England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No:  NE12C00106

 

NEWCASTLE COUNTY COURT

 

 

The Law Courts

The Quayside

Newcastle upon Tyne

NE1 3LA

 

10^th April 2015

B E F O R E:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR

 

	RE A

 

 

 

Compril Limited Telephone: 01642 232324 Facsimile: 01642 244001 Denmark House 169-173 Stockton Street Middlehaven Middlesbrough TS2 1BY

 

 

 

 

1.                            Her Honour Judge Moir :  I am concerned with the welfare of five children who have been born to HAF the mother and NA the father.  The local authority seek long term placement of each of the children outside the family. 

 

2.                            Until the close of the local authority case, the mother sought to provide care for all five children alongside W her child with her partner, Mr H.  Mother no longer opposes the plan of long term fostering for the older girls and adoption of the younger three children.  She is concerned about contact.  Father seeks to care for all five children, and he also is concerned about contact if the court is not minded to follow his wishes to care for all of the children.  The guardian supports the local authority plans in relation to all of the children. 

 

3.                            The children are AM born on 21^st April 2005, so now aged nine years 11 months.  MA who was born on 12^th February 2007 so aged eight.  MO born on 12^th May of 2009, so five years 11 months of age.  SA born on 7^th October of 2010, so aged four years three months, AY born on 27^th December of 2012, so she is two years and three months. 

 

4.                            All the children are presently placed in foster care and they have one session of supervised contact weekly with each of the parents separately.  Placement orders are sought for the young children intending that they should be placed together in the care of AY’s foster carers Mr and Mrs D.

 

5.                            These proceedings were issued on 26^th January 2012 in respect of the older children.  In fact four more children have been born to the parties since that date.  AY who is a full sibling was joined to the proceedings at birth.  Father has two daughters from his relationship with ZEW, and mother has W and I am told another child, who was born on 5^th April of 2015 from her relationship with Mr H. 

 

6.                            The history of these proceedings causes great concern, interim care orders were made on 27^th January 2012 and on 10^th April that year father withdrew his consent to the continuation of the interim care orders and the matter came back before the court.  On 31^st May 2012 His Honour Judge Wood directed a fact finding hearing which commenced before District Judge Loomba on 20^th August 2012.  Judgment was not given in regard to that hearing until 22^nd November 2012.   There had been six days of evidence, but spread out over some three months, due to mother collapsing on a number of occasions and issues with the interpreters.

 

7.                            In May 2013 the local authority produced a plan for rehabilitation of all the children to the care of the mother under the auspices of interim care orders.  Father at that stage was in agreement with the plan but made it clear that, if that plan was to fail, he would want to care for the children himself. 

 

8.                            On 1^st October 2013 Dan Trache the social worker who had been involved with the family and indeed continued to be involved with the family, filed a statement supporting the making of a care orders with the planning that AM and MA be cared for by the mother, and the SA, MO and AY be placed in the care of Mr A. 

 

9.                            A final hearing was listed before District Judge Loomba on 14^th October 2013 allowing five days of court time.  In fact on day two of that hearing and before any evidence was called mother Miss F relinquished care of AM and MA, informing the professionals that she was leaving the area to move to London.  The local authority revised their plans to allow for the testing out of a rehabilitation plan to the father and his partner ZEW. 

 

10.                        The mother told the court that she wanted AM and MA to be placed with their father and on 16^th October mother further informed the court that she wanted to AM and MA removed from her care that evening and so they were placed into the immediate care of father and his partner ZEW.  AY moved to the care of her father on 9^th December 2013 and MO and SA on 23^rd December 2013 in furtherance of the testing out of that rehabilitation plan. 

 

11.                        On 27^th December following an incident when ZEW contacted the police and the police attended at the home, in respect of the allegations that had been made of assault upon ZEW by Mr A. The children were then all placed in local authority foster placements.  The children have not returned to the care of either their mother or their father since that date. 

 

12.                        In January 2014 mother attended the court and advanced the case that all the children should be returned to her care; she was no longer intending to move and she wanted to care for all of the children.  Mr A indicated that he wanted all of the five children in his care.

 

13.                        As the listing in January of 2014 had been anticipated to deal with an agreed position the hearing listed was obviously far too short and a final hearing with a time estimate of five days was directed to commence on 10^th March 2014 before District Judge Loomba.  What happened thereafter is detailed in a separate judgment given by the court following an appeal by Mr A. 

 

14.                        Suffice it to say that the final hearing in front of District Judge Loomba became impossibly protracted as a result of interpreter, listing and health difficulties. After I think some 24 days spread out over months the father, not unsupported by the other parties, appealed upon the basis that the prolonged gaps in between the evidence being given both by the same witness and otherwise detracted from the fairness of the proceedings and breached the human rights of the parties involved in the hearing.  It was submitted that fairness demanded that the trial be aborted and the process started afresh.  In fact for practical and pragmatic reasons it was thought that the trial would be concluded and the welfare of the girls and MO determined much more quickly if this course of action was pursued.  Thus the case was given a 10 day time estimate and commenced again before me on 27^th October 2014. 

 

15.                        Unfortunately the guardian was taken ill.  A decision to proceed in her absence with a full note of the evidence being taken was agreed by all the parties, bearing in mind the substantial delays already in the case and the inability to list a 10 day case at that stage before the New Year.  The case concluded, save for the evidence of the guardian, on 7^th November, so well within the estimated time allocated for that hearing.  It was thought that the guardian would be fit to return to work within a fortnight.  In fact her illness was much more severe and prolonged than had been anticipated and she was unable to attend court to give evidence until 7th January 2015. 

 

16.                        Written submissions were then provided to the court with all the submissions being made available by 10^th February 2015.  Unfortunately, because of pressure of work, it is a regret that I was not in a position to deliver judgment as I had hoped before my scheduled leave commencing on 6^th March.  Upon my return availability was sought to deliver judgment and today was the first day all the advocates could be made available.  It is a sorry tale of delay which it is recognised has done nothing to add to the welfare of these children.  

 

17.                        It is the local authority who bring this case and therefore they must prove it on the balance of probability.  The threshold was established was established in front of District Judge Loomba and it is clear from his judgment given on 22^nd November 2012 that he found that father, as I shall call him, had been violent to the mother, resulting in the mother sustaining injuries. 

 

18.                        The local authority asked me to make further findings in respect of each parent, given the local authority case as to mother’s capricious tendencies and the dishonesty of each parent.   The local authority say that neither of them have any insight or ability to reflect upon their actions or the impact of their actions upon their children.  

 

19.                        Miss Smith, on behalf of the local authority, has set out in tabular form the findings that the local authority seek.  The local authority seek 25 findings in total amended to reflect the evidence given to the court as viewed by the local authority.  The first four findings that the local authority seek encapsulate the case which the local authority put before the court.  These findings are set out at table two and I read from those findings sought;

 

1.  Neither parent recognises the emotional needs of the children or their need for stability and continuity of care. 

 

2. Neither parent is willing to accept responsibility for the disrupted care the children have received each blaming the other or professionals.  The children have been exposed to distress, uncertainty, repeated moves and a lack of predictability.

 

3. The risks presented by each parent are unmanageable and none of the children given their disruptive care can be safely placed with either parent. 

 

4. The parents continue to be unable or unwilling to accept or acknowledge that the four older children suffered significant harm in their care as found by District Judge Loomba.

20.                        The Court is well aware of the decision of the Supreme Court in Re: B [2013] UK Supreme Court 33 and the series of cases decided in the Court of Appeal in 2013 leading to the decision in Re: BS [2013] EWCA 1146 which detailed the approach that the court must take in decision making about children who are the subject of care proceedings.  It is clear in the words of Baroness Hale of Richmond in the case of Re: B that an order compulsory severing the ties between a child and her parents can only be made if justified by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests.  In other words the test is one of necessity; nothing else will do. 

 

21.                        A local authority and the court making decisions about the long term future of children must address all realistic options and analyse the arguments for and against each option before coming to a decision.  The court must have regard in determining the future of a child with whom the court is concerned to the welfare checklists, as they are called, set out at Section 1(3) of Children Act 1989 and Section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. 

 

22.                        Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not suspicion or speculation Re: A – (A Child Fact Finding Hearing Speculation) [2011] EWCA 12.

 

23.                        The Court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all other evidence, Re: U Re: B Standard of Proof 2004 EWCA Civ 567.  The Court is required to survey a wide canvas and Re: T [2004] 2 FLR 838 sets out;

 

“If 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 the other evidence and to 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.”

