of the existence of the Ms X piece of work as Ms Kingsley had referred to it in her e mail of 10 July.
112. Twice more did Ms Coates ask for Ms X's "draft" to be filed and served. Ms Kingsley replied on 13 November 2013 "there is nothing that can be filed". Again this was patently untrue.
113. On 31 March 2014 Sarah Walker Smart commenced giving evidence before me. A transcript of her evidence is at 72.1 of the transcript section.
114. She was asked in chief:
     "Have you ever seen a core assessment completed by Ms X?
     "No"
     "Can you explain the reference to one in your statement?"
     ".. there was an assumption that Ms X had completed a Core Assessment..so I relied upon an assessment that did not exist. That's completely my error."
     I then asked:
     "You have given the date of July 2013 which rather implies that you had some basis to believe that there had been a Core Assessment carried out. What was your factual basis for that?"
     Answer:" The team manager" Kim Goode, "assumed that Ms X had written one".
115. I asked whether Kim Goode had checked for the Core Assessment. I was told that she had and that she could not find it.
116. Sarah Walker Smart went onto to say that she had not checked. She said:
     "I've never seen a Core Assessment in Ms X's name."
117. I have considered this evidence very carefully and been mindful of the two fold test in the R v Lucas direction that I must give myself when encountering lies.
118. I am satisfied that her evidence that she had never seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X was a lie. Sarah Walker Smart had seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X. She had seen the tracked changed version e mailed to her by Kim Goode. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was a deliberate lie to try to deflect attention from the existence of that document. I do not make this finding lightly or willingly but the evidence drives me to it. This lie was repeated in her evidence given to me on 25 November 2014.
119. I am also satisfied that she lied when she said that the reference to such an assessment in her statement was a "mistake" based on an "assumption". I am satisfied that the reason she mentioned it was because she had seen Ms X's Core Assessment and she did not think there was anything wrong in referring to it. It was only afterwards that the import of what she had done became clear. In my judgment this is the only logical reason why she would have mentioned it. Her attempts to say it was a wrong "assumption" on the part of herself and Kim Goode was a fabrication. Again I do not reach this conclusion lightly but it is an inevitable one. Again she repeated this lie in evidence in November.
120. Ms Walker Smart had the opportunity to disclose the existence of the Ms X assessment during the April part of this final hearing but did not take it. She chose to try to get away with the deception she had practised. I made it clear at the end of that hearing that I was worried about this issue and that I required full enquiries to be made to see if such a document existed. See 72.45 line 30 of the transcript of Ms Walker Smart's evidence.
121. Lisa Humphreys was also at court during the April hearing. She knew that the parents' advocates wanted Ms X's assessment disclosed and she knew of its existence yet she did not then or afterwards bring its existence to the attention of the court, the new social work team or the legal department. She could have accessed it easily as it was located in her 'Outlook' programme on her computer.
122. The completed Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment was eventually disclosed inadvertently as part of the disciplinary proceedings' file in relation to Ms X in early August 2014. Kim Goode had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms X as a result of what she saw were serious failings in her work. As a result Ms X was dismissed from her employment. Her health is now so poor that she was unable to give evidence. I do not know whether her poor health and the disciplinary proceedings are linked but they cannot have helped her. This is not the place to comment on the appropriateness of that investigation, its fairness or its conclusions but I do ask the LA to robustly review their conclusions and decision in the light of this judgment and all that is now known about this case.
123. Kim Goode's involvement in this deception was examined in the November hearing.
124. I am satisfied she knew of Ms X's completed CCA as she had changed it. I am also satisfied she knew that the parties and court wanted it disclosed and she had decided that she would not.
125. At one point I asked her:
     "So it was a deliberate decision by yourself not to let the court and the parents have" the Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment and the guardian. Is that right?"
     "Yes" she answered.
126. Whilst she tried to persuade me that she did this out of concern for the children as she felt the assessment was not accurate, I find this suggestion breathtaking. This is a manager with 18 years experience deliberately flouting the lawful request of the parents for disclosure of information and more to the point flouting court orders for such disclosure. At one point she tried to suggest that she was unaware of the duty to disclose, which I find as Mr Ker-Reid put it "incredible" in both senses of the word.
127. There was a particularly telling piece of cross examination by Mr Ker-Reid when he put this question to her:
     "You were overtly, determinedly, seeking to deceive courts of justice, put your head together with other professionals in your department, whether legal or social workers, to tell judges of the Family Court that there was not an assessment by Ms X which you knew there was? That is right is it not?"
     Answer: "It is but I.."
     Q: "It is".
     Answer: ... "gave the explanation".
     Q: "We have your answer, done".
128. I am satisfied that this question and answer perfectly sums up the thinking of Kim Goode and her approach to this case. I heard Kim Goode's "explanation" and I am not satisfied by it. Her perception of whether the assessment was correct or not was not a reason for non-disclosure particularly in the face of a Court order. It was as she conceded dishonest to have said that there was no assessment from Ms X. I am satisfied that this "explanation" was in fact an attempt to deflect blame away from herself.
129. I have already commented on my impression of Ms Kim Goode from my observation of her in the witness box and from her work on this case. She is a strong personality and I am satisfied that those subordinate to her would find it hard to challenge her. This atmosphere is probably what led Ms Walker Smart into such grave error. Whilst this may be an isolated incident in her career I have very grave concerns as to Kim Goode's working practises in this case and in my judgment a thorough review of her work and management style should be undertaken by the LA.
130. I have made some comments about the involvement of Lisa Humphreys in this case. I found her to be a very strong and forceful personality. Whether her management style fed into or off Kim Goode I cannot say but I am clear that they are similar in management style. Subordinates would find it hard to say no to or challenge her.
131. Her response to hearing of Ms Walker Smart's lies to me was astounding. She thought it was "foolish". I am afraid that is not the way I see it and it is not the way she should have seen it. Such a comment makes the lies seem like minor misdemeanours which they are not.
132. I also found her failure to accept personal responsibility for what has happened in this case depressing. Whilst of course managers cannot be responsible for rogue employees and their decisions are only as good as the information they are given by their subordinates, they should at least sound as if they mean any apologies they give. The one she gave the parents during her evidence did not sound heartfelt and I noted that there was no apology to the Court for the lies that had been told or the unnecessary delay that had occurred by those under her. It is probable that she saw no harm in withholding the Ms X CCA as she seemed to me to be fully in support of withholding it, because in her view it was not an accurate piece of work.
133. Conclusions and Findings on Human Rights breaches
134. It follows from my conclusions above that this family's Human Rights have been breached. The parties have produced one combined document for me to consider covering the breaches that the parents, A, B and the Guardian allege have occurred and the LA's response to each of them. In short the LA has albeit late in the day, conceded all of the general breaches alleged and most of the specific facts that go towards those general conclusions. I have amalgamated the various breaches from this composite document and my findings and condensed them into a manageable form. My findings are as follows.
135. Removal of the children on 17 July 2013
136. The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully and disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 purportedly pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. I am satisfied that it did this by:

