England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No: MI13C20041

IN THE MILTON KEYNES COUNTY COURT

 

Date: 13^th. May 2014

Before

Her Honour Judge Brown.

 

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

B E T W E E N:

 

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Applicant

-and-

 

MOTHER

1^st Respondent

-and-

 

FATHER OF CA AND L

2^nd Respondent

-and-

 

FATHER OF K AND F

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

 

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

Mr. Wallace for the Local Authority.

Mr. Bond  for the Mother.

Mr. Green for the Father of K and F.

Ms. Todd for the Father of CA and L.

Ms. Teggin for the child C.

Ms. Preece  for the Children save for C.

(By their Children’s Guardian Ms. Sylvia Baker)

AM Paternal Aunf of K & F in person

GH partner of AM in person

Mrs MN in person but did not attend

 

Hearing dates: 29^th. April, 30^th. April, 1^st,   6^th. 7^th May 2014.

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

The orders made.

 

I will make the following orders.  I announced the orders I would make at the end of the hearing on 7^th. May 2014, save in respect of L and CA, as I needed further time to consider my decision in respect of these two children.

 

1.                  That the Residence Order in respect of C in favour of Mrs. MN is not discharged and remains in force.

2.                  That C be placed under the supervision of Buckinghamshire CC for a period of 12 months.

3.                  Care Order in respect of J approving her continued placement with her current foster carers.

4.                  Care Orders in respect of CA and L approving their move and placement with their maternal aunt and uncle in Wales.

5.                  I adjourned the applications for Care Orders and Placement Orders by the local authority and for Special Guardianship Orders by Ms. M and Ms. H in respect of K and F to 29.9.14.

6.                  I approved the local authority plans for contact save that I have made comments as set out below.

7.                  C and Mr. W are discharged as parties to the proceedings.

 

 

Judgment.

 

These are my reasons for the orders I have made.

 

The proceedings.

 

These proceedings are in respect of six children namely C now  nearly 15 years, J 13 years, L now 9 years old, CA now 8 years, K now nearly 4 years old and F now 2  1/2 years. 

 

In November 2013 I heard a fact finding hearing in respect of findings sought by the local authority against Mother and the father of K and F who I shall refer to as Mr. M.  I made serious findings against Mother and Mr. M..  I do not propose to set out the history here.  This judgment should be read together with that judgment.  I found that the section 31 threshold criteria were made in respect of each of the concerned children and therefore the full range of public law orders are open to me in respect of each child.

 

I should note here that the father of CA and L is a party to the proceedings.  I shall refer to him as Mr. W.

 

After the fact finding hearing, Mother, Mr. M and Mr. W underwent an assessment by a psychologist called Dr. Blumenthal.  He has prepared an assessment of these parents.  His recommendation is that none of these three parents can meet the needs of any of their respective children. 

 

The positions of the parties.

 

The positions of the parties have changed as the final welfare hearing approached but the positions of the parties at the commencement of this hearing were as follows;

 

The local authority’s plans in respect of each of the children;

 

That C should remain living with Mr. M’s mother, under a supervision order.

 

That J should remain in her current foster placement under a full care order.

 

That CA and L should be placed under a care order with their maternal aunt and uncle (Mr and Mrs. R) in Wales.

 

That K and F should be placed for adoption with the hope that the current foster carers will be approved as adopters.  This however has not happened to date and the requisite assessment will not be completed until end of August 2014.  There are Care Order and Placement Order applications before me in respect of K and F.

 

In respect of the four older children Mother does not consent to but does not oppose the local authority care plans.

 

C would like to return to the care of his mother but if that is not possible he is content to remain with Mr. M’s mother who I shall refer to as Mrs. MN.

 

There is no active opposition to J remaining in her foster placement.

 

Mr. W opposes CA and L being placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. R.  He would prefer these two children to remain in foster care with the current foster carers.

 

There are issues in respect of contact which I shall refer to in due course.

 

In respect of K and F there is a stark difference of opinion as to the appropriate placement for these two children.

 

The local authority seeks Care Orders and Placement Orders in respect of these two children.  Their current foster carers wish to adopt them.  Mother, Mr. M and C oppose K and F being placed for adoption.  They support placement of K and F with their paternal aunt, Ms M and her partner Ms. H who have applied for a special guardianship order in respect of each child. 

 

At the commencement of the hearing the Children’s Guardian was unable to make a firm recommendation as to whether these two children should be placed with Ms M and Ms. H.  During the hearing and after hearing the local authority evidence, it was submitted on behalf of K and F that further assessment of the children’s needs and of Ms. M and Ms. H’s ability to meet them should be undertaken.  I respectfully agreed with that submission.

 

The hearing.

 

I heard oral evidence from Ms. Chamberlain who had carried out the Special Guardianship assessment in respect of the paternal aunt of K and F and her partner.  I then heard from Ms. Layton the consultant social work manager.  I also heard from Ms. Hall the author of the full fostering assessment of Mr and Mrs. R, from the Mother and from the Children’s Guardian Mrs. Sylvia Baker.

 

The local authority’s position was that there was sufficient evidence before me to be able to rule out Ms. M and Ms. H as Special Guardians for K and F.  It became clear to me that that was a position with which I did not agree.  Ms. Chamberlain was clear in her evidence that she saw Ms. M and Ms. H as a “viable option” for these two children but that she felt continued placement with their current carers would the better option and therefore in their best interests. 