 

24.                        To this end I have heard from a number of witnesses Sarah James the health visitor, PC Gray the police officer in attendance at the family home on 27^th December 2014, PC Maddison who similarly attended.  Rosie Lewis a worker at the Angelou Centre who had supported mother since 2011.  Mrs Pearson the foster carer for MA and AM.  Mrs Minto the foster carer for MO and SA.  Fiona Noon the independent social worker instructed by the local authority to provide updated assessment in respect of this family.  Mrs Binks the head of school at (school name withheld).   Dan Trache the social worker with responsibility for this case over almost the entirety of time the local authority were involved with the family.  Of course I heard also from the mother the father, Mr H and the guardian. 

 

25.                        In assessing the oral evidence I have in mind the guidance offered by Lady Justice Macur in the case of Re: M [2013] EWCA 1147.  She offered the following guidance:

 

“The judge’s assessment of the parents characters, past behaviour and present attitudes are entirely dependant upon finding primary fact, interpreting and drawing reasonable inference from the same. The judge was obliged to reach her conclusions on the whole of the evidence and was not bound by the opinion of others however eminent of their field.  The judge states the basis of her departure from their views, namely that of her good opportunity; not only to hear the witnesses evidence but to observe their demeanour and credibility. Conscious that such comment is trite in first instance judgments it is pertinent to note in this one under review that the judge’s description of the mother and father when giving evidence before her is analytical and detailed and obviously draws upon more than their performance in court; 

 

“It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

 

26.                        I am very well aware of how emotionally draining being involved in a court case can be, particularly a case which has been as drawn out as this one has been.  I bear in mind Lady Justice Macur’s words when I analyse the oral evidence which I have heard and of course all of the evidence both oral and written before me must go to the decisions which I am required to make.  In the case of Re: A [2015] EWFC 11 the precedent Sir James Mumby quoted with approval from the case of Re: L [2007] 1 FLR 2015 in which Hedley J stated;

 

“Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting including the eccentric the barely adequate and the inconsistent, it follows too that children will inevitably have very different experiences of parenting and very unusual consequences of flowing from it.  It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm while others will flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability.  These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to the spare all children all the consequences of defective parenting.  In any event it simply could not be done.”

 

27.                        Lord Justice Aikens usefully summarises in Re: J A Child 2015 EWCA 222 the fundamental principles to be applied in care cases and particularly those where adoption is an outcome proposed by the local authority, as in this case.  At paragraph 56 in that case Lord Justice Aikens set out the fundamental principles underlined by the President in Re: A,” which as I say are not new, and are based on statute or the highest authority or both, I summarise thus;

 

1.      In an adoption case it is for the local authority to prove on a balance of probabilities the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is to be ordered, to demonstrate that nothing else will do when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare.

 

2.      If the local authority’s case on a factual issue is challenged the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact that it seeks to prove. If a local authority asserts that a parent does not admit, recognise or acknowledge that a matter of concern to the local authority is the case then, if that matter of concern is put in issue, it is for the local authority to prove it is the case and furthermore that the matter of concern has the significance attributed to it by the local authority. 

 

3.      Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority, although admissible have strict limitations if a parent challenges the hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing.  If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first hand evidence it may find itself in great, or indeed insuperable, difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged. 

 

4.      The formulation of threshold issues and proposed findings of fact must be done with utmost care and precision.  The distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised.  The document must identify the relevant facts which are sought to be proved. It can be cross referenced to evidence relied upon to prove the facts asserted, but should not contain mere allegations.  The schedules that the local authority in this case with which I am concerned follow such a format.

 

5.      It is for the local authority to prove that there is a necessary link between the fact upon which it relies and its case on threshold.  The local authority must demonstrate why certain facts of proof justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm of the type asserted by the local authority.  The local authority’s evidence and submissions must set out the arguments and explain explicitly why it is said in a particular case conclusion that the child has suffered or is a risk of suffering significant harm indeed follows from the facts proved. 

 

6.      It is vital that local authorities and even more importantly judges bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other.  The state will not take away the children of those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse anti social, political or religious beliefs, simply because those facts are established.  It must be demonstrated by the local authority in the first place that, by reason of one or more of those facts, the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm. Even it is demonstrated adoption will not be ordered unless it is demonstrated by the local authority that nothing else will do.  When having regard to the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare the Court must guard against social engineering. 

 

7.      When a judge considers the evidence he must take into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all other evidence and to use a metaphor ‘examine the canvas overall’. 

 

8.      In considering a local authority’s application for a care order for adoption the judge must have regard to the welfare checklist in Section 1(3) of the Children Act and Section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act, the judge must also treat as paramount consideration the child’s welfare throughout his life in accordance with Section 12 of the 2002 Act.  In dispensing with the parents consent the judge must apply Section 51 1(B) as explained in Re: P Placement Orders Parental Consent 2008 2FLR 625. 

 

28.                        The other matter of law which I am reminded is relevant in this case is that the local authority in this case seek findings as to the truthfulness of the mother and father.  To put it bluntly the local authority say that both parents have lied repeatedly in their evidence to the court and to other professionals involved with their children. 

 

29.                        I remind myself of the caution set out in the criminal case of Re: Lucas [1981] QB 720.  This case emphasised that people lie for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily because they are guilty, they may lie to protect someone, out of panic, or a fear of the consequences, and the case reminded the court that lies alone are insufficient to make findings without other evidence and in my deliberations in this case I bear in mind the caution set out in Re: Lucas.

 

 

30.                        I turn now to the evidence in this case; the mother and father arrived in the United Kingdom in 2001 and 2000 respectively.  The parents met in 2003 and on the 21^st April 2005 AM was born, followed by the birth thereafter of MA, MO and SA.  The local authority became involved with the family on 12^th October 2011 when the father advised the local authority that his relationship with the mother had broken down and he had concerns for the care and welfare of the children should they remain residing with the mother. 

 

31.                        On the same day a referral was received from (school name withheld) that AM had told a member of staff that her mother was sad and that she had seen her father hit her mother with a shoe and that she had said that she had witnessed that sort of behaviour on many occasions.  District Judge Loomba has made findings in regard to the earlier allegations and I am satisfied for the purposes of this judgment that the relationship between the mother and father was characterised by violence and domestic abuse. 

 

32.                        The findings which the District Judge made whilst not accepted by the father have not been formally challenged or appealed.  The mother and the children were initially accommodated in a refuge, but after some two weeks the mother left the refuge with the children and resumed residence in the family home with the father. 

 

33.                        Following ongoing concerns in relation to the safety of the children police powers of protection were exercised and the children were placed in foster care on 15^th December 2012.  MO and SA were placed with Mrs Minto and AM and MA in a separate placement.  On 27^th January 2012 the local authority were granted interim care orders after the parents, who had resumed their relationship, withdrew their consent to Section 20 Accommodation.

 

34.                        The local authority carried out assessments which set out the background and history of the parents and children.  Mrs HAF was born and raised in a rural area near Tripoli in the Lebanon, she later moved into the city of Tripoli and came to the UK where her older brothers already resided.  The truth about how she entered the United Kingdom is unclear, but in any event she married a British citizen and gained the right to remain in the United Kingdom.  She lived with her husband for one month and then obtained a divorce.  The assessment highlighted the very limited support network the mother had and her reliance upon Mr A at that time.  Mother accessed the support of the Angelou centre in late 2011.  

 

35.                        Mr A was born in Kuwait of Palestinian decent, his mother and sisters as I understand it still reside in Jordan. In contrast to the mother he received a good education and described a happy childhood.  He was employed but sought a better life and presented himself as an asylum seeker having travelled through Egypt, Libya and Europe.  In 2010 after 10 years in the United Kingdom he obtained the right to remain.

 

36.                        It is clear that over the years both the mother and father have told lies about their relationship and the violence within it as detailed in the judgment of District Judge Loomba on 22^nd November 2012.  On 7^th November 2012 Mr A confirmed in a statement that he had married ZEW in a ceremony in August 2012 and that a fortnight thereafter she had moved to the Newcastle are to reside with Mr A.  AY was born on 27^th December 2012 and placed into foster care under Section 20.  At this time the mother was continuing to engage with the Angelou Centre and receiving high levels of practical and emotional support. 

 

37.                        Following reports from Dr Cawthorne a decision making conference on 3^rd May set out a plan to rehabilitate all the children to the care of their mother.  A very high level of support was envisaged and indeed implemented.  Miss AF had met MH in June or July of 2012 and said that she became engaged after two weeks.  By the time of the rehabilitation plan and set out in a statement dated 9^th July 2013, the mother detailed and I read from C193 in the bundle;

 

“6.  Our relationship began as one of friendship but now has become sexual, before the children were returned to my care M would come to visit me on a weekly or fortnightly basis and stay over for two or three nights.  I am not on any contraceptive pill at the moment but have taken contraceptive measures.

7.       I do see us having a future together if the local authority says this is okay.  I would like him to be included with my family and I know that this will have to be a gradual thing and only if the children are happy with this would I allow our relationship to develop any further.