a)   Taking a decision to pursue police protection in preference to the provision of alternative accommodation;

b)   Failing to consider making an application for an EPO or short notice ICO;

c)   Failing to consider whether any family placements were available;

d)   Failing to inform the parents of the available options such as B&B

e)   Failing to encourage the parents to seek legal advice or the advice of family or friends;

f)   Acting without the Father's informed consent to the removal;

g)   Acting without the consent (informed or otherwise) of the Mother;

h)   Acting without the consent of any person with parental responsibility for A and B;

i)   Purporting to act under section 20 of the Children Act by seeking the consent of the parents in the presence of 8 uniformed police officers presenting an overt threat of police protection;

j)   Acting in knowledge of the Father's expressed belief that the police would act to remove the children in any event;

k)   Removing the children in circumstances which did not reach the test for an emergency removal;

l)   Purportedly justifying the removal at the time and subsequently by way of reasons which were incorrect and/or known to be untrue by the Social Worker namely that the home had been condemned; and

m)   Failing to obtain the wishes and feelings of the children contrary to section 20(6) of the Children Act 1989.

n)   Failing to have in place a policy document guiding procedures when social workers attend a family with police, such document having been directed by HHJ Levey DFJ to be produced in or about January 2013;

o)   Upon it becoming known to the Team Manager and/or District Service Manager that the Social Worker had acted disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 the LA should have taken steps to rectify matters by offering to reunite the children and parents in alternative accommodation but failed to do so.

138. Failure to disclose material evidence

139.         The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully by materially failing to comply with its duty to disclose documents which modified and/or cast doubt on its case and/or supported the case of the parents by:

 

a.   Failing to disclose the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X as directed as early as 15 July 2013 or at all prior to its inadvertent disclosure pursuant to a court order on 11.8.14 relating to disclosure of disciplinary proceedings concerning Ms X;

b.   Failing to disclose the ICS Core Assessments of Ms X as directed or prior to 1.4.14;

c.   Failing to disclose ICS notes with the District Service Manager's comments due to inconsistent practices in recording information by her;

d.   Failing to disclose case recordings until directed to do so by the court on 3.3.14; and

e.   Failing to inform the parties of the existence of the video of the children's removal and/or disclose the video itself until directed to do so by the court in May 2014. This video was in the possession of Kim Goode and viewed by her within weeks of the unlawful removal. She knew that the removal was unlawful but failed to do anything about it.

140.         The non-disclosure of the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X in the face of repeated requests from the parties and directions of the court was deliberate and the decision not to disclose the document was known to Sarah Walker-Smart, Kim Goode, Lisa Humphreys and the Legal Department.

141.         The LA misled the court and the parties as to the existence of a Comprehensive Core Assessment undertaken by Ms X.