 

On the third day of the proceedings, Ms. Preece on behalf of K and F submitted that having heard the evidence of Ms. Chamberlain, the Children’s Guardian did not consider that she or the court would be in a position to make a recommendation about the right placement for these children.  I then heard part of the evidence of Ms. Layton and took the view that the proceedings in respect of these two children should be adjourned and further assessments should be ordered.  I have authorised further assessments namely; an assessment of Ms. M and Ms. H by Dr. Blumenthal, an assessment of K and F by a child and adolescent psychologist and an addendum Special Guardianship report of Ms. M and Ms. H.  Although the local authority’s primary position was that they wished to proceed with its applications for Care Orders and Placement Orders in respect of K and F, active opposition was not made after I had given my views about the need for further assessment.  That was a realistic position taken by the local authority.  I do not consider it necessary to set out the reasons for the adjournment here.  The case of K and F will be thoroughly considered when the matter comes back before me in due course.  The ambit of the further assessments will be contained in the letters of instruction to be sent to the relevant assessors.

 

The position of Mother and Mr. M.

 

I was informed by Mr. Bond representing Mother that her stance had changed to one where she would not consent to but would not actively oppose the local authority care plans in respect of C, J, CA and L.  She actively opposed adoption of K and F.  I am keenly aware that such a stance must have been very painful for Mother.  I am grateful to her for taking this stance which was entirely realistic.  I made serious findings against Mother in respect of the deficits of her care, the damaging environment in which she had raised her children and the harm and risk of harm each of her children had suffered and were at risk of suffering if they were returned to her care.  Furthermore I have had the benefit of the assessment of Dr. Blumenthal.  It is clear that Mother does not accept the findings of the court and was described by Dr. Blumenthal as “dismissive” of the court’s concerns.

 

I have read that assessment with great care.  I note his recommendation which reads as follows,

 

“As a result of the judgment and Mother’s response which was highly dismissive, I would regard the risk to the children relating to sexual abuse within the household to be high.  This risk is likely to relate to advertent and inadvertent exposure to sex.  The judgment states that Mother presided over a household in which there were insufficient sexual boundaries, yet she dismisses this.  Furthermore, there is a significant risk of emotional abuse, given the manner in which mother is said to have treated H.  She has also been found to have exposed the children to physical violence, yet dismisses this.  I am concerned that the children are exposed to a situation in which things that have happened are denied and consequently their experiences are distorted and dismissed.”

 

Likewise Mr. M does not accept the findings of the court but had indicated at the IRH that he would not be putting himself forward as a carer for K and F.  Again this is a realistic position to take.  Dr. Blumenthal writes in his report of Mr. M,

 

“However, concerns are raised by his denial of his involvement in sexual offending.  There are concerns about a lack of recognition about appropriate sexual boundaries.  He shows no recognition of any problems in his behaviour and in the context of the judgment, this raises concerns.  The couple were remarkably dismissive and tended to normalise the concerns that have been raised.  For example, in relation to the foster carer’s observation of L and CA, they suggested that all children talk about, “poos and bums.”  They were also normalising in relation to H and C being involved in sexual relationships at such a young age.”

 

Of both parents Dr. Blumenthal reports,

“The parents deny the findings of the court.  Consequently there is no basis upon which therapeutic work or training could be undertaken with the aim of reducing the risks that have been identified.  In any event, therapeutic or training interventions usually require long term work in order to alter risk profiles and even if there were a basis for therapeutic work, it is unlikely that this could be achieved within the timescales of the children.”

 

Dr. Blumenthal could not recommend any of the children being returned to the care of Mother and Mr. M.

 

Likewise the local authority and the Children’s Guardian were clear in their recommendations that given the findings of the court, the risks identified that these parents posed to the children and the dismissive attitude of the parents to the findings of the court, it would not be in the best interests of any of the children to return the children to Mother and Mr. M.  I repeat therefore that the position of Mother and Mr. M was realistic.  I note Mother and Mr. M’s stance but I have no hesitation in ruling them out as carers for any of the children at this stage, given the findings of the court and the subsequent assessments.

 

The position of Mr. W.

 

Mr. W had wished to put himself forward as a carer for CA and L.  However, he has suffered with longstanding drug and alcohol issues.  It is true to say that he has addressed those issues since July 2013.  I was very concerned about Mr. W’s ability to meet the needs of his children and to act as a stable and protective force for them when I heard him give evidence in the proceedings in November 2013.  He struck me as an extremely vulnerable individual.  I was therefore interested to read Dr. Blumenthal’s assessment of Mr. W.  Dr. Blumenthal concludes,

“In my view there is a significant risk of emotional and relational instability in Mr. W.  As indicated above his GP regards him as being at a chronically high risk of relapse relating to his alcohol problems.  Even setting aside his alcohol problems, Mr. W. appears to be highly vulnerable man, given his history.  I do not believe that Mr. W would have deliberate malignant intentions towards the children in any way but the risk of emotional abuse is significant given his lack of capacity to think about the children from their point of view and to consider their needs.  The main risk in relation to Mr. W is one of omission rather than commission.  Nevertheless this risk does remain significant in my view.”

 

The local authority and the Children’s Guardian submit that the court should place weight on this assessment.  Mr. W recognises his own difficulties.  Once again I thank Mr. W for his realistic approach which I accept must be painful for him.

 

I am driven to rule Mr. W out as a carer for his two children CA and L for the reasons set out and once again thank him for his realistic stance. 

 

The position of child C.

 

When these children were removed from their parents’ care in March 2013, C refused to be placed in foster care.  He went to live with a friend before moving to Mrs. MN’s home where he has remained to date.  I have received an email from C setting out his position.  He informs me that he would like to return to his mother’s care. 

 

In his email C states the following,

 

“I believe I am old enough to look after myself in terms of deciding who I should live with and can ensure that I can protect myself from any inappropriate behaviour in future.  I want to say that whilst I have had your findings read to me I have never seen my mum or [Mr. M] behaving in a manner which you have found.  Although mum and [Mr. M] do argue I have never seen them fighting or being violent towards each other.  I have certainly never seen them behaving in a sexual way as described in your judgment.