 

8.       If the local authority says that I cannot be with him I will put my children first.  If I have to make the choice I will end my relationship with M, M is aware of this.

 

9.       M understands that he is not to attend at my home when the children are present and we only communicate with one another over the telephone.  M has seen the children, he turned up to contact on one occasion, MA and AM saw M with me but he did not come into the contact session.  AY has met him six or seven weeks ago, this was on Monday 3^rd June 2013. At this time contact was only being arranged on a week to week basis with AY.  I wasn’t expecting contact that afternoon with AY, when I returned home with the foster carer M was there.  I wish to add that on 4^th June when MA and AM were in the property M stayed overnight.  We had dinner together and played together with the children.  On 5^th June he was in my home when Rosie attended the property.  On 6^th June Rosie spoke to me about this matter and I advised her that he had stayed overnight and left on 5^th June 2013.  I did not tell my social worker Dan immediately because I was frightened it could cause problems for me.  A meeting was held following this and I told Dan Trache about my relationship with M.  I accept that I was not open and honest about my relationship with M but was concerned about N finding out.  I did tell Dan Trache during the meeting that M was a friend and I asked if I was allowed to have him in my life.  Dan Trache told me that of course that I could have my life.  I was frightened that Dan Trache would tell my family who have pushed and pressurised me in the past to reconcile with N.”

 

38.                        It is apparent that mother was well able to take a decision not to be open and honest with the local authority because she was concerned and recognised that what she was doing in having Mr H to stay at her property would cause problems with the local authority.  She knew that it was something which the local authority had already indicated they would not approve.  In fact on 3^rd June 2013 it was reported that a male was present at the property, and mother identified him as her brother from London. It was a lie, it was MH with whom she was having a sexual relationship.  Until this date neither the local authority nor any other professional had any knowledge of mother having a boyfriend; they had not been informed by the mother therefore, during the period of discussion of rehabilitation and during the first stages of rehabilitation when AM and MA were having their first overnight stay on 28^th May of 2013, mother had failed to mention and then had lied about her relationship with Mr H. 

 

39.                        She deceived all the professionals involved in the plan of returning her children to her.  Both AM and MA confirmed that Mr H had visited them and had spent time in the property and later on 20^th June 2013 told the social worker that they had been having extensive contact with Mr H.  Mr Trache was concerned that when AM in particular said this she was almost whispering although in a room with a closed door.  The implication was that she knew that it was a matter which required secrecy.  I find that she was drawn into the mother’s deception of the professionals. 

 

40.                        The court made it clear by order on 9^th July that there should be no contact between the girls and Mr H but MA stated to Mr Trache that Mr H continued to visit in August 2013 and slept in the same bedroom as her mother.  She told Mr Trache he brought presents for her and AM.  The community midwife Miss Lowe reported that when she visited the home Mr H was present as well as AM and MA.  It is clear that Mr H was present at the home of mother and in the presence of the children in breach of the court order.  This report by Miss Lowe also supports the accounts of MA and AM; that Mr H was present on other occasions and that it was not an isolated occasion on the day that Miss Lowe saw Mr H at the property.  The court had specifically stated that the rehabilitation would only proceed if mother cooperated and worked openly and honestly with the local authority.  Patently Miss AF found that difficult if not impossible to achieve.

 

41.                        The mother sought to deny that Mr H had been present in the house but eventually accepted the truth of Miss Lowe’s account.  Mother’s deception of all of the professionals and particularly at a time when a rehabilitation plan was being implemented raises a fundamental question in respect of the safety of any child protection plan involving mother and any child in her care.  She cannot be open and honest with the professionals when such cooperation is required, and if little reliance can be placed on what she states then any safeguarding plan cannot be deemed as satisfactory.

 

42.                        The mother also sets out within the same statement to which I have just referred that father had been making false allegations, that Miss AF had taken the children to his home address.  She said the allegations were completely untrue, although it seems that on one specific date namely the 8^th June when it was claimed mother attended at the Father’s home, Miss AF was at the Angelou Centre which was confirmed by Rosie Lewis.  MA and AM have stated on a number of occasions that they visited father in his home.  Mr AA and Miss ZEW state that mother and AM and MA attended at their home on three separate occasions.  Mother continued to deny that she had done so.  It seems that, unless verified or confirmed by a different source, it is difficult to place any reliance upon what is said by the mother. 

 

43.                        Sadly there are continuing examples with which I will deal later which would demonstrate that there has been no change in respect of mother’s truthfulness or reliability.  It is right to say that the findings that District Judge Loomba and indeed I will make, when the source has been the mother, have been confirmed otherwise.  A further example in the summer of 2013 of mother’s lack of openness was her bizarre behaviour in respect of her pregnancy.  It became apparent in August 2013 that mother was pregnant and MA and AM shared that information with the contact supervisor.  When asked about it in front of the children the mother confirmed that the information was correct, but when the children were not looking she shook her head to indicate that the information in fact was not correct.  She said she had told MA that she was pregnant when MA had been upset about Mr A’s new baby.  However AM and MA told the contact supervisor that they had been to the doctors with mother and listened to the baby in her tummy.  The mother still denied that she was pregnant. It is instructive to consider the account of the contact supervisor as recorded by Mr Trache in his statement at 234;

 

“When AM and MA were explaining that their mother was saying she was not pregnant MA put her hands of Miss AF’s tummy saying ‘yes the baby is here’.  Miss AF then said no baby.  MA put her hand around her mother’s back asking if the baby was there instead.  To this Miss AF again said ‘no baby’.  AM said ‘but we’d listened to the baby’s heartbeat in mummy’s tummy’.  This was ignored by the mother and the girls went back to playing on their scooter with MO and SA.”

 

44.                        On 22^nd August Miss AF confirmed that she was indeed pregnant.  At table six the local authority has set out the findings they asked the court to make in respect of the mother’s pregnancy;

 

“1.  The mother involved AM and MA in her lies about her pregnancy.  She caused the girls confusion and sought to mislead professionals denying she was pregnant in the face of the assertions of the children that they had listened to the baby’s heart beat.

2. On 20^th August 2013 AM and MA again described listening to the baby’s heart beat, mother lied to the professionals about her visit to the doctor claiming it was for blood sugar levels and not due to pregnancy.  The mother, when challenged by professionals as to whether she was pregnant or not, continued to deny the pregnancy.”

 

45.                        The confusion for the girls occasioned by their mother’s lies about her pregnancy was harmful to them and thus caused emotional harm.  Mother seeks to blame the contact supervisor for raising a sensitive issue in contact but I am satisfied and find that the girls had been involved by the mother in this matter throughout and her behaviour in respect of her pregnancy was indeed bizarre. 

 

46.                        By October 2013 the local authority had determined that they would seek care orders for all four children.   AM and MA to reside with their mother, the plan for reunification of all four children to the mother had been abandoned.  It has become apparent to the local authority that Miss AF;

 

“Fails to understand the needs of her children and delays addressing the same.  She further relies to a great extent on the support provided to her by professionals.”

 

47.                        The plan was changed to assess Mr AA and Miss ZEW to care for SA, MO and AY.  The local authority set out;

 

“Reportedly there is a good relationship between Mr AA and his children and he manages all five children well in contact as well as there appearing to be a strong emotional bond.”

 

48.                        Mr Trache the social worker listed a number of positives in relation to father’s contact, namely and I read from page 240 within the bundle, C240;

 

“In relation to Mr A and his contact with AM, MA, MO, SA and AY the following themes can be identified;  Mr A provides the siblings with appropriate contact routines, Mr A attempts and generally achieves to provide attention to the full sibling group.  Mr A engages the full sibling group in a positive way.  Mr A ensures a calm atmosphere to the contact sessions.  Mr A has been attending regularly contact sessions with his children.  Mr A has been consistent in his presentation during contact sessions.” 

 

49.                        The further information about Mr A suggested that he had moved on.  In particular, at paragraph 84, at C249, it is set out:

 

“Mr A currently accepts that he has perpetrated physical violence against Miss AF.  He acknowledges that he had pushed her and slapped her twice, but argues that he had been pushed by Miss AF into taking such actions.  Mr A also acknowledges that there had been verbal altercations between himself and Miss F and the children would have observed such arguments.”

 

50.                        Having attended a number of domestic violence perpetrator programme sessions, Mr A currently states that he understands how verbal arguments between adults can frighten children. He reflects upon his participating in one of the exercises carried out at the DVPP and stated that he found it very frightening, adding that if this was his reaction as an adult, it must be even more frightening for the children.