142.         In particular the LA does not dispute and I find that Sarah Walker Smart lied on oath on 31 March 2014 when she said she had never seen a core assessment completed by Ms X; that Kim Goode had looked for one and had not found one and that the reference in her first statement to such an assessment was therefore an error.

143.         Further, Sarah Walker-Smart repeated the lies on oath on 25 November 2014.

144.         The LA's failure to comply with its duty of disclosure caused an incomplete picture to be presented to the Guardian and to the court within the LA's evidence filed before 7.4.14.

145. Denial of fair opportunity to participate in decision making
146. I make the following findings in relation to this head.
147. The parents were not consulted about the removal of the children.
148. Neither the Court nor the parents were provided with the investigations and recordings which precipitated the applications to separate C from A and B or to apply for a section 34 order to "terminate" contact;
149. In respect of the application to terminate contact, Hampshire County Council relied upon reports from foster carers upon which they did not seek the parents' instructions. The foster carers' reports were inconsistent with Hampshire's own evidence such as contact supervisor recordings;
150. Hampshire County Council undertook sibling assessments without discussing the children and their attachments with their parents, or indeed observing the children together;
151. Hampshire County Council failed to convene a Family Group Conference or take any steps to explore potential family support, which led to their overlooking the Gs and issuing placement applications although the parents did not bring the existence of the Gs or their willingness to offer care to the attention of HCC until August 2014;
152. It is alleged that the parents have been excluded from LAC and PEP reviews and all medical appointments for all of the children. I have not been addressed in submissions on this point and so can make no findings. If it is thought significant I will hear further submissions on this point;
153. Hampshire County Council failed to provide the parents with contact notes and foster carer records in accordance with the Court's direction or on a regular basis. This has deprived the parents of the ability to address any identified issues and effect change.
154. Hampshire County Council had been "put on notice" of their Human Rights breaches by the order of 07.04.14 (A121); further order on 08.05.14 and Mother's detailed skeleton argument setting out both limbs of her argument which was filed and served on 17.06.14. However, they continued to deny any wrongdoing until:
1. On or about 10.11.14 in respect of the unlawful removal;
2. On or about 14.11.14 in respect of the material non-disclosure. Indeed this was described by Hampshire on 29.07.14 as a " last minute fishing expedition speculatively raised" [135].
155. Failure to promote family life
156. The LA breached the children's right to family life by failing to set up or maintain regular family or inter-sibling contact during proceedings up until 31 March 2014.

157.         I am also satisfied that FC2 particularly Mrs FC2 became inappropriately attached to the children she was looking after. She allowed herself to become emotionally involved so that she tried to "claim" them for herself. This was not picked up upon by the social workers quickly enough. They were getting reports from FC2 that conflicted with the reports of their own contact supervisors yet this was not properly or timeously investigated. It was this failure to control FC2 that led to no proper inter-sibling contact taking place and E not seeing his parents for a considerable period of time.

158.         As a result of the failures of Hampshire County Council to provide all relevant material and to conduct the matter in an open and fair way, the care plans for A and B as presented to the court for the hearing commencing 31 ^st March 2014 were particularly distressing in that they provided not only for separation of the siblings but that for B he was to have very restricted contact with his parents and siblings; such care plans were wholly unjustified and were changed by the then Service Manager Lisa Humphreys on or about 1 ^st April 2014 it being noted that this was without the court or any party having heard any evidence on this issue.

159. Other failures

160.         The evidence presented to the court in the statement of Sarah Walker-Smart dated 27.6.13 upon issue of the LA's application and in support of its application for interim care orders was unfair in that it was unbalanced and in parts inaccurate.

161.         As conceded immediately in evidence by Ms Gibson the LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair assessment of the parents' ability to care for the children by way of the assessment by the family centre worker and the social work assessment of Sarah Walker-Smart.

162.         The LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair sibling assessment in particular because they were undertaken without sibling contact being observed.

163.         Impact of HCC's human Rights breaches

164. I accept that Hampshire County Council's Human Rights breaches have had a significant impact upon the family, the timescales and fairness of these proceedings.
165. The children were separated from their parents unlawfully and the decision as to their futures inexcusably delayed.
166. The separation was effected in an unnecessarily distressing manner, which caused the entire family but particularly the younger children, considerable anxiety and distress. The children were significantly negatively affected by it.
167. The family had been separated for almost a week by the time the matter was first considered by the Court.
168. Once a child has been removed it is harder to mount and succeed in an application for his return given that the child will have suffered the experience of removal and will have been placed in a neutral setting.
169. Hampshire County Council's material non-disclosure deprived the parents of mounting any realistic challenge to the children's continued removal under an ICO at the hearing on 23.07.13 or indeed at any time thereafter and the court was unable to properly scrutinise the LA evidence or care plans.
170. The cases concerning interim removal of children deliberately set a high bar before removal is allowed. The chance of demonstrating consistent good parenting with the children at home is denied to the parents once the children are removed.
171. Had Hampshire County Council disclosed pre-proceedings assessments and notes and engaged with the issues identified pre-proceedings, a psychological assessment would have been ordered early in the proceedings. This would have provided the vital framework for the proceedings and shortened the time that the family were within proceedings.
172. The length of proceedings and the adjournment of final hearings has caused significant distress and trauma to the children and parents. The attachments of D and E to their parents and siblings have been harmed.
173. The parents' trust issues have been compounded by the LA's actions and they have been distressed at the Authority's continuing misconduct thereby rendering effective engagement extremely difficult (by way of example, see Helen Randall's report paras 321-325). This has had a significant negative effect on the assessments conducted within these proceedings.