As I have said I would ideally like to go home and be with my mum but Judge if you are not going to allow this then I am OK to stay with my nan.  My solicitor explained to me what a residence order and a supervision order means.  Obviously I would want to be able to stay with my nan till I am able to get my own accommodation at 16.  I hope that the local authority will help me get that when I am old enough.”

 

I would like C to know that his wishes have been forcefully and ably put to the court through his barrister Ms. Teggin.  She has set out very clearly that C would like to return home and live with his mother.  He could not have been better represented.  In considering the section 1(3) welfare checklist I have to consider C’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in the light of his age and understanding.  C has made his wishes and feelings very clear.  I am told that he is a strong minded young person who can express his views clearly and is competent to instruct his own solicitor.  He is rising 15 years old.  Therefore his wishes must be given a great deal of respect. 

 

However, I must also consider the other factors under the welfare checklist.  I have set out at great length in my judgment dated 25^th. November 2013 the concerns I have about the children.  In my judgment C was brought up in an abusive and neglectful household where his needs were not met.  I am very concerned that he fathered a child when only 14 years old himself.  I understand that he has contact with his son who remains with his very young mother and that he is devoted to the child who he sees on a daily basis after school.

 

I have considered the report of Mr. Kazimierz Zaboklicki, social worker with the court assessment service.   Mr. Zaboklicki sets out his assessment of C.  C presented as quite defiant and made it clear that he will not accept any local authority placement.  He also expressed the view that he did not want to be placed with any of his siblings, nor would he adhere to any recommendations made by the courts.

 

I have read the report by Ms. Layton who has set out the local authority’s views about what would be in the best interests of C.  Ms. Layton writes,

“C was seen by his social worker and I on 4^th. March 2014.  He was adamant that he would not come into local authority care at this stage even though he was informed that he could not return to the care of his mother.  C expressed his views forcibly and is angry with social care as he does not believe in any of the concerns held by the local authority and is loyal to his mother.  Remaining with Mrs. MN is not our first choice of care plan for C; however there is recognition that C is currently doing well in his education and is attending his education placement regularly and that he is abiding by Mrs. MN’s boundaries.  He sees his baby son regularly and spends time with him.  If there is a move to enforce a plan with C that is not to his choosing, I would assess that C would, “vote with his feet” and return to his mother regardless of risk and this could make C more vulnerable to malign influences.”

 

The Children’s Guardian has considered C’s best interests.  She writes,

“I am of the opinion that C’s needs would be best served by him remaining in the care of Mrs. MN.  It is clear from my own observations as well as the information contained in the social worker’s statement that C is currently much more settled and demonstrating less challenging behaviour.  It would be my view that should he return to live with his mother then there is a high risk that he will experience the similar care that he received prior to him residing with Mrs. MN.  C in the past has been allowed too much autonomy; to the point when I first met him he believed he was old enough to make his own decision and strongly refused to be placed in the care of the local authority.  I was then and still am of the view that a Care Order would not be an appropriate outcome for C.  However, I do believe the placement for C with Mrs. MN has worked for him.  I am therefore of the view that it is not in C’s best interest to return to his mother’s care.”

 

Having considered all of the evidence and in particular the e mail from C, and having considered the welfare checklist, in my judgment, it is in C’s best interests to remain placed with Mrs. MN.  I accept there are reservations about that placement, but C will not accept a local authority foster placement and the risk of harm caused by C absconding from a foster placement and there being crisis management of this young person cannot be in his best interests.  Credit must be given to Mrs. MN who has offered her home to her step grandchild and in whose care he feels settled.  On balance, her home appears to be the best option for C.  I cannot support C’s desire to return to live with his mother at this stage for all the reasons given.

 

I want C to know that his views have been listened to and respected.  I entirely understand his point of view.  However, I have to balance all the evidence I have before me in respect of the care options available to him at the present time.  I approve the continuation of the residence order in respect of C to Mrs. MN.  The local authority seeks a Supervision Order in respect of C for 12 months.  This is to advise, assist and befriend C and in particular to assist him in arranging contact with his siblings who are in different placements and remain vulnerable.  The Children’s Guardian has impressed upon me how important C is to all his younger siblings, in particular to L and K.  In my judgment it is important that C continues to receive assistance and guidance from the local authority, in particular to encourage him to have contact with his siblings, in circumstances which he does not entirely agree.  For example, C resists attending contact at a contact centre.  For all of these reasons, in my judgment, placing C under the supervision of Buckinghamshire CC for a period of 12 months is in his best interests.

 

The position of J.

 

I can deal with the position of J shortly.  I do not want J to think that I have in any way paid less attention to her case.  I am as concerned for her as I am for all the children.  However, there is less dispute about her position.  Mother concedes that she is not in a position to put herself forward to care for J given the findings of the court.  I have ruled Mother out as a carer for any of the children. 

 

In his assessment, Mr. Kazimierz Zaboklicki has considered J’s position.  He writes,

“J spoke positively about her current placement, she said that she felt as though she was part of the family and was happy to remain there.  She had also established a good relationship with the family’s 23 year old daughter who lives nearby and sees her as a positive role model. “

 

I have read the assessment of J by Ms. Layton.  I note the difficult siblings relationships J has, in particular her negative feelings at the present time towards CA.  Ms. Layton writes,

“J remains in her foster placement and is doing well.  She has vacillated in her choice of where she wishes to live and was definite in not wishing to move to Wales to be with her maternal aunt and uncle (Mr and Mrs. R), who have offered to care for her.  J has stated that she wishes to remain with her current carers who have come forward to care for her long term.  As a result, J’s carers are seeing a return to more settled behaviour for J.  Previously J went through a period when she was clearly emotionally unsettled by her situation and stopped attending the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.  She also absconded from school on three occasions going off with friends and also on the first occasion meeting with her mother.  J is currently looking forward if with a little nervousness, to changing her school, to a school in the area of her placement.  J’s social worker, Terry Gray, has seen J on a regular basis and J has confided that she will be glad when contact with her mother is not so frequent.  J has started to call her mother by her forename [ ] and appears to be distancing herself from her family.”