 

51.                        A risk assessment, in respect of Miss EW was undertaken and positives identified.  I have no reason to doubt and I find that Mr Trache had set out accurately the conversation with Mr A, set out at paragraph 84 and 85 of the statement.  The reference to the assessment of Miss EW appears at C251; Mr Trache sets out:

 

“My discussions with Ms Lowe, community midwife, indicates that Miss EW had shared with her during a visit she undertook in April 2013 that she would have wanted to be able to develop a bond with her daughter, Y, before she was asked to take up AY’s care as well.  I discussed this with Miss EW to some length; on the first occasion, when I raised this topic, Miss EW informed me that she was currently ready to take up the care of AY, MO, SA, MA and AM, alongside Mr A, and that in doing so, she would have needed Mr A’s full support.  In a separate occasion, when asked about her possible actions, should her relationship with Mr A deteriorate to the point where they needed to separate, Miss EW stated that she will want to maintain the care of the full sibling group and acknowledged that she may need support from professionals.  She identified that her relationship with the children has grown more and more, through her having opportunity to attend contact with the children, on a more regular basis.  Miss EW seemed fully aware of issues connected to domestic violence.  She states that she has a positive relationship with Mr A, and that there have not been any difficulties throughout their relationship.  My observations of the interaction between Miss EW and Mr A indicate that Miss EW regularly takes a lead in discussions and challenges Mr A in his thinking.  This is deemed as positive.”

 

52.                        Thus, set against this more positive background, the local authority framed the plan to rehabilitate the younger three children to the care of Mr A and Miss EW.  The local authority acknowledged that:

 

“It is evident that neither of the parents can be trusted entirely.”

 

53.                        At C253, paragraph 102, the local authority set out that:

 

“The local authority has given due consideration to the progress made by Mr A in relation to his own behaviour; further consideration has been given to the quality of the current relationship with Miss EW.  The local authority has identified a number of positive elements that the family can continue to build upon.  The plan the local authority are recommending is not without risks, considering that there remain a number of areas that need to be addressed by the parents and also given the lack of clarity on a number of issues as described above.  In undertaking this, the local authority has arrived at the conclusion that a plan for the reunification of MO, SA and AY to the care of Mr A and Miss EW, should be progressed.  Considering the time limitations and that such a plan will have to be tested further, the local authority submit that there should be a statutory involvement from the social workers in managing and monitoring the successful implementation of such a plan.  The local authority argue that Mo and Sa should be reunited with Mr A and his wife, Miss EW, and that AY’s introduction to the care of the couple, should be considered, once Mo and Sa have settled in their placement.”

 

54.                        On 15^th October 2013, the second day of the final hearing, as I have indicated, the mother relinquished care of AM and MA informing the professionals that she was leaving the area to move to London.  The case was adjourned until January 2014 to test out the rehabilitation plan of the children with the father and Miss EW.  The plan was not for the children to be cared for solely by Mr A.  As a result of Miss AF’s precipitous actions, AM and MA moved immediately to the care of the father and the plan for AY, MO and SA was to be progressed. 

 

55.                        However, unsurprisingly, the plans were not without problem.  Miss EW presented as unhappy about living in Newcastle, where she felt isolated and was not happy about the plan for AY to be returned to the family quite so soon, particularly bearing in mind Y’s age.  Miss AF made allegations that she had been a victim of harassment from Mr A and his friends and that she had been assaulted by Mr A in the street.  No report of the assault was given to the Angelou Centre by the mother and the mother later admitted that she had made up the fact that Mr A had pushed her to the ground.  It seems that the mother was encouraged by another resident to help the mother to make out the case, to enable her to be moved to a refuge out of the area.  The incident of harassment was nothing to do with Mr A, but rather two individuals who had jumped into the garden to remove furniture which had been stored there. 

 

56.                        Miss F was willing to tell lies about Mr A to further her desire to move from the area without regard to the fact that he was seeking to look after the children.  It does seem that she was encouraged to do this by another service user at the Angelou Centre.  However, Miss F demonstrated that she had the ability to, and did, make up a serious allegation to further her own wishes, without regard to her children’s welfare. 

 

57.                        The proposed rehabilitation to Mr A and Miss EW was contemplated upon the basis both would be available to provide care.  The positives about the proposed arrangement included, as a pivotal part of the plan the contribution to the care of the children, which would be made by Miss EW and her ability to challenge Mr A in his thinking.  Thus, Miss EW, expressing a wish to move to London, was of considerable concern to the local authority. 

 

58.                        On 9^th December 2013 AY was moved into the care of her father and Miss EW and MO and SA were moved on 23^rd December 2013.  It was apparent that there were some tensions in the household, but the local authority implemented the plan and attempted to support the family as best they could.  The father secured a tenancy at 89 (withheld) Road, as a result of very considerable effort and within a short time, following upon the October hearing and the house that Mr A and Miss EW had occupied being too small for the very much increased family.  The local authority acknowledged and continues to acknowledge the father’s ability to get things moving and to sort out practical matters.  Their concern is his understanding of the emotional needs of his children. 

 

59.                        It is submitted on behalf of Mr A, in the submissions that Mr Kyle has put before the court that:

 

“It is accepted that Mr A, at that time, was residing with his wife Z and that she may have been seen as a stabilising factor in the return of the children to him.  Notwithstanding that, Mr A would argue that by the beginning of October 2013 a situation existed whereby the local authority had assessed Mr A as being capable of looking after all five children and by 16^th October 2013, the older two children, AM and MA, had been returned to his care.  Mr A would say that there was a review of the placement by way of a looked after review on 2^nd December 2013 and a further meeting of the fostering team on 18^th December 2013.  Professionals involved with the case were present at those meetings; a positive outlook was given to the rehabilitation of the children to Mr A; nothing was raised at this meeting suggesting that Mr A could not care for the children, or that he presented any risk to them.  Following that meeting, the plan for the younger three children progressed; by 23^rd December 2013 all five children were in the care of Mr A.”

 

60.                        I find that this is a simplistic view of the plans that the local authority developed in relation to these children.  There were continuing concerns about Mr A’s ability to meet the children’s needs, particularly the emotional needs of these children, and continuing concerns about the findings that Mr A had used violence and domestic abuse in a domestic setting.  The local authority had embarked upon the rehabilitation plan with reservation and specifically stated that they had given due consideration to the progress made by Mr A in relation to his own behaviour.  The local authority thought that he had accepted that he had been the perpetrator of some physical violence and had attended a number of sessions of the domestic violence perpetrator programme, which had resulted in the father having a better understanding.  He was articulating some understanding of how verbal argument could frighten the children, and was seeking support to deal with his violent behaviour. 

 

61.                        The quality of his relationship with Miss EW was a significant factor in the planning of the local authority.  Not only the practical assistance that she would offer, but her assertion that there was no domestic abuse within their relationship.   The local authority stated specifically that the plan was not without risk.  That there were a number of areas to be addressed; a lack of clarity about certain issues and the necessity for the plan to be tested out further, albeit with the limitations imposed because of the time element. 

 

62.                        The incident which occurred on 27^th December 2013 called into question the fundamental assumptions and requirements which had supported the local authority plan.  While the local authority and the court, at that time, had proceeded with the rehabilitation plan, despite the findings made by District Judge Loomba, the plan depended upon the local authority and the court being satisfied that Mr A had the capacity to change his previous pattern of behaviour and had the support of Miss EW.  The events of 27^th December called those fundamental matters into question. 

 

63.                        Mr A raises a question about the reliability of Mr Trache; I found him, as did District Judge Loomba, a careful, thoughtful, sympathetic, credible and fair-minded witness.  Mr A states that Mr Trache contradicted himself in the hearing before me in comparison to what was said before District Judge Loomba.  I refused to order a transcript of the evidence given before District Judge Loomba.  It was agreed at the time the decision was made to abandon the first hearing and list the hearing afresh in front of me, that no transcript would be required.  Nor were there to be any, or repeated, references to previous evidence in the aborted hearing.  It had been argued that the previous hearing was fundamentally flawed and in breach of human rights, because the evidence was disturbed and disjointed and strung out over months.  Against that background, it had been agreed that it was a nonsense to start analysing and referring to the previous evidence.

 

64.                        The matters which Mr Kyle submits on behalf of Mr A would be relevant, are in any event matters of comment and opinion by Mr Trache.  Whether they were found to be accurate or contradictory, the decision as the outcome based on the facts is for the court.  The local authority plan, of course, must be placed before the court, but the decision as to the welfare of these children is peculiarly that of the court.  The opinions of the social worker, rather than the factual matters the social worker puts before the court, are not necessarily either relevant or of assistance to the court. 

 

65.                        In addition, I heard from a wide range of professionals and any decision which the court reaches must take account of all the evidence, not only the social worker, but all the professionals and not only the professionals, but also the parents and therefore it is not only the evidence of Mr Trache which feeds into the decision which the court must make, but all the evidence, both written and oral. 