174.         Remedies, Damages, Costs

175.         All I intend doing at this stage in proceedings is to make the declarations that properly reflect the Human Rights breaches by HCC. I will deal with any question of damages once I know the outcome of the case generally. I note that none of the children have made claims for remedies other than declarations at this stage. That is a matter for them and their legal teams of course but I can see the sense in waiting not only for the outcome of these proceedings but for the full effect of these breaches to be known.

176.         As to costs I am satisfied that HCC must pay the costs of the other parties with respect to the wasted days in March and April. In my judgment days two and four the 1st and 4th April were wholly wasted due to the LA's failure to disclose documents and in relation to the latter day the inappropriate actions of Lisa Humphreys who nearly lost FC1 as a foster placement for A and B. These costs will be subject to a detailed public funding assessment if they cannot be agreed.

177. Required Action

178.         I heard evidence from the family centre worker who tried to carry out a parenting assessment in the late summer of 2013. She told me and I accept that she was denied access to the system so that she could not view all the information that was held on the family. This had the result that her assessment was not full and therefore not fair through no fault of her own. I accept also that she was labouring under pressure from Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart who regarded the family as beyond hope. What she did produce was ignored by the old team especially the fact that the family centre worker to her credit, had managed to engage both parents effectively.

179.         I also heard evidence from Mrs Randall the Independent Social Worker. She had only been given limited access to the system and had not been allowed to take photocopies or printouts of documents. This severely hampered her work and meant that she spent several days in the offices of the LA making hand written notes.

180.         Steps must be taken to ensure that assessors and Independent Social Workers have full access to a family's files; are not put under pressure and must be given the opportunity to take copies of documents.

181. In my judgment HCC needs to deliver a programme of training for all levels of social workers, managers and lawyers addressing the subjects of compliance with court orders; administrative removal; the use of Emergency Protection Orders; urgent Interim Care Orders; Interim Care Orders; their duty of disclosure and trial fairness; identifying the need for psychological assessments; proper record keeping; Quality Assurance, what it is and what it is not and access by assessors and Independent Social Workers to LA records for the purpose of compiling their reports. Only if these issues are addressed through training will the mistakes that were made in this case be avoided in the future.
182. There needs to be a policy covering removal of children from the family whether under police powers, EPO or ICO that is published, clear and concise. It should include checklist documents to enable the social workers who may be operating under pressure to check that what they plan to do or are doing is lawful.
183. HCC needs to investigate the role that its legal department played in the unlawful removal of the children and the withholding of the Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment. There is evidence that they gave advice in relation to both. The legal department has not been subject to the same scrutiny as the social workers due in part to legal professional privilege but mainly due to a need to control the scope of this case which has already taken up much court time and public resources.
184. Publication and referral
185. In accordance with the President's Guidance this judgment will be published on BAILII in an anonymised form to protect the identity of this family. In addition it will be sent to HHJ Levey Designated Family Judge for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the Head of Children's Services in Hampshire, the Director of Social Services in Hampshire and the professional bodies of Sarah Walker-Smart, Kim Goode and Lisa Humphreys.

 

 

 