 

Mrs. Baker writes of J,

“J has been residing with the same foster carers since being placed in the care of the local authority.  She has settled well into the placement and developed a positive relationship with her carers as well as the carer’s family.  It is my view that J has changed considerably since being placed in the care of her foster carers.  At times this has created emotional difficulties for J; feeling a loyalty towards her family but also gaining insight into the care and parenting she has received from her mother in the past.  J has struggled whilst in foster care and has had emotional highs and lows;  when struggling she has on occasions demonstrated some challenging behaviour.  The positive for J is that she is able to reflect on her behaviour; gain some understanding into her emotional feelings, discuss the issues and then move forward.  It has been rewarding to see the changes in J since being in the care of the local authority.  In recent months I have been impressed with her insight and emotional maturity.”

 

I have considered at some length whether I should attempt to promote a placement of J with her siblings CA and L but J has expressed negative feelings, particularly towards CA and is so clear in her wishes to remain with her current carers, that in my judgment, her best interests lie with remaining in her current placement where she is happy and settled.   It appears that she is benefitting from individual attention from her carer which she did not receive from her mother.   I have considered the welfare checklist in respect of J.  In my judgment the appropriate order in respect of J is a Care Order approving the local authority care plan for J to remain with her current carers.

 

The position of CA and L.

 

Once again Mother has conceded that CA and L will not be returned to her care.  Their maternal aunt and uncle Mr and Mrs. R have put themselves forward as carers for CA and L.  This is supported by mother, the local authority and the Children’s Guardian but opposed by Mr. W. 

 

The local authority supports the placement for the following reasons.

 

There is no dispute but that CA and L should be placed together.  It is also clear to me that both children have suffered greatly from the abusive and neglectful care arrangements they lived in with their mother.  Clearly Mr. W did not act as a protective force and was absent for a long period of their lives.  I am troubled by the behaviour exhibited by L.  Mr. Kazimierz Zaboklicki writes of L,

“[The foster carer] described L as being a very angry little boy when he arrived, he said that everyone was stupid and he was generally very negative and defiant for the first week with her.  When he first arrived he kicked things, smashed things, left dents in the fridge door, turned tables and chairs over, she said that she had to restrain him on a number of occasions.  He blamed everything on DB and just wanted to go back home.  After a week of being in care he settled well into a new routine although still has moments of absolute rage although he tends to be more tearful now and allows himself to be comforted.  [Foster carer] said that L sometimes reacts angrily towards CA, “they can annoy each other in petty ways “ but in a manner typical in siblings.  She said they care for each other and she would hate to see them split up.”

 

I have read the local authority assessments in respect of Mr and Mrs. R.  There is an assessment dated 31.5.2013 by Ms. Terry Gray and Ms. Xenia Pourpourides. 

 

That assessment reveals that Mr and Mrs. R have been married for 17 years.  They have two children R and L who are both at university studying respectively medicine and mental health nursing.  Mrs. R is estranged from her mother and has not spoken to her for 13 years.  She reports physical and emotional abuse by her mother.  Mother in this case remains in contact with her mother and the subject children have had contact with and know her.

 

This first assessment does not recommend further assessment of Mr and Mrs. R at that time as interim carers for CA and L, for a number of reasons which are set out at F205.  The assessment fairly sets out the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.  The key concerns were that Mr. R was not really supportive of the two children being placed with them and was only consenting out of love and loyalty to his wife.  There was concern about the Welsh education system and the authors of the report wrote that the children would only be able to access education if they were Welsh speaking which they are not.  Moreover, L has educational difficulties.  There were also concerns about management of contact for the children, in particular inter sibling contact.  The authors of the report pointed to the fact that the children appeared to be happy and settled in their foster placements.    However the report concludes,

 

“Should the children look to be long term placements, then further discussion with the applicant could occur to see whether they are still wanting to care for any of the children.  For a long term placement it may be worthwhile for the children to move to Wales as they would have a future there, but for a short/interim placement I do not think this is viable.”

 

Therefore further assessment was not recommended at that stage for all of those reasons.

 

Mr and Mrs. R wrote to the local authority on 18^th. December 2013.  They sought to challenge the negative assessment.  Of the education system they write,

“It seems that the main reason for not going ahead with the assessment was that the Welsh education would be a problem for the children.  The carers’ assessment, turning us down stated that the children would have to learn Welsh prior to commencing education.  Where in fact Welsh is taught as a language alongside the general curriculum.”

 

A further assessment was carried out of Mr and Mrs. R by Ms. Layton.  By this stage Mr and Mrs. R had had the opportunity of reading the judgment from the fact finding hearing.  This seems to have enabled Mrs. R to have a far grater understanding of the experiences of the children.  Furthermore, Mrs. R’s preference was to care for the children under a care order as foster carers given their high level of need.  The second assessment reads,

 

“When Mrs. R failed the first viability assessment, she was unfortunately not sent a copy of the assessment.  She has only recently received this and immediately indicated that she wished to challenge the decision.  She has also received copies of the relevant court documents, in particular the judgment and this has strengthened her resolve to try to make a home for the children.  She has been shocked and distressed by what she has read.  Mr. R has also, the more he has heard and now has access to the correct information, and come to the feeling that he and Mrs. R can offer the children a home and hopefully a better future.  He is also shocked by what the children appear to have been exposed to.  He feels that the children deserve the same chances as their own children have had.  They both understand that the task will be very challenging, particularly as these children have not had the secure base that their own children had with regard to boundaries, expectations of behaviour, parental guidance etc.. and in fact in many ways, have only experienced these from their carers since being in local authority care.  They feel that they will be able to support the children emotionally and that the children should have the opportunity to be cared for as a family group, by family members who understand their history.  Both are certain they are equipped to protect the children.”