 

66.                        Mr A denies that the incident on 27^th December occurred as has been portrayed to the court.  Mr A suggests that ZEW manipulated a situation in order to obtain accommodation in London, because she was unhappy in Newcastle and that she is contradictory in the various accounts which she has given.  It is a matter of regret to this court that I have not had the opportunity to hear evidence from Miss EW.  Miss EW was not traced for the purpose of serving a witness summons, which the local authority had wished to ask the court to approve.  I am sceptical that the father was unable to remember the address where he recently visited Miss EW, but that was his evidence.  Mr A filed a statement from Miss EW, confirming the email which she had sent supporting his case.  Mr A did not call Miss EW himself, in support of his case; he said that she had refused to come and yet he made no efforts, it seems, to take steps to get her to court, or seek assistance to help get her to court.  Thus, I have to consider the incident on 27^th December and the relationship between Miss EW and father without the benefit of hearing from her in evidence.  

 

67.                        The local authority submit, at paragraph 59 in the written submissions, that Miss Smith prepared and put before the court, that  the father required the attendance of a number of witnesses to deal with what the children said to their carers and what Z said in respect of her allegations of violence.  It is respectfully submitted that such analysis is beside the point, given that even on his own case dysfunction within the household led to the police arresting father; the sudden loss of half-sibling Y, and a situation where, once again, the older children were discussing issues of domestic violence and disharmony. 

 

68.                        The court is invited to find that the father’s assertion that ZEW lied about domestic violence to achieve her own ends at his expense and that of the children, apparently to gain advantage in the London housing lists, is a total distraction from the real issue, even if correct.  I find Miss Smith’s submissions upon these particular points are compelling.  Mr Kyle, on behalf of Mr A, submits that the court must be very careful in considering whether the evidence available before it is sufficient to prove that an incident of domestic violence occurred on 27^th December 2013.  As with any other factual issue, I must consider all the evidence before me, pertaining to that incident, before reaching a conclusion.  Equally, on behalf of Mr A, it is submitted that, whilst he accepts MA has made some comments to the Guardian, great care must be taken before placing reliance upon those comments.  I will look at all of the surrounding evidence to assist me in regard to making findings about this incident.

 

69.                        Mr Kyle submits, on behalf of Mr A, that in summary Mr A would say that the evidence presented to the court regarding the incident on 27^th December and any allegation of wrongdoing by him in relation to Z before that date, is not conclusive and is not sufficient to allow the court to make any finding of wrongdoing by him.  I must therefore examine the evidence which is before me.

 

70.                        I heard from Sarah James, the health visitor who spoke to Miss EW on 27^th December 2013, she told me that when she spoke to Miss EW, she, Miss EW was distressed and packing a large bag.  Miss EW had told the health visitor that she wanted to leave before the end of the day.  Z indicated that she had locked herself in the room where she was having the conversation with Sarah James on a few occasions previously, to keep safe.  Sarah James confirmed that what is set out at C281 was an accurate recording of her visit on 27^th December; namely that Miss EW said it was the third time N had hit her and that there had been domestic violence from the beginning.  Miss EW said the violence upon that day had erupted over money and argument ensued and she, Miss EW, retreated to her bedroom, Z holding Y, and Mr A holding AY.  Miss EW stated that Mr A had followed her.  Miss James sets out at 281 what Z went on to say:

 

“Z stated that N struck her on the face, then put AY down on the bed and it appeared that he was going to strike her again, but there was just more shouting and he left the room.  Z disclosed that the first time N hit her, Y had been eight weeks old.  Z told me that N struck her across the face while she was changing Y’s nappy.  Y was lying on her changing mat at the time.  Z said that the mark from N’s hand remained on her face for three days after he hit her.  Z disclosed that while she and N were living in (withheld) Street, N put her and Y out into the street, in the early hours of one morning after an argument, telling Z that she would eat poo until he had the children back.  N reconciled their differences when Z and Y started to walk towards the police station, according to Z.  Z disclosed that she is shouted at frequently by N with him complaining that he is running a hotel for her; telling her to leave or demanding that she gets him money, even when the weather is freezing cold and the shops are shut, such as on Christmas Eve.  She reported giving N hundreds of pounds over the two days prior to Christmas.  Z told me that N frequently tells the children not to speak to her and to ignore her and Y.  She told me that she is not included in their days out; that N demands money from Z to fund the days.  Z disclosed that N would not allow her to have any friends; she is not allowed to go out socially.  Z said that N had deleted her Facebook account and all her friends’ numbers on her mobile phone.  He had also removed the Skype app from her computer to stop her contacting her brother in law and sister.  She said that N had told her that she was allowed to visit her family once a year for a two week time span.  Z said that N had been phoning her family to tell them that she was a bad woman.  Z stated that she had been stopped from going to college by N because he had seen her sitting next to a male student; they had had a huge row about it and he forbade her from attending further.  Z informed me that while N was doing the perpetrators’ course, he would return from every session and check her phone to see what she and Helen, her contact from the DVPP course, had said between them.  Z said there was always an argument about the fact that she had been contacted and what had been said.  Z disclosed that things had become so bad between her and N that she had resorted to bolting herself and Y in the back bedroom for their own safety on several occasions.”

 

71.                        Of course, this is the account given by Z to the health visitor.  I have not heard from Z herself.  I have no reason to doubt that it is an accurate recording, as confirmed by the health visitor in her oral evidence.  But of course it is not the same as making a finding that what Z was recounting to the health visitor was an accurate and truthful account.  Mr A says that it was not. 

 

72.                        However, it is a detailed account, which Z, I find, did give to the health visitor when the health visitor spoke to her immediately following the distressing incident that there had been on 27^th December, whatever that incident comprised of. 

 

73.                        Reading from my note of the Guardian’s evidence, the Guardian had a discussion with MA about how safe she would feel about returning to the care of her father; she said that MA had said that father hit mother and then, out of the blue, MA raised that father hit Z.  The account is set out in the Guardian’s report at paragraph 19.  The Guardian said in evidence that those words set out were MA’s exact words and I quote:

 

“I asked her if the judge said she could live with either her mum or dad, what would be her choice.  MA said ‘mam’.  She said ‘not dad, he hit mam with a shoe, he hit her everywhere’.  MA said she would not be safe living with dad.  MA remembered living with Z and dad, she said ‘dad hit Z’.  I asked MA to explain this as to my knowledge she had not mentioned this to anyone before.  MA informed me that dad and Z were shouting at one another upstairs, while they were all downstairs in the room.  AM said she crept upstairs and saw Z with Y in her arms, and Z had tears in her eyes.  Y was crying.  MA said she saw dad take Y from Z and then slap Z across the face.  MA put her hands over her eyes because she did not want to see any more.  MA said dad gave the baby back to Z; AM said she crept back downstairs.  None of the other children saw this as they were downstairs.  MA said dad came downstairs and Z followed and dad shouted to Z to get back upstairs.  MA then said the police came and she went with AM to G’s and S’s.  AM said ‘I do not want to live with dad’.”

 

74.                        I heard evidence from PC Gray and PC Maddison, who were asked to attend the incident at 98 (withheld) Road, upon the police receiving a report of a female disclosing that she had been assaulted.  PC Gray said that Z told him that she had been slapped and punched.  He saw no marks on her face.  When PC Gray arrived at the property, all the children were present with Mr A downstairs and PC Gray noted nothing of concern in respect of the children.  He said that Miss EW’s demeanour was that she seemed upset, with tears in her eyes, and seemed nervous.  PC Maddison described Miss EW as visibly upset and crying.  He arrested Mr A for assault and recollected Mr A pointing to his lip and saying he had sustained injury.

 

75.                        I heard from Mrs Minto, who gave oral evidence before me, that on 27^th December, when the community foster carer left, SA sat on her, Mrs Minto’s knee and SA said:

 

“Daddy hit Z on her head.”

 

76.                        MO said:

 

“She’s lying, daddy wouldn’t do that.”

 

77.                        To which SA replied:

 

“Yes he did."

 

78.                        Nothing more was said by SA on that occasion.  On 30^th December, SA told Mrs Minto, according to Mrs Minto when she returned from contact, that when they were at their father’s home, her daddy and Z were shouting and daddy chased Z through the house and he was hitting her on the head.  Mr A queried whether the children could have seen anything or whether they were repeating what they had overheard, either from the police officers or others.  It does not seem to me that the descriptions tally with them being descriptions of something overheard.  SA gave an account of what she said she saw, very shortly after the alleged incident took place.  The accounts given by the children are more likely, I find, to be eye witness accounts, rather than information which the children have heard from whatever source.