His Honour Judge Mark V Horton

18 December 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE	EVENT	REF
3.4.64	F born
20.8.77	M born
23.3.99	A born
25.12.00	B born
17.3.05	A's school attendance at 47%	I41
Oct 05	Request to support sent to Education Welfare	I28
22.2.06	Education Planning Meeting - due to no school attendance
5.12.06	B's attendance below 50%	I41
2007	Education prosecution Withdrawn/dismissed	D129
1.11.07	C born
4.2.08	Referral from W Junior School	B289, D130
Apr 08	Home education	I28
May 08	File closed	D130
10.11.08	File closed	D130
28.8.09	M assaults F in drink
May 10	Parents issued with letter giving 15 days to find suitable education or LEA would apply for school attendance order	I28
8.9.10	A & B enrolled at X primary school Attended for 9 days	D130
Apr-Aug 10	A DNA 3 follow up appointments at John Radcliffe Hospital	I41
9.8.10	D born
15.11.10	EW advised A and B had not attended X primary school	I28
17.11.10	F convicted of Benefit Fraud Community Order - curfew, unpaid work Deduction from benefits to repay debt	D130
Jan 11	EH (educational welfare officer) commences trying to secure A and B's attendance at school	E70
17.2.11	Visit by EH and police Events recorded by EH disputed by F	B28, E4, I29
3.3.11	Joint visit with EW	D130
11.4.11	Core Assessment - VC (social worker) Start date 11.4.11 - End date 6.7.11	N219
3.5.11	First Warning sent A and B school attendance 25%	B10, I29
18.5.11	Education planning meeting •          Final warning to be issued •          EW to monitor attendance and joint visit •          School - transition work with A •          SW to complete application form for Y school •          Work to be given to A to take home - F to ensure goes back to school •          F to provide medical evidence for any absence due to illness	E120
6.7.11	Core Assessment - VC A, B & D	N219, N236, N252
8.7.11	Case transferred to CIN Team - allocated to MS (social worker)	D130
12.9.11	Education Planning Meeting •          A and B attendance 26% •          B described as highly emotional, distressed and anxious
4.10.11	ICPC Chair's summary of professional concerns: •          Failure to attend school •          Poor home conditions and inappropriate sleeping arrangements •          Being unkempt and dirty •          Being obese/having weight issues •          Lack of opportunities to play/engage in outside activity •          All within context of parents failing to engage with professionals and children being party to conflict with professionals •          Risk relates to neglect Child Protection Plans - Neglect [N198] Reports to conference	I58, N198
Oct 11	Sessions arranged for C at nursery Not taken up	N99
7.10.11	Working agreement	Bi
Oct 11	A and B now sleeping upstairs but sharing mattress	I16
Oct 11	LA provided skip - bedrooms cleared and being painted by F	D131
Oct 11	A & B did not attend appointments with Dr L	D16, N447
7.10.11	CP Visit - Unknown SW Home conditions much improved. Bedrooms now habitable and appropriate bedding. Children were presentable.	K79
27.10.11	Ms X becomes allocated SW	E1
13.11.11	E born
22.11.11	Dr L, Consultant Paediatrician •          C - generally health, weight centile in excess of height centile, strategy discussed, development appropriate for age, F discussed plan to attend pre-school, likely to be significant benefit •          D - weight centile in excess of length centile, plan discussed to tackle, motor development satisfactory, self care and speech and language reported satisfactory	D24, N448- N450
29.11.11	School attendance 50%
15.12.11	RCPC •          A & B missed paediatric review appointments [I77] •          No concerns re engagement with health visiting service [I77] •          School Nurse reporting difficulties arranging appointments [I77] Chair's summary •          Children present as polite, happy and have not raised any significant concerns themselves. Parents provide emotional warmth and have address some concerns raised at ICPC •          Children now provided with appropriate sleeping arrangements and general home conditions improved •          No concerns re physical presentation since last conference •          Although younger children overweight now not gaining additional weight disproportionately so with sensible eating weight issues should resolve •          Significant concerns remain regarding exceptionally poor school attendance of A & B. concerned that without a lot of additional work regarding the relationship between family and education issues unlikely to resolve. F says health related but GP does not believe true in every case. Remain on CPP [N207] Reports at [N86-109]	I1, I73, N86, N207
	Referral to MEND
6.1.12	Dr L, consultant paediatrician •          A - would like further review of hands, weight centile significantly in excess of height centile (24 kg), aim not to gain any further weight before review in 6m •          B & A - Arrangements for baseline blood tests re repeated infections (DNA)	D1, D16, D20
16.1.12	Legal Strategy Meeting	K111
30.1.12	LA decision to implement PLO
13.2.12	Letter from GP surgery	D5
4.2.12	HV - family not currently engaging	D12
9.2.12	Dr W, consultant paediatrician Letter re B	E101
28.2.12	F cancels children's attendance at MEND	M12
