IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BRISTOL

Case No: BS15C00205/BS15Z01051

 

Date: 19/11/2015

 

Before :

 

DISTRICT JUDGE HOWELL

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

Between :

 

Gloucestershire CC Applicant

 

- and -

 

GM, CW Respondent

 

CW, KW, SW, WW, L-MW

Through their guardian

 

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

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

 

Hearing dates: 9-12 and 19 November 2015

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

JUDGMENT

 

DJ Howell :

 

1.                   Parties

 

2.                   I am concerned with the welfare of 5 young people, C dob 6.12.03 so she is aged 11, K dob 19.2.05 so he is aged 10, S dob 1.05.07 so he is aged 8, W dob

2.05.08 so he is aged 7 and L dob 6.11.14 so she is aged 1 year.

 

3.                   The father of all the children is CW.

 

4.                   The mother of the older 4 is JC. JC is believed to live in Scotland and although the  L/A  have  sought  to  engage  with  her  and  get  her  involved  in  these proceedings she has chosen not to. It is believed that she last saw the children in 2011. She has had notice but has not attended this hearing.

 

5.                   The mother of L is GM.

 

6.                   These are care and in respect to L placement order proceedings commenced by Gloucestershire County Council GCC.

 

7.                   The children are represented by their guardian CL.

 

8.                   Background and parties positions

 

9.                   There is a chronology dating back to 2013 at the start of section C of the bundle and I do not intend to set out any further detail of that here. Particularly because CW and GM have agreed that the threshold in section 31 Children Act 1989 is crossed in this case on the basis of the agreed threshold document prepared at this hearing.

 

10.               It is sufficient to say that it records that this family were known to and had input from 2 previous social care departments in the areas in which they lived namely Coventry and Rhondda prior to moving to Gloucester in March 2014. The involvement of this local authority started almost immediately after that move

 

11.               The concerns of this Local Authority and those who had previously dealt with the family are set out in the Final threshold document at A22. The Threshold that has now been conceded by the parents I have inserted that at A22a.

 

12.               Right  up to the commencement  of this hearing  father took issue with all aspects of the threshold hence my listing of this hearing for 4 days.

 

13.               On day 1 the positions of the parties changed. The L/A which until then had been seeking a placement order for L, now sought a care order with a care plan of L remaining in the care of mother. The making of that order was agreed by the parents.

 

14.               In addition father who had been contending for the return of all his children accepted that he could not care for K and S and accepted the making of a care order for them. He continues to argue for a resumption of his care of C and W.

 

15.               In making those concessions it was apparent to me that the parents must be saying that the threshold was crossed and I invited the parties to agree the terms of threshold document. Hence the agreed threshold.

 

16.               It will be apparent from a comparison of the 2 threshold documents that those allegations  that  the  children  have  been  exposed  to  physical  harm  in  their father’s care  have  not  been  conceded.  I  have  not  been  asked  to make  any findings that go beyond the agreed threshold in respect to those allegations and therefore they remain just that, allegations.

 

17.               Therefore the remainder of this hearing has been focused on the question of best placement for C and W. In respect to that the L/A stands by its care plan for them and that is supported by the CG. Father seeks a CAO for placement with him.

 

18.               The law

 

19.               The L/A now seeks only care orders for C, K, S, W,and L.

 

20.               For me to make a care order I must first be satisfied that the threshold under s31 CA 1989 is met. I have set out the position as to threshold above. For the purposes of making these orders I am in position to consider threshold is crossed.

 

21.               The threshold being crossed, the L/A must prove to me on the balance of probabilities that the welfare of the children requires that I make the orders they  are  seeking.  In  assessing  their  welfare  I  must  consider  the  welfare checklist in s1(3) CA1989.

 

22.               When I come to  consider  findings the standard of proof I  must  apply is  the balance  of  probability  and  I  must  remind  myself  that  it  falls  on  the  party alleging a given fact to prove it to that standard.