 

79.                        The Guardian spoke to Miss EW, as set out at E121 within the bundle.  It is set out that at E122:

 

“I asked Miss EW about 27^th December 2014.  My reasoning for this was I had not had the opportunity to seek this information prior to this telephone call.  Miss EW explained ‘I was distressed, he know this.’  I asked: ‘who is he?’.  ‘N.  I was like this with Y, he complained to family and family say for me to visit Morocco.  Bad words were said, I don’t know if I make a big thing of this.  When arguing, shouting, he became upset, he pushed me, he slapped me, I don’t know, I don’t know what happen, I want to keep the children, I ask Dan to wait maybe a year and a half before he bring the children back. Everything changed, not treat right.’  I had to stop Miss EW from talking incessantly and slow the discussion down.  Miss EW informed me: ‘community fostering were always there; they came too long; too much pressure; you know Tracy you discussed this with me and N, you discussed this with Dan, it stayed the same too much, nothing change.’”

 

80.                        I have also, of course, read and considered the email from Miss EW, wherein she, like Mr A, blames the local authority for lack of support.  But also complains about the presence of a worker within the household.  In the email, Miss EW describes the property in which they resided, which of course was obtained through the efforts of Mr A, as “a nice place”. 

 

81.                        I am satisfied that the evidence in respect of what occurred on 27^th December 2013, taken in its totality, and underpinned by the police evidence that Miss EW was upset and distressed, is sufficient for me to be satisfied that a significant incident occurred and I accept the account which Miss EW gave to the police and the Guardian and the account which the girls gave, which corroborated what had been said.  I do not find the accounts of Miss EW inconsistent, but of course she did change what she was saying.  I do not know what influences have been exerted upon her, in relation to her submission of the email, but I accept the evidence of the Guardian as to what Miss EW was telling the Guardian on, I think it was, 14^th March 2014. 

 

82.                        Obviously, this incident set in train the subsequent plans which the local authority had put before the court.  However, the real significance of the incident lies in the fact that whatever the precise sequence of events, the children were once again exposed to a domestic incident, which resulted in the police being called.  Mr A was then arrested, the children were without a parental figure and carer and had to be returned to foster care. 

 

83.                        In his submission to the court, Mr Dollimore, on behalf of the Guardian, at paragraph 11 sets out:

 

“The Guardian is concerned that the father’s preoccupation in relation to this incident is in blaming the local authority, regarding the pressures that they placed upon him and Miss EW, rather than considering the consequences for the children of further exposure to domestic conflict.”

 

84.                        As an aside, I mention that the father was against a more protracted plan of rehabilitation, whereby more time would be taken for the children to return and could see no necessity to stagger the return of the children.  Going back to the submission of the Guardian, Mr Dollimore sets out:

 

“Put simply, in December 2013, over three years after the commencement of these proceedings, where allegation and counter-allegations were being made regarding domestic violence issues, the mother was still making fictitious allegations of domestic violence against the father, on that occasion in early December 2013, to attempt to obtain a refuge placement in Birmingham, and the children were still being exposed to the domestic conflicts between the adults caring for them; namely father and Miss EW, at that particular time.  The Guardian is extremely concerned that the pattern has not changed throughout these proceedings.”

 

85.                        I share the concern of the Guardian.  Neither parent has concentrated upon the welfare of each of their children, or any of them, or made such welfare a priority over and above their own needs and wishes or agendas.  Each parent has involved the children in their relationship difficulties and all the children have been exposed to inappropriate behaviours, emotions and information, as set out within the findings which I have made thus far and referred to within the course of this judgment. 

 

86.                        As a result of the parents’ behaviour, the children, over an extended period of time, have been exposed to distress, uncertainty, repeated moves, different carers and a lack of stability or predictability in their lives.  Neither parent accepts responsibility for the disrupted care and existence which the children have experienced.  Each parent is all too ready to blame the other parent, or the local authority, for the circumstances of the children. 

 

87.                        Following the hearing in October 2013 and the guarded optimism which was engendered by the father’s seeming change of attitude and acceptance that he had been responsible for violence in his relationship with the mother, and in the belief of the absence of any violence or abuse in his relationship with Z, the local authority were faced with a very different landscape following upon the events of 27^th December 2013.  There was obviously the incident on 27^th December itself; there was Miss EW’s claim that there had been violence from early on in the relationship; and Mr A’s retraction of acceptance of responsibility for any violence in his relationship with the mother.  Mr A’s account to the court was that both Miss AF and Miss EW told lies about him to the court and to the professionals.  He accepted on his own evidence he resumed intimate relationships with each lady, despite the terrible lies they had told, which in his words were responsible for tearing apart his family.  He told me:

 

“All of us know these are lies, but I don’t forget they are the mothers of my children.  We accept troubles which happen, but have to continue the relationship based on the children.”

 

88.                        It was put to Mr A by Miss Smith:

 

“Your case is that H and Z have told lies; that H and Z both told your children to repeat their lies and you’re saying you forgave both of them, is that right?”

 

89.                        To which Mr A answered, “Yes”.  He then told me:

 

“Because of the children and the problems which took place, I wanted to reconcile the position for the sake of the children.”

 

90.                        I do not accept that Mr A would have reacted in the way in which he has claimed, if the allegations were untrue and without basis and, by reason of those untrue allegations, his children had been taken off him and his family torn apart by those lies. In Mr A’s response to the findings sought by the local authority that the parents continued to be unable or unwilling to accept or acknowledge that the four older children suffered significant harm in their care, as found by District Judge Loomba. He states:

 

“Denied in totality, but the second respondent accepts behaviour will have had a negative impact upon the children but not to the extent found by the court.”

 

91.                        I am satisfied that Mr A has not been truthful with the court about the issues of violence and domestic abuse, whether in his relationship with Miss AF or Miss EW.  He blames both ladies for telling lies and while I accept that Miss F is capable of telling lies, he also blames Miss EW for telling lies; for tearing apart his family; and yet he resumed his relationship with each of them thereafter.  He is unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions and continually seeks to blame others.  I see no evidence of change in his approach, save for the negative change represented by his retraction of any acceptance of domestic abuse in his relationship. 

 

92.                        Mr A is very keen to emphasise that if the local authority were willing to rehabilitate the children over the autumn of 2013, then the alleged incident on 27^th December should not have changed that approach.  He says he is perfectly capable of looking after his five children on his own; in fact, the intention of the local authority was not that he should have sole care.  The presence of Miss EW was seen as a necessary part of the package, even if Mr A could prove that the incident on 27^th December was not as set out by the local authority, the fact remains that he is no longer in a relationship with Miss EW, according to him, or indeed anybody else.

 

93.                        There is no evidence that he could look after five children on his own; the evidence is in fact to the contrary; he only had the five children in his care for three days and that was in the joint care of himself and Miss EW.  It is submitted on his behalf that had the incident of 27^th December not occurred, in all probability the children would have remained in his care and he would have continued to attend to their needs, irrespective of whether his relationship with Z had continued or not. 

 

94.                        I find he is mistaken in this belief.  In the absence of Miss EW, the local authority would have been required to reconsider their plans and the feasibility of Mr A caring for all the children on his own.  There is no doubt that Mr A loves his children and, indeed, they care for him.  His contact with the children is good and in contact his management of the large group of siblings is generally effective.  However, his inability to meet their emotional needs is apparent and of great concern.  Also, his ability to meet their needs on a continuing and consistent basis, outside the supported environment of contact, is also of concern to the local authority and the court.

 

95.                        Both MA and AM have expressed views that they do not want to live with dad; AM saying that she would not feel safe.  It is right that MO has always and continues to say that his wish would be to live with his father. 

 

96.                        Mr A, through Mr K, submits, at paragraph 8:

 

“Mr A would argue that there has been a rush by the Guardian to provide an opinion in this case for the hearing in January 2014 and that, in so doing, the Guardian has formed a view which has remained unchanged, but which was made without a full analysis of the case.  In particular, the Guardian’s evidence was that she had returned from holiday approximately two weeks before the final hearing was due to take place in January 2014.  The Guardian had been presented with some evidence relating to the incident on 27^th December 2013; the police evidence was not available to the Guardian; and she had not been able to speak to Z regarding the incident.  Mr A’s case is that she had not spoken to him at all regarding these matters, although the Guardian suggested that there had been a telephone discussion.  Even if such discussion had taken place, it is suggested that it would have been inadequate and would not have allowed the Guardian to obtain full instructions from Mr A regarding his account.  Thereafter the Guardian filed a report before the court on 24^th January, recommending that the children were not returned to Mr A.  Mr A would say that this report was prepared and filed in haste and did not give full consideration of the issues that existed at the time.  In particular, the report appears to be written on the presumption that Mr A is responsible for the incident on 27^th December and does not make any alternative suggestions in relation to the children, should the court have found that no wrongdoing occurred.”