Apr 12	F reports that he is home educating Not informed LEA
12.4.12	CP visit PLO letter read to parents by Ms X	D131
17.5.12	PLO Planning Meeting	Biii
22.5.12	E DNA for appointment re hip	N154
31.5.12	RCPC Minutes not in bundle CPP [N210] Reports [N109.1-134]	N109.1, N210
13.6.12	Core Assessment - Ms X A, B, D & E	D132, N267, N291, N315
Jul 12	A's school attendance - 30% - not attended since May	E11
Jul 12	A & B did not attend review with Dr L	D8, D16
Jul 12	M offered help to access counselling	D132
19.7.12	Legal Strategy Meeting	K117
13.8.12	B underwent circumcision •          First referred in 2008 due to difficulties passing urine (spraying), tight foreskin and repeated balanitis - DNA •          Not taken for follow-up in Oct 12	D20
19.9.12	Warning re school attendance	E49
Oct 12	B missed follow up for circumcision	D20
10.10.12	Education planning meeting re A •          EH to send referral to Motiv8 to F •          School nurse to write to F re A •          Final warning to be issued •          School to monitor attendance and keep Parents updated •          Ps to keep school informed re absences	E51
11.10.12	Final warning re school attendance	E57
8.11.12	RCPC Parents did not attend Chair's summary: Protective factors •        Present as close family who are supportive •        Children appropriately presented •        Children present well socially and appear happy •        Parents observed to offer children emotional warmth •        Observations suggest children provided with age appropriate stimulation within home •        Family continue to engage with SW visiting •        Despite NSPCC concerns CSD view is home conditions maintained to appropriate standard Risk factors •        Since last RCPC - medical opinion that some health issues but not warrant current level of absence from school •        C yet to attend school, A & B are in effect non-school attendees •        B remains significantly obese, engagement with wider health services improved a little but patchy •        Housing has made application for possession •        Parents' presentation can be variable. Trust may be significant issue. Remain on CPP [N213] Reports [N155-169]	K1, N155, N213
17.12.12	PLO Review	K122
Jan 13	C attained compulsory school age
4.2.13	T/Call - M & HV - M reports E's eye has 'turned inwards' (cancelling visit also - further visit rearranged but cancelled - no visit until 20.3.13)	N187
20.2.13	Ps formulating plan for home education	7
11.3.13	Ms X's statement in Education Act proceedings	E1
20.3.13	HV and SW visit E strong squint, developed since 16.10.12 - 6 visits cancelled by Ps	D12, M78, M95, N188
15.4.13	F reports home educating A, B and C	7, M81
23.4.13	RCPC Ps DNA (advised SW going camping) Chair's summary: Protective factors •          Children subject to CPP since 4.10.11 •          Parents able to meet basic needs at an acceptable level •          Close relationships in family •          Parents allow SW into home •          Family subject to PLO so know what is expected of them Risk factors •          Risks not been reduced by CPP as parents not engaged •          Parents not allowing health professionals access to children •          Children all have outstanding immunisations •          No documents being maintained re home education and has not been assessed. No evidence that any home education happening and children will fail as their education is not meeting their needs •          Professionals are waiting for the outcome of court proceedings Remain subject to CPP (may need to look at PLO again) [N216] Reports [N172-197]	K16, M82, N172, N215
17.5.13	School attendance A's attendance 0.7% - only attendance this academic year on 1.10.12 B's attendance 1% - only attendance this academic year on 1.10.12 and pm of 2.10.12	E20, E32
20.5.13	PLO Review	K126
21.5.13	Statements of EG, Student Support Manager of Y School, in Education Act proceedings	E10, E30
May 13	E's orthoptics appointment missed	D13
4.6.13	Last CP Visit by Ms X Parents informed that will be new SW	M92-93
June 13 (?)	Core Assessments - Ms X A - Start date 10.3.13 [M200] C - Start date 10.4.13 [M222] B - Start date 15.4.13 [M244] Recorded visits all in April	D132, N359, N382, N405, N427
13.6.13	Legal Strategy Meeting	K129
18.6.13	PLO Letter	B1-4
20.6.13	CP visit - SWS & KG SWS's first visit meeting with parents and visit to family home	B13-14, 34, B95, B508, D133, M95
24.6.13	Legal Strategy Meeting	K136
27.6.13	CP visit by SWS Delivery of PLO letter	B15, M97
27.6.13	SWS's initial statement	C1
28.6.13	Parents enter guilty pleas in Education Act proceedings	B212
1.7.13	HV report Chronology of appointments and missed appointments	D9-14
Jul 13	Children receive immunisations Prior to this 29 immunisation appointments DNA'd	B48-49, D13
? Jul 13	Ms X's unsigned comprehensive core assessment	P193
4.7.13	CP visit by SWS	M100
5.7.13	CP visit by SWS	M101
11.7.13	CP visit by SWS	M103
11.7.13	Reports re Parenting Order by SWS	E104, E112
12.7.13	LA's application for care orders	A1
12.7.13	Visit by JS (Housing officer)	B511
15.7.13	Ps sentenced to 12 m supervision order and parenting order, M to attend women's group	N5
15.7.13	Court gives directions on issue, listing first hearing on 23.7.13	A20