 

The strengths and weakness of the assessment are set out in full at F697 – 698.  I have considered those factors very carefully.  The assessors detected a shift in Mr and Mrs. R’s thinking once they had had sight of the judgment.  They appeared shocked by Mother’s behaviour.    In a detailed recommendation, the assessor concludes,

“In my opinion, there is a lot to recommend Mr and Mrs. R undergo a full assessment as carers for the children.  They clearly had time to think about the implications for them and the constraints upon them as second time parents but appear united in their wish to offer their nephews and nieces a home.  I recommend that a full assessment is conducted.”

 

The full assessment of Mr and Mrs. R was served late during the course of the proceedings.   I should say that I am dissatisfied with the way relevant documents have been presented to the court.   But for the determination and tenacity of Miss. Todd the full documentation would not have been before the court.  I do not wish to detail any particular failings but suffice to say I have sympathy with Mr. W who is clearly very concerned about CA and L.  His Counsel should have been given the documents she requested in a timely manner.

 

I heard from the author of the assessment Ms. Valerie Hall.  Her fostering assessment is rather belatedly at F719 of the bundle.  At the time of the assessment, Ms. Hall was assessing Mr and Mrs. R as foster carers for the three children J, CA and L.  Ms. Hall’s clear recommendation is that all three children should be placed with Mr and Mrs. R.

 

Ms. Hall is an experienced social worker having been qualified since 2000.  She has undertaken a number of assessments for Buckinghamshire and other local authorities such as The London Borough of Lambeth.

 

Ms. Hall was very positive about Mr and Mrs. R as foster carers for CA and L.  In her assessment they will be able to maintain appropriate boundaries for these children and be able to work with the local authority.   She raised no real reservations about Mr and Mrs. R as carers.

 

Under cross examination Ms. Hall conceded that she had not seen the second viability assessment carried out by Ms. Layton dated January 2014.  She had read documents in the case and the judgment from the fact finding but could not detail exactly which documents she had read prior to completion of her assessment.  She visited Mr and Mrs. R on 2.2.2014 and 2.3.2014.  Both visits lasted a minimum of three hours.  The document including the assessment is in two parts.  She is author of the second part.  The first two parts are completed by the children’s social worker Mr. Matthew Barnett.  Ms. Hall told me that she had spoken to Mr. Barnett before completing her assessment.  Ms. Hall met all of the children and spoke to CA and L’s carers.  She visited CA and L’s placement.  Ms. Hall told me that she is aware that CA and L’s needs are “extensive.”  She told me that the foster carer had reported to her that the children had settled since they have been with her.  The foster carer told Ms. Hall that CA and L’s needs are “manageable.”  Ms. Hall went through “all different scenarios” with Mrs. R in respect of the children’s needs (and at the time she thought she was dealing with J as well.)   Ms. Hall told me that she had gone through with Mr and Mrs. R that the children may need extra support at school and she was clear that only English speaking schools will be considered. 

 

Ms. Hall told me that when she arrived at Mr and Mrs. R’s home, they had the previous negative assessment of them out on the table and had highlighted parts with which they did not agree.  One particular issue is that Mr. R does not accept that he was not in favour or less enthusiastic than his wife about caring for the children.  Therefore this issue was raised with Ms. Hall directly by them rather than Ms. Hall having to raise it. 

 

Ms. Hall accepted that it would be a concern if Mother went to live in Wales and in any way sought to undermine the placement.  However, Ms. Hall emphasised her confidence in Mrs. R.  She told me that Mrs. R has ongoing contact with Mother including frequent telephone contact.  However, Ms. Hall thought that there had only been one visit between Mrs. R and her sister (mother) last year when in fact it has emerged that there were more visits.

 

Ms. Hall accepted that with the unknowns at the present time placing CA and L with Mr and Mrs. R was a “calculated risk” but one which should be taken as long as the placement is properly supported.

 

Ms. Hall accepted that she had not undertaken an in depth assessment of the children as she is not the children’s social worker.  Her role was to assess Mr and Mrs. R.  However Ms. Hall told me that she is confident of her recommendation.

 

Ms. Layton has filed a further statement in which she supports placement of CA and L only with Mr and Mrs. R.  Ms. Layton writes the following (F377),

 

“Mr and Mrs. R have been assessed as foster carers for L and CA.  This is a positive assessment, that outlines their strengths as a couple, such as their secure and longstanding relationship, their successful parenting of their own children and their ability to have overcome their own childhood experiences, that ensured that they were able to parent their own children in a safe and positive manner.

Mr an Mrs. R have a good understanding that L and CA may have additional needs to children of a similar age and they are prepared to work with professionals in health education and social care in order to support L and CA to achieve their potential.  As this is a family placement, they are also aware of the children’s history and will work with them to ensure that the children retain their sense of family identity, by enabling contact between L and CA and their siblings.  They will also support contact with birth parents.  The local authority will be supporting Mr and Mrs. R as a long term placement for L and CA.”

 

Given Father’s concerns that Mother plans to go to live in Wales and will collude with Mrs. R I asked that Mother give oral evidence limited to these issues. 

 

In evidence Mother told me that prior to the care proceedings she had planned to move to Wales with the whole family to be nearer her mother.  Her plan was to have relocated by September 2013.  Those plans were put asunder by the instigation of care proceedings and removal of the children.  She had planned to move to a village near to her mother’s home which would be a drive of about 1 ½ hours to Mr and Mrs. R’s home. 

 

However Mother was clear with me that this is no longer her plan.  She would not wish to re-locate without her children.  In any event Mother has commenced new employment working on a stud farm in the local area.  She tells me she works from 7am – 2pm.  She also undertakes voluntary work in other stables.  She loves her new job and working with horses has been a life time passion for her.  Mother told me,

“I love the job, I love everything about it, and it makes me feel normal.”