 

97.                        It is right that I should mention that Mr A, until the evidence, save for that of the Guardian, was concluded, was represented by Mr Donnelly of counsel.  Mr A dispensed with the services of Mr Donnelly before the evidence was concluded and Mr Kyle, his solicitor, stepped in and conducted the cross examination of the Guardian and has made submissions to the court.  It is not for me to comment upon the actions of Mr A in discontinuing to have Mr Donnelly as his barrister, but I can and should express my admiration for the extremely professional job done by Mr Kyle, kin difficult circumstances.  In his submissions and indeed in his cross examination of the Guardian, he showed professional ability and competence.  However, in respect of the decision made to continue without the Guardian, of course it was not Mr Kyle who had conduct of the case at that time.  It was Mr Donnelly, who was then instructed on behalf of Mr A, and he agreed to the course of action taken to try to reduce delay to a minimum.  In any event, I am satisfied that any criticism of the Guardian is misplaced; in particular in relation to her not being present throughout the evidence, Mr Dollimore, her solicitor, was and a full note was taken. 

 

98.                        Further, in relation to all matters, the Guardian is an extremely experienced Guardian who would have alerted the court had she felt that her position was untenable, or compromised in any way.  Her final analysis, completed on 6^th January 2015, concluded:

 

“In the light of the evidence that is available to me and the investigations I have undertaken, it is my view there is clear evidence that indicates that all five children are likely to suffer significant harm, should they return to either their mother or their father’s care.  Both parents have had a responsibility in the roles that they have played in their children’s lives and how their inappropriate behaviour and inconsistent parenting has shaped and determined the outcome for the children in the long term.  It is sad for the children that their parents, having been afforded every level of support from all manner of professionals, have failed to provide the children with a safe, secure home environment.  Unfortunately, this has left professionals with no other plan for the children than that of long term foster care for AM and MA and adoption for MO, SA and AY.  I therefore support the care plans placed before the court, for AM, MA, MO, SA and AY.”

 

99.                        In her evidence before the court, Mrs Clarke was cross examined upon instruction from Mr A that Mr A recalled a discussion with the Guardian, with regard to Miss EW going to London, and that Mr A claimed that the Guardian indicated that Miss EW going to London would not necessarily be a problem.  The only difference that would be made was that support may have to be increased.  Mrs Clarke was clear that she had never had that conversation with Mr A.  She said she was not in fact present in the country at the time Mr A claimed to have had the conversation.  I accept the evidence of the Guardian that this conversation did not take place.

 

100.                    The Guardian, in evidence, stated that she did not feel it was safe for the children to return to the care of Mr A.  She said to the court that she considered if one or more of the children could be cared for by their father and said she did not support the return of any of the children to their father. 

 

101.                    Fiona Noon was instructed by the local authority.  She was not instructed as a single joint expert, however both parents cooperated in her assessment.  She undertook an assessment of Miss AF, Mr H and Mr A.  Miss Noon raised considerable concerns about Mr H.  At E144, paragraph 640, she sets out:

 

“The concern I was left with from this conversation is Mr H’s apparent inflexibility and decision to use his religious beliefs to justify his attitudes towards Miss F’s choice of dress in her own home; Miss F’s older children’s length of skirt and their desire to have their hair cut; his attitude to the foster carer looking after the girls; and, in terms of how he would propose to bring his daughter up.  At the same time, he has been prepared to break the rules he states he lives by to meet his own needs and only acknowledged in discussion that in his view his behaviour required forgiveness when I pressed him on the issue and he had become defensive and hostile.”

 

102.                    The latter reference is to Mr H having intimate relationships and living with Miss F prior to marriage.

 

103.                    Miss Noon also saw all of the children and provided reports of each of the children for the benefit of the court.  In respect of Mr A, she set out in writing her conclusions following upon her assessment of him.  At paragraph 15.4(1) she set out:

 

“The fundamental difficulty I have had in assessing Mr A’s future potential is that he does not accept and takes only minimal responsibility for the causes of concern in this matter.  Mr A is able to interact well with his children, he is plausible in his conversations and he has well developed social skills; he can bring the children together in contact, although he does not put boundaries around them if they refuse his requests to do things.  I do not know if he is being dishonest or if he genuinely believes, on reflection, that he was not violent to his partners.  I do not know if he really believes that the children are only repeating what they have been told or if he is telling lies about this.  In discussion with him, he did not seem to recognise the benefit of MA and AM receiving counselling.  He expressed satisfaction that MA has apparently asked recently for the counselling to stop.  He seemed to thing that this meant that any issues she was facing were resolved.  He made no link with his contribution to her past experience and her subsequent need for counselling at the young age she is.  His lack of empathy for the children’s predicament was remarkable, in my view.  He was able to talk freely about his own childhood feelings of security and protection and recognised his children had not experienced the same.  He demonstrated no acceptance or remorse for how he might have contributed to this.  If his stated attitude towards his children’s right to make their own choices in their future lives is really how he thinks, this demonstrates a tolerant parenting attitude, which will assist him in the future in the upbringing of his children.  He also thinks that it will be sufficient for the children to return to his care in the future and they will have no problems.  He will need no support and will accept it if he is compelled to.  I cannot see how he is able to reconcile that belief with the fact that his two older daughters have already needed to access counselling.  From the work I have undertaken with Mr A, I do not think that he looks at any situation from any perspective other than his own.  I do think he loves his children, within a framework of placing his own needs first.  I would expect him to continue to live like that, if he resumed the care of his children.  He does not acknowledge any shortcomings in his behaviour, beyond stating that he would think about choosing a future partner more carefully.”

 

104.                    In oral evidence, Fiona Noon told the court that she did not support the return of any of the children to the father.  She stated that Mr A presented, however, as the most tolerant of the three adults to whom she spoke, in terms of attitude. Mr H fluctuated significantly between being reasonable, then agitated and hostile.  He presented with a great deal of anger about the way Mr A behaved to the mother.  He said he was angry because Mr A’s behaviour was in direct contravention of how a Muslim should treat women.  Mr H called Mr A “an animal”, “a bad man”.  His hostility and anger almost immediately dissipated when he attended to W.  It was an incredible transformation.

 

105.                    Mr A told Fiona Noon that he did not trust the mother, but thought he could work with Mr H.  He said he would talk to Mr H.  Fiona Noon stated:

 

“I said to him that Mr H had vocalised great anger, but Mr A could not see the problem.”

 

106.                    Having heard Mr H giving evidence and his expressed views of Mr A, I doubt that Mr A and Mr H could tolerate each other, even for the benefit of the children.  Their attitudes are very different and both gave the distinct impression that their respective views were right, with no room for compromise.  Thus it is difficult to see how, if the children were with Mr A, their relationship with their mother, who is so dependent upon Mr H, could be accommodated. 

 

107.                    Fiona Noon dealt with a number of issues which were raised during her involvement.  They were labelled “cultural issues”.  Mr H raised objections about the girls having their hair cut, saying in his culture women grew their hair.  MA and AM had themselves requested it.  Mr A, on the other hand, was fine about it.  An issue also arose about short skirts; initially Mr H told Fiona Noon that the girls were not dressed appropriately in short skirts, because in his culture girls have to be covered up.  Mr H said, “It’s shameful”. 

 

108.                    It is of concern that girls of the age of MA and AM were being exposed to the attitude of Mr H, saying that he found them and their dress “shameful”.  The independent social worker did not think that the attitude was coming from the mother, but in fact Miss AF attempted to justify Mr H’s remarks to Fiona Noon.  Ms Noon expressed the view that mother had the ability to nurture, but does not have the capacity, or has not been willing or able to continue to nurture her children.  Mr H made it very clear that he wants more children; the mother was able to indicate her view, contrary to Mr H, that she did not want any more children.  Ms Noon set out her view of the relationship at E167:

 

“Mr H presented from his comments as a man who believes he is the more dominant partner in his relationship, by right of gender, and the fact that he is more educated than his wife.  Miss F presented as a naïve, vulnerable woman, who has made choices in her life, based on circumstances she has found herself in at any given time.  She presented as a woman who, it seemed to me, sees a short term solution to a difficulty she is in and who takes it without much thought of consequences for her actions.”