16.7.13	B & A attend school (first time since October 2012)	M104
16.7.13	Email from housing officer to SWS	B415
17.7.13	Children removed by LA without lawful authority	B99, B392, B403, B407, B508, F11-23, M106-8
19.7.13	Child Protection Medicals •          A - complain of tooth pain, gums inflamed, no recent dental review, no obvious cavities, severely obese (BMI 34), A has complained episodes of vision blurring - refer to ophthalmology •          B - severely obese, BMI increased from 36 to 39 over last year - places health at significant risk, walks with swinging gate - orthopaedic review of hip, blood investigation to exclude complications of obesity •          C - severely obese (BMI 23), not had any routine hearing screening reviews, 3 bites over chest (could be flea), dental review •          D - severely obese (BMI 22), blood investigations to rule out complications of obesity, refer to dietician, hypermobile, dental review, unexplained bruise to forehead, cavities in teeth •          E - unexplained bruise to forehead, reviewed by ophthalmologist with left eye squint, HV review of development	D15-34
23.7.13	First Hearing in FPC Interim Care Orders	A26, 27
2.8.13	HV visit to D & E (at FC2) •          E has obvious Amblyopia (lazy eye) •          D & E demonstrate behaviours consistent with insecure attachment •          D 17.5 kg, E 11.9 kg •          Development review assessments booked	B135-137
7.8.13	Ms X placed on restricted duties	P332
Aug 13	F's first statement	B26
Aug 13	SWS' core assessment	B38
12.8.13	LAC Review	D134
13.8.13	M's first statement	B90
13.8.13	Planning meeting To agree support plan	B101, D38, I85
14.8.13	Interview of KG by SM	P124
15.8.13	M's Response to Threshold	18
15.8.13	Support Plan	B101
15.8.13	RCPC Noted by chair that this is the 5 th review of CPP which equates to the children having been subject to planning for almost 2 years which evidenced drift and a distinct lack of progress which is complete unacceptable. CPP discontinued as children in foster care. Reports [N1-69]	K44, N1
16.8.13	F's Response to Threshold	23
20.8.13	Guardian's initial analysis	D39
23.8.13	First session of PH's parenting assessment	B198
23.8.13	Letter from HV Referred Ps to Children's Centre for support with routines, budgeting ... and to Incredible Years	N462
30.8.13	Contested hearing re C's proposed placement move See proceedings chronology	A41-59
3.9.13	C moved foster placement
4.9.13	C started school	B252
6.9.13	D & E - HV visit - Developmental Reviews •          E - areas for input and development - communication (20/60), problem solving (10/60), personal-social skills (30/60) •          D - areas for input and development - communication (40/60), problem solving (40/60) •          Both referred to reviews by Pre-School Vision, Audiology, Speech and Language Therapy	B138-139
9.9.13	Interview of SWS by SM	P128
10.9.13	SWS records referral made to 'My time active'	D138
11.9.13	B & A - PEPs - 100% attendance	B129.1, B129.16
14.9.13	Sibling Contact Events disputed as recorded by the FC2 disputed by B	50.5
18.9.13	C - PEP - 100% attendance	B129.30
24.9.13	Alleged disclosures by C & D re D and F Section 47 investigation commenced	M272-M306
26.9.13	Joint Visit with Child Abuse Investigation Unit to C & D (at FC2) No clear disclosures by C or D	B255
3.10.13	Joint Visit with Child Abuse Investigation Unit to A and B (at School) No disclosures	B255
3.10.13	Disputed incident at contact session •          FC2 report parents aggressive and F sprayed asthma inhaler in male FC2's face •          Denied by parents - incident exaggerated •          Unknown whether parents' account now accepted by the LA	B124, B175, B246.9, G48, G52, CCTV
4.10.13	Contact suspended	D135
7.10.13	Disputed incident at contact session FC2 report Ps aggressive Denied by parents	B113, B178, B246.12, G54
14.10.13	Initial Permanence Medical Reports	D63-
14.10.13	Court hearing - contact issues discussed See proceedings chronology	A64
16.10.13	SWS statement in support of section 34(4) application	B104
17.10.13	Contact recommenced following agreement at court FCs not to bring children	D135
24.10.13	F's statement re LA's section 34(4) application	B171
28.10.13	LAC review B refusing CAMHS	37
29.10.13	LA's application for section 34(4) order adjourned See proceedings chronology	A76.1
29.10.13	M's second statement	B246.1
31.10.13	Last session of PH parenting assessment	B224
4.11.13	Sibling Assessment (MM)	B246.23
6.11.13	F's alcohol testing - negative	D55
11.11.13	Legal Strategy Meeting	K140
12.11.13	E taken to A&E - query allergy to BBQ sauce	D74
12.11.13	SWS's final statement	B247
13.11.13	Care Planning Meeting •          E - normal development, obvious left convergent squint requires urgent assessment •          D - overweight, development normal save delay in expressive language - speech and language therapy review	B284
14.11.13	Dr P - Dietary Assessment of B & A •          A BMI 29 (reduction from 34 on 19.7.13) •          B BMI 34 (reduction from 39 on 19.7.13) •          Both have changed diet dramatically, exercise has increased •          Review - January 2014	B326.1
21.11.13	M's alcohol testing - negative	D43
12.12.13	E stopped attending contact