She told me that she would like to take exams and qualify with a “yard and stud management degree.”  She needs to save some money but if she manages this she can either start the course in May or September.  There is the possibility of her moving to Spain to work on a stud farm there if she is able to qualify.  Mother told me that she wishes to pursue this career.  She therefore has no intention to move to Wales and will either remain in Buckinghamshire or relocate to Spain.  If she moved to Spain she would return to the UK for contact with the children.  As she told me, it is very easy to get an Easyjet flight from Spain to the UK.

 

In respect of her relationship with Mrs. R she told me that she has telephone contact with her sister approximately once or twice every fortnight.    She also told me that every summer she has taken the whole family to Wales for a two week holiday.  Sometimes she has stayed with her sister and sometimes with her mother.  Last year, when the children had been removed, she travelled to Wales on almost a fortnightly basis.  Sometimes she would see Mrs. R and sometimes she would stay in a remote part of Wales with Mr. M in a tent.  Mother obviously loves the Welsh countryside and enjoys visiting childhood haunts and areas with which she is familiar.  She told me that she stayed with her mother over Christmas and saw her sister for a few hours on a visit between Christmas and New Year.    She has not seen her sister since save when Mrs. R travelled to Buckinghamshire to attend the fostering panel when they met for coffee.

 

Mother became very vocal and angry when asked whether she had discussed the judgment in any detail with Mrs. R.  She stated that she had not and that she has not had the opportunity, not wishing to do so, on the telephone, at a family function or in a public coffee bar.  However she told me that her sister has said to her that she should have gone to her a long time ago for help.  I am not sure what help was being referred to here. 

 

Mother was categorical that she realised that ongoing contact with her sister may compromise the placement and she was clear that she would abide by any conditions imposed upon her.  She told me,

“I will see the children when the Judge says I can see the children.”

 

However Mother was clear that she would like to maintain contact with her sister and would telephone her when the children were not at home.

 

Mother told me that she had telephoned Mrs. R on 13.3.2013 and asked her to have the children on the day they were removed. 

 

I then heard from the Children’s Guardian.  In her report she recommends that CA and L are placed with Mr and Mrs. R.  Mrs. Baker has not met with Mr and Mrs. R. 

 

In her report the Children’s Guardian writes the following,

“In my recent discussions with L and CA about their future L told me that he wants to go back home to live with his mother.  If the Judge thought that this was not possible then he would want to live with his Aunt in Wales.  CA told me that she wanted to live with her Aunt in Wales and if this is not possible to remain living with her foster carer.  CA subsequently about thirty minutes later told me that perhaps she might like to go back to live with her mother.

L and CA clearly have some memory of their aunt and uncle, Mr and Mrs. R in Wales and seem very happy at the prospect of going to live with them.  L and CA have recently had discussions with their social worker and were clearly aware that should the Judge make a decision that they should live with their aunt and uncle then this will take some time and that they are likely to attend their current school until they break up in July 2014.  Both seemed very happy with this plan.”

 

Mrs. Baker told me in evidence that she had telephoned Mrs. R that morning.  Mrs. R had told her that Mother had visited Wales for two weeks every summer and that Mr. W would also attend when Mother and Mr. W were together.    She told me that Mrs. R had told her that she had seen Mother on two occasions last summer.  She was clear with the Children’s Guardian that she would not allow Mother to enter her home and would have no hesitation in telling her to leave her property if necessary.  Mrs. R told Mrs. Baker that she would like the children to attend a school in Cardigan.

 

Mrs. Baker told me that Mrs. R had expressed her shock at the fact finding judgment and had to have a few days to reflect.  She is very sorry that the children have been through that experience.  Mrs. Baker seemed very reassured that Mrs. R would do her best to protect the children and seemed impressed by Mrs. R.

 

Mrs. Baker told me that C is a very important person to all of the children and his contact needs to be considered very carefully.  She hopes that in time C would be able to visit CA and L in their placement in Wales.  She also hopes that the foster carer could supervise contact between C and J and that J could see H’s and C’s babies, both her nephews.

 

Mrs. Baker confirmed that she had spoken to Mrs. R before mother had given evidence and the information given by both sisters was consistent.  Mrs. Baker clearly stated clearly she does not share Mr. W’s concerns about collusion between Mrs. R and Mother.  She has confidence in the assessments and this has been strengthened by her own conversation with Mrs. R.

 

Interestingly Mrs. Baker thought that there should be no contact, including telephone contact between Mrs. R and mother for at least 6 months.

 

Mrs. Baker supported contact between the children and Mr. M and told me that they are requesting this.  She pointed out that Mr. M had been a part of the household for four years.  At the present time Mrs. Baker supported contact between Mr. M and all of the children.  However, Mrs. Baker told me that J would like contact with her mother alone as well as family contacts.

 

Mrs. Baker stressed that this placement will have to be fully monitored and supported but that is why she supports this placement under the auspices of a care order.    Mrs. Baker also pointed out that there are risks to the children remaining with their current foster carers because the circumstances of these carers may change and the children may have to move on.  She stressed the more permanent nature of a family placement and considered this to be in the children’s best interests.

 

At the point of submissions I was handed a further document which are the minutes of the Buckinghamshire county Council fostering panel held on 8^th. April.  Once again it is unacceptable that these minutes were not disclosed until that point.  The reason I am told is that Counsel on behalf of the local authority had them in his possession and forgot to disclose them.  I entirely accept that this was an innocent oversight but it should not have happened and once again made Miss. Todd’s task much harder.