 

109.                    At paragraph 21(17) within the report, Ms Noon set out:

 

“Mr H’s verbal comments to Miss F during one of our discussions caused me immense concern.  I think, at the very least, they demonstrate a significant level of immaturity.  To call his wife “an animal”, to say she is from the jungle is, at the very least, rude and serves to do little more than demonstrate his total lack of understanding or concern for her poor education, vulnerability and past experience of suffering domestic dispute.  It is even more concerning that the words were not spoken during a heated argument between them, when he might excuse himself by saying that he had spoken in the heat of the moment.  He used the words to justify why he considered himself the boss in their family and to explain why he would have the final say in any unresolved argument between them.  A further issue that this incident raised for me was to question how Mr H might speak to his wife, when he does not have an audience.  I struggle to accept that W will continue to thrive emotionally if she is subject to this dynamic between her parents in the future.  Mr H uses his religion and his culture to justify his criticisms of others; he has also used his culture to try to avoid answering what he perceived to be difficult questions during the assessment process.  It was only with perseverance from me that he conceded that he had engaged in a sexual relationship before marriage, despite advising me in an earlier discussion that this was against his religion.  Other examples of this include his criticism of the foster carers having the oldest girls’ hair cut and the fact that during the summer months the girls were wearing shorter skirts and no tights.”

 

110.                    I concur with the concerns which Ms Noon raised within her report.  In oral evidence, Fiona Noon expressed the view that it was an absolutely extraordinary recommendation to place all five children with the father.  She said she would not have done it.  She expressed her concern about father’s ability to look after the children on a full time basis; she said not only dependent on the dynamic of the relationship, but the whole concept that Mr A denies what the children have said, causes her concern.  AM has said that she is frightened; MO has said that father does not feed him; I make it clear that I make no findings in relation to that, save that MO said it. 

 

111.                    Fiona Noon said that Mr A does not appreciate Mr H’s attitude towards him; Ms Noon was clear that Mr A appears to put his own needs first.  Fiona Noon referred to Mr A’s prime inconsistency being his belief he could look after the children himself, without support.  She said in oral evidence, explaining the assessment process:

 

“When undertaking assessment work, I do it more in the form of conversation.  You go backwards and forwards, it is the way people present themselves, how they say it, and whether they are consistent in what they are saying.  Mr A’s primary inconsistency was his belief he could look after the children himself and did not need support.  He said he would accept support if it was what people wanted him to do.  He was consistent in denying violence, but then he did admit pushing Miss F.  He made acceptance of responsibility, but then no acceptance.  He changed.  He is a very pleasant and engaging man.  I accept that he sought out the domestic violence programme; he also told me he did not need to attend any more, because he had learned everything he needs to know.  He told me he did not need it, he was absolutely clear to me he did not need it.  He said he could bring up five children without help.  I said any family with five children would struggle.  He was clear that his panacea and solution was to return the children to him.  He said, ‘if you want it, I’ll take support seven days a week, whatever you think’.  He is, obviously, motivated, but it is not sufficient to have confidence in his ability to understand and sustain it.  I do not think a responsible parent would behave in the way of Mr A.  He said he put the children first; I said, ‘how do you demonstrate that you put the children first, entering into a new marriage and having two new children when the future of the other children was uncertain?’  He said he was being kind to Z, because her biological clock was ticking.  He said in October he thought all the children would be with the mother; this was despite his view which had been expressed that mother did not meet their needs.”

 

112.                    Fiona Noon expressed the view that it would be disastrous for the children if they returned to their father and the placement then broke down again.  I am satisfied that that view must be correct for these children who have been in and out of foster care and cared for by different adults.  Upon the basis of the evidence before the court, the court could not have confidence that the placement with the father of any of the children would either endure or meet the needs of those children.  Mr A does not accept the overall opinion of Fiona Noon, or of course the Guardian, but in relation to Fiona Noon, he said that the independent social worker observed him for small periods of time and had much more limited contact with him than the other professionals.

 

113.                    Fiona Noon is an experienced practitioner and provided an opinion for the court, based upon the assessments which she had undertaken.  Her overall view was in accordance with those of the other professionals as to the capability of father to provide good enough parenting for the five children.

 

114.                    I am satisfied that the evidence I have read and heard supports the making of the findings that the local authority has asked me to make.  The findings made by District Judge Loomba on 22^nd November 2012 stand.  There is no evidence upon which this court would feel justified in supporting any alteration therein.  In respect of the additional findings, in my judgment there is ample evidence to support each and every one of the additional findings sought by the local authority.  The indication received late in the day that the Angelou Centre could no longer work with the mother, given the “unfounded allegation she had made against a member of staff”, was an addition to the original findings sought in relation to mother.

 

115.                    Dr Cawthorne and the other professionals saw the support of the Angelou Centre as essential in supporting and assisting mother in her care of any of the children.  Mother, by her own actions has removed the availability of that essential support. 

 

116.                    The issue of the cultural needs of the children is relevant in looking at the long term planning and as part of the welfare of these children.  Mr Trache accepted that the local authority could have done more to promote the cultural needs of the children and I find that they should have done so.  To the extent that this may be a failure of the local authority, such failings are not reasons why the children were placed in foster care, or remained in foster care, or cannot return to their parents’ care.  But they are important in considering the long term welfare of the children. 

 

117.                    The plan for MA and AM is long term foster care; they were removed from the care of Mrs P on 23^rd January 2015, for reasons to do with matters outwith their care of MA and AM; they have been placed with Mrs K, a white British carer, married to a Muslim, thus their Muslim cultural needs will be better met if they remain with her.  If not, it is important that the local authority take steps to meet the cultural needs of these girls.  Contact is proposed at six times per annum, which will assist in relation to the cultural identity of AM and MA. 

 

118.                    AY is cared for by Mr and Mrs D and has been since birth.  The plan for AY is adoption by Mr and Mrs D and the plan has been refined to reflect that Mr and Mrs D also seek to adopt MO and SA.  Mr and Mrs D are presently open to facilitating appropriate levels of contact to MA and AM and indeed to the parents.  The acceptance and support of the parents of these children in this placement is a key factor when the local authority consider contact and therefore it depends largely upon the acceptance, or otherwise, by the parents of the court’s decision, whether or not continuing contact to the younger children can be beneficial or appropriate.  If the Ds do not pursue the adoption of MO and SA, the contingency planning would be long term foster care for them together. 

 

119.                    The BS analysis carried out by the Guardian and independent social worker supports the local authority’s plans.  I am satisfied that the plans of the local authority are the correct plans and I am satisfied that in relation to AY, nothing else will do apart from the plan of adoption and in relation to MO and SA, that the plan of adoption is the best plan to meet their needs; adoption by Mr and Mrs D will maintain their links with their sisters, but sadly if that is not a feasible plan, or realistic, then the contingency plan of long term foster care must be the best plan for them. 

 

120.                    Therefore, I approve the local authority’s plans and I make Care Orders in relation to these children. 

 

121.                    The local authority seek Placement Orders in relation to MO, SA and AY.  The Guardian has prepared a report for the section 22 Placement application; I have considered that report, as well as the other documentation filed within the Placement application, namely the statement of facts and the annex B report.  MO has made it clear that he would wish to return to his father; the two girls, SA and AY, have of course not verbalised any wishes or feelings, they are too young to appreciate the situation.  None of the children have any concept of what adoption entails; their needs are the needs of any young child for stability, security and consistency of care.  Adoption, of course, is a complete legal and practical severance from the birth family.

 

122.                    I am satisfied that there are no other family members able to provide care and for the reasons set out in the lengthy judgment which I have just delivered, their parents cannot provide good enough care for them.  Therefore they need a placement which will meet their requirements and needs.  They will lose the relationship which they presently have with MA and AM if no contact is arranged; it will be a change for MO and SA if they are placed with Mr and Mrs D, but they will be together; AY knows no other carer or home. 

 

123.                    MO and SA do know Mr and Mrs D, which will assist and maybe alleviate some of the distress they may feel as they change home again.  Adoption will provide for the long term for these children to grow up, free from court litigation and local authority continuing input. 

 

124.                    The age, sex and background of the children is part of the welfare checklist.  They are all of the Muslim faith and both MO and SA have had limited exposure and involvement in their cultural heritage.  AY, in the care of Mr and Mrs D, because of their efforts, has had her cultural needs promoted.  So it would be anticipated that Mr and Mrs D could similarly promote the cultural needs of MO and SA, if they are in the care of Mr and Mrs D. 

 

125.                    I have dealt with at length and made findings in respect of the high level of and continuing domestic violence, unstable home life and inconsistent parenting over a significant period of time for the four older children.  They have had numerous moves and changes of care giver; they have been harmed by the deficit in their parents’ ability to provide arrangements for good enough care.  It is likely that the arrangements proposed by the local authority will enable MO, SA and AY to maintain the family connections.  The mother does not oppose the plan; I am not sure she consents to the extent that she will commit it to writing.  Father does not consent and I am satisfied that the welfare of MO, SA and AY requires that I dispense with the consent of the parents, upon the basis of the evidence which is before the court and the findings that I have made.

 

126.                    Therefore, I make the Placement Orders as requested by the local authority.

 

End of judgment

 

We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by Her Honour Judge Moir.

Compril Limited