18.12.13	Occupational therapy report for A •          Would benefit from extra time for long pieces of work/access to laptop •          No intervention required	B326.3
3.1.14	CAMHS report regarding B •          Enhanced Choice assessment completed - 21.10.13, 18.11.13 & 20.12.13 (meetings with professionals) •          SW & FC1s outlined multitude of concerns re behaviour and social functioning at initial meeting - exhibiting provocative behaviour, significantly enmeshed with A and strongly identified with F •          Head teacher reported incidences of bullying directed at B - improved since in care •          Continuing progress made since in care - greater levels of acceptance of carers and boundaries, showing signs of trust, remorse and sympathy, health independence growing. •          Meets criteria for therapeutic input, not appropriate whilst uncertain about future and experiencing high levels of uncertainty and tied loyalties	B326.4
14.1.14	B & A - PEP reviews •        B - does not put effort in. Doing well - improvement in attitude. At risk of underachieving. No reported bullying. •        A - receives home tuition, goes swimming, on list for dyslexia assessment, positive friendships with peers, school concerns re sexuality (other children saying she is a lesbian)	B326.7
4.2.14	Dr P - Review appointment •          A BMI 27.3 (reduction from 34 on 19.7.13 and 29 on 14.11.13) •          A reports things going well - continuing with current diet and exercise plan •          B BMI 30.5 (reduction from 39 on 19.7.13 and 34 on 14.11.13) •          B reports things going well. FC slightly concerned he is obsessed with food. A lot less breathless than he was.	B326.9, B326.11
26.2.14	M's statement	B327
27.2.14	Guardian's Case analysis	D78
27.2.14	E attends contact (first time since December) As reported by SWS to advocates at hearing on 3.3.14 (per author's note)
7.3.14	F's statement	B363.1
14.3.14	Addendum sibling assessment (MM)	B364
16.3.14	Sibling contact (following order of HHJ Horton on 7.3.14)	H83
17.3.14	Sibling assessment (SS)
	Legal Strategy Meeting
31.3.14	Final Hearing commenced SWS commenced giving evidence	72.1
1.4.14	Final Hearing day 2 Change of care plans for A and B at court Bundle of Core Assessments disclosed	90, N13
3.4.14	Final Hearing day 4 Schedule of Clarifications drafted at court Change of SW team - allocated to Shirley Gibson	92-3, N15
7.4.14	Judgment of HHJ Horton	84
7.4.14	M's statement	B389
30.4.13	Letter of LF Response to M's complaint	B402.1
May 14	Investigation report of SM, District Manager, re Ms X	P4
2.6.14	Notice of Suspension to Ms X (Letter from SA, Area Director)	P329
20.6.14	LAC Medicals - B & A •          A - lost over 3st, continues to be overseen by dietician, asthma, wear glasses •          B - has continued to lose weight (32" waist), overseen by dietician, asthma.	B537-8
	LAC Medical - C No concerns re health	B537
25.6.14	Formal disciplinary meeting - Ms X Evidence given by SWS, KG & LH Summary dismissal for gross misconduct.	P331-377
Jul 14	D & E - Developmental Reviews •          D - development improved - now achieving almost 97% of milestones •          E - caught up with developmental milestones.	B536
10.7.14	Dr Halari's report	D83.1
15.7.14	Helen Randall's report	D84
1.8.14	Statement of Shirley Gibson	B511
5.8.14	Final Hearing recommenced Court and parties informed of disciplinary proceedings regarding Ms X See proceedings chronology
8.8.14	PII hearing re disclosure of disciplinary papers	A174
8.8.14	F puts forward FC3 as alternative carers	A174
	Disclosure of Disciplinary Bundle [section P]	P1-377
22.8.14	Viability Assessment of FC3	B587
1.9.14	Guardian's report re: A, B & C	D198
Sep 14	D started Z Primary School
Sep 14	Parents self-referred to ITalk
9.9.14	Alex Winterbottom's report	D209
	Statement of M	B631
	Statement of F	B661
7.10.14	Alison Austin's report re FC3
9.10.14	PEP Meeting - C & D No documents filed	B704.5
15.10.14	Helen Randall's response to Alison Austin's report
16.10.14	Helen Randall's second response to Alison Austin's report
17.10.14	Alison Austin's response to Helen Randall's response	B679
17.10.14	F discharged from ITalk	B639, B704
29.10.14	Planning meeting	B704.6, B685, B709
30.10.14	Naomi Mason's report
5.11.14	LA's concession re Human Rights breach - removal
10.11.14	Dr Halari's addendum report in response to Naomi Mason's report
13.11.14	Parents commenced Triple P (face to face)
14.11.14	LA's concession re Human Rights breach - non-disclosure
17.11.14	Symbol Report	D247
17.11.14	Parents' statements	B682, B706
18.11.14	Helen Randall's addendum in response to Dr Halari's addendum, Naomi Mason, final evidence and Symbol report	D255
18.11.14	A - review appointment at John Radcliffe Hospital Outcome unknown	D95
19.11.14	IRH & Ground Rules Hearing Please see proceedings chronology	A332
24.11.14	Dr Halari's response to agreed questions re therapy and parenting work
24.11.14	Letter from Symbol answering additional question
24.11.14	Email from Naomi Mason
25.11.14	Final Hearing day 1
1.12.14	Planned visit to FC3 by SW, G & Helen Randall
16.12.14	Panel date for the FC1s
23.12.14	Christmas Contact for family
28.12.14	LA's proposed date for D & E to move to FC3 and C to move to FC1