 

It is right to say that there were mixed views from panel about this placement.  I am impressed by the robust exchanges and heartened that issues were properly considered.  During panel Mrs. R made clear that she had not seen CA and L “in a year.”  Ultimately panel could not make a decision because DBS checks on Mrs. R had not been received and there was an outstanding medical report awaited in respect of Mr. R.  On 10^th. April 2014 the ADM wrote the following,

“I have independently read and considered the papers presented to Panel and the Panel minutes.  I will make an “in principle” decision ie. subject to the satisfactory return of Mrs. R’s DBS checks and Mr. R’s health assessment I will approve Mr and Mrs. R as foster carers for L and CA only.

The panel process has been made more difficult because of the quality of the assessment and the lack of clarity within the report regarding the care plans for these children and siblings.  I have raised this with the relevant managers.

I note the recommendations for action and endorse these.

The couple have evidenced that they meet the fostering competences and would provide a safe and secure environment for the children.  A comprehensive carer’s support plan will need to be developed to enable this couple to meet the needs of L and CA.  This should include how their individual health and education needs are supported as well as work around transition to a new placement in Wales.

The plan and arrangements for contact will also need careful consideration and should be child focused.”

 

I was told on 7^th. May 2014 that the ADM had approved Mr and Mrs. R as foster carers for L and CA having received the outstanding information.

 

Analysis and findings in respect of the applications regarding CA and L.

 

On behalf of Mr. W criticism is made of the local authority’s approach to assessment of Mr. and Mrs. R generally and specific criticism is made of Ms. Hall’s assessment.  I say at once that Miss. Todd has represented Mr. Walker with great tenacity and care and Mr. W should be comforted that he has been very well represented.

 

Miss. Todd asks me to reject the local authority care plan to place CA and L with Mr and Mrs. R and seeks further assessment of them.  Miss. Todd submits that there are deficiencies in the local authority assessments and that I cannot be satisfied that it is in the interests of CA and L to be removed from their current foster placement where they are doing so well at this time.

 

Mr. W’s strong preference is for CA and L to remain where they are.  This is their third placement.  L in particular has significant needs and has exhibited extremely challenging behaviour.  He cannot be contained full time in a mainstream school and attends a pupil referral until two days per week.  Mr. W takes the view that given the progress these two children have made, they should remain where they are.  I understand that the current foster carers are willing to put themselves forward as long term foster carers.  Furthermore Mr. W currently has contact once per fortnight.  There is no dispute that this is positive contact and the children are building a relationship with their father after a substantial period when there was no contact.   Mr. W would like as much contact as possible and is distressed at the thought of contact reducing to three times a year.  He does not accept that this is in the children’s best interests.

 

The second area of complaint is the way in which the local authority evidence has emerged and it is argued, the insufficiency of the assessments.  The first viability assessment was negative at that time as an interim placement, for the reasons set out.  Key issues were concerns about Mr. R’s commitment and the Welsh education system.

 

Both these points have been addressed.  Firstly, Ms. Hall was clear in her evidence that Mr and Mrs. R raised the issue of Mr. R’s commitment directly with her and were adamant that they are both committed to the children be placed with them.  Ms. Hall appeared to be convinced by what Mr and Mrs. R said and does not share this concern.

 

Secondly the evidence before me is that Mr and Mrs. R intend to look for English speaking schools where Welsh is taught as a second language.  There is no question of CA and L attending a school which is mainly Welsh speaking which would render them incapable of accessing education.

 

I accept that there is no clear education plan before the court either in terms of whether there are school places available for these children in English speaking schools and whether there is provision for a pupil referral unit to assist L. 

 

I accept the concerns about the presentation of Ms. Hall’s report.  It would have been helpful if she had set out which documents she had read and at what stage in the compilation of her report. 

 

One of the key concerns about her report is that there is a lack of assessment about whether these particular carers can meet the needs of these particular children.  Ms. Hall has assessed Mr and Mrs. R.  The children’s social worker has assessed the children and their needs.  Ms. Todd argued that there is in fact a disconnect between the two pieces of evidence and the local authority has not really assessed whether Mr and Mrs. R will be able to meet the needs of CA and L given they need a very high level of care.  Ms. Todd points me to the report of Ms. Kerry Deamer who states C247,

 

“Due to their early experiences L and CA will both need carers who can provide far more than good enough parenting..”

 

However having heard Ms. Hall in evidence, she told me that she had met all of the children and had seen CA and L in their placement.  She had spoken with the foster carers and had conveyed the views of the foster carers to Mr and Mrs. R.  This was an important part of her assessment which should have been detailed in her report.  It may have assuaged Mr. W’s concerns but in any event, it would certainly have gone a long way to meet the criticisms made of her assessment.

 

Another key concern put on behalf of Mr. W is that he believes that there has been, is and will be, collusion between Mrs. R and Mother.  He believes that Mother will put pressure on Mrs. R and he does not believe boundaries between mother and the children will be maintained. 

 

This concern has been heightened because the evidence before the court in respect of the amount of contact there has been between CA and L with Mr and Mrs. R is extremely unclear. In respect of the collusion point I accept that this is a legitimate area of concern.  In the fact finding hearing I found Mother to be a person who lies with ease.  I must therefore treat any evidence she gives before me with caution.

 

However Mother does appear to be committed to her employment and spoke with real passion and enthusiasm about working with horses.  On balance I am prepared to accept her evidence that she has no current intention of moving to Wales.  Furthermore as Mr. Bond on behalf of Mother submits, “It takes two to collude.”  Mrs and Mrs. R have succeeded in persuading Ms. Layton, Ms. Hall, the fostering panel and Mrs. Baker that they can be relied upon to safeguard the children.  I accept that Mrs Hall told me in her evidence that she did not directly address the collusion point with Mr and Mrs. Richmond but she was satisfied that they were aware of the issues and the need to protect the children.  Furthermore, I accept Mrs. Baker’s assessment was necessarily limited to two or three telephone calls on the penultimate day of trial.

 

I have not found this part of the case an easy one.  L and CA have suffered neglectful and abusive parenting.  Their behaviour in the foster home demonstrates their unsettled and unsatisfactory care arrangements and experiences within the family home.  Their pressing need is for a safe, secure and permanent home.  I entirely understand Mr. W’s concerns.  He has seen his children benefit from foster care and considers a move back into the maternal birth family very risky.  He does not trust mother or her sister.  He is concerned about the “culture shock” of moving to Wales.  He is concerned about the children’s education.   He would like more contact with the children.  All of these are entirely understandable concerns and I do not criticise him one bit for raising them.

 

I have considered the matter at great length.  A Care Order is inevitable in respect of CA and L.  Therefore the question is at what point do I pass responsibility for these children to the local authority.  This local authority has assessed Mr and Mrs. R and considers this placement to be in these children’s best interests.  In those circumstances the local authority has a statutory duty to place these children with these family members rather than place them in long term foster care.

 

However, I have considered the merits of the placement with Mr and Mrs. R.  This is a family placement.  Mr and Mrs. R are putting themselves forward as long term carers until the children reach majority.  These children will grow up knowing and being part of their extended family. 

 

I accept that there is no detailed evidence about the precise educational provision available for these children in Wales.  However, these children will be under Care Orders.  They will be given priority for school placements.  It will be the responsibility of the local authority to ensure appropriate educational provision is provided.  I am satisfied that only English speaking schools will be considered.  I accept that there may be a culture shock but I also accept that Mr and Mrs. R can provide a comfortable home in a beautiful part of the country, somewhere where these children have visited before.  They have experience of their own children moving to Wales and learning about the Welsh culture.

 

I am concerned by the apparent conflict on the written evidence in respect of the amount of contact these children have had with Mr and Mrs. R.  However, I accept the evidence of Mother and indirectly from Mrs. R that Mother has visited Wales every summer with the children and that Mr and Mrs. R last saw CA and L in the summer of 2012.

 

In respect of the collusion point I am comforted by the fact that this local authority, knowing my concerns about Mother and Mr. M, are prepared to support Mr and Mrs. R as foster carers.  There needs to be a very tightly drafted written agreement setting out exactly what is expected of Mr and Mrs. R and the level of contact the local authority would recommend Mother and Mrs. R to have.  I am unconvinced that there should be no contact between Mother and Mrs. R, but that any contact should be at times when the children are not present.  Mr and Mrs. R need to adhere to this written agreement and Mother must not put her sister in a position of difficulty.  Breach of this written agreement may result in the children being removed from their care and that would cause these children more emotional harm.

 

In respect of the whether Mr and Mrs. R can care for these children I accept that this has been untested.  However, it cannot be tested without a schedule of contact and testing out the placement.  I am satisfied that Ms. Hall has discussed the needs of the children.  Mr and Mrs. R have shown themselves to be competent parents for their two children.  Whilst CA and L may present very different challenges to Mr and Mrs. R it is clear they have been capable parents.  CA and L appear to have positive memories of their aunt and uncle and are content to move to this placement.

 

I note the views of the ADM that a comprehensive carers’ support plan needs to be drawn up and delivered.  This local authority bears the responsibility of ensuring that this placement succeeds.  It must not fail because it has not been properly resourced and supported.

 

Having considered all of these matters, in my judgment, I am prepared to approve the care plan to place L and CA with Mr and Mrs. R under Care Orders.  In my judgement, the transition period needs to be carefully managed.  It is not in the children’s best interests to have further uncertainty.  Everyone involved needs to be able to start planning for these children, in order that L and CA can start their new schools in September 2014.

 

I have considered the section 1(3) welfare checklist.  For all of the above reasons I make a Care Order in respect of CA and L approving the placement of both children with Mr and Mrs. R.

 

Contact.

 

I have listened with great interest to the various arguments in respect of contact.  Where there is a large sibling group the local authority needs to be sensitive to the individual needs of each child and to the different pairings and special relationships which can be present within the group.  I am grateful to the local authority for refining the contact arrangements and setting out further proposals.  I know that Mother, Mr. M and Mr. W would like as much contact as possible with the children.  However, contact must be consistent with the long term placements for these children.  I am therefore not going to make any contact orders and I approve the local authority plans for contact between the various siblings and the relevant parents.  I do however wish to make the following observations.

 

I would like careful consideration to C being able to visit Mr and Mrs. R in Wales when it is considered to be in the best interests of L and CA for him to do so.  I accept the evidence of Mrs. Baker that C is a particularly important person for L.

 

I sincerely hope that contact between J and C can be supervised by J’s foster carer in order that such contact can take place.

 

I hope that J has contact with her two young nephews.

 

I am pleased that the local authority will support one to one contact between J and her mother.

 

I hope that contact between L and CA with Mr. W can progress to more than three contacts a year.

 

I approve the reduction of contact between K and F with mother and Mr. M to one contact per month pending the hearing in September.

 

I leave the decision as to whether it is in the best interests of any of J, L and CA that Mr. M attends contact with them.  The local authority is well aware of the findings I have made against Mr. M, findings which he and mother do not accept and therefore no work is being undertaken by Mr. M or Mother to address the issues raised.  The local authority has statutory duties carefully to review all contact between the children in its care and adults and I expect them to do so.

 

Ms. Teggin on behalf of C asked that C remain a party to the proceedings in respect of K and F.  I am not persuaded that that is necessary or in C’s best interests.  I know that C supports K and F being placed with Ms. M and Ms. H and wishes to have ongoing contact with them.  I will consider his views at the adjourned hearing but I will make orders which are in the best interests of K and F.  I do not consider it appropriate for C to remain a party to continued litigation for another 4 months and he will be discharged as a party.  However I will order that he is informed about the plans for K and F prior to the IRH, in case he wished to instruct his solicitor to make any applications.

 

My grateful thanks to all the advocates for their continued assistance to me in this matter.