 

23.               I  must  bear  in  mind that  my  starting  point  must  be  that  children should  be raised by their natural parents unless it is unsafe for them to do so and as was so recently re-emphasised by the President in Re A (a child) [2015] EWCA 11 quoting Hedley J

 

"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 both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others 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 spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done."

 

And Baroness Hale;

 

"We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviors which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs."

 

24.               The L/A has a duty to provide services to a parent to enable them to continue to care for their children and I must consider whether even if there are risks to the  children  in  their  parent’s  care  provision  of  such  services  could  address those risks.

 

25.               As we know from In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013]  UKSC  33,  [2013]  1  WLR  1911,  [2013]  2  FLR  1075,  In  re  B-S (Children)  (Adoption  Order:  Leave  to  Oppose)  [2013]  EWCA  Civ  1146, [2014] 1 WLR 563, [2014] 1 FLR 1035 and Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 1625 I must consider all of the realistic options for each of the children’s care in what has become known as a “holistic manner”, i.e. not in a linear manner knocking down each family option until only the L/A plan is  left  standing. I must remember that fostering, especially long term fostering has its own detriments and risks of harm. Not least amongst those is the denial of the child’s right tobe brought up by or see their natural family as they would wish but also the risk of the placement breaking down and the children having to be moved to a new home. Those risks and detriments must be balanced with any risks from the natural family. Although the L/A now only seeks care orders, which are constantly under review under the LAC system and always leave open the possibility of the children’s return to his/her family if the situation changes for the better, I must remember that the plan here is for long term foster care and I must approach this matter on the basis that approval of the plan may mean that these children (except of course L) never return to the care of their parents. Such orders are therefore very serious and draconian orders.

 

26.               Such orders are a very serious intervention in the human rights of the children and the parents and I must bear in mind the rights of each child and each member of their family to family life under article 8 of the HRA 1998, (though if there is conflict of rights between child and parent the rights of the child should prevail).  This court will not engage in social engineering. The human rights, in particular the right to family life of both the parents and the child must  be  respected.  As  such  I  must  only  make  such  orders  as  are  both necessary and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

 

27.               The evidence

 

28.               I have a substantial bundle in 3 arch lever files which I have read. During the course of the hearing I have received further statements from the SW in this case LM I have heard oral evidence from GE a psychologist, DH a senior practitioner SW who undertook a PAMS based parenting assessment, JW the deputy head of the children’s school, LM the SW in the case, Mrs G LM’steam manager, mother GM, father CW and CL the CG. In addition I heard a 101 police call made by the SW LM in June of this year.

 

29.               Options for the children

 

30.               As there is consensus between the parties as to the placement of L, K and S. I do  not  intend  to  dwell upon  the  plans  for  them  in  that  regard.  There  is  a dispute as to the frequency and arrangements for their contact with father and I will deal with that below.

 

31.               For C and W the 2 realistic options which I have to consider are placement in foster care and placement with Father either together or on their own. It is not suggested that  GM  look after  them and  JC  has  not  put  herself  forward as  a potential  carer  for  either.  Until  this  hearing  CW  had  not  put  forward  any realistic alternative carers. The ones he had put forward were not capable of being contacted. He now puts forward some names but it is too late for them to be considered as realistic options for the purpose of this hearing. Orders were made previously for the parents to put forward such names by a certain date so they  could  be  assessed  but  these  names  were  not  put  forward  before  that deadline. If those people he now seeks to put forward do come forward in the future  and  make  themselves  known  to  the  L/A  then  as  part  of  the  ongoing review  process  for  any of the  children  in  care  they  may  be  assessed  and  if suitable may offer an option in the future. But for this judgment I am left with those 2 options to consider and  balance.

 

32.               LM the SW’s evidence

 

33.               I  need to  deal with LM’s evidence as a preliminary issue  for  reasons which will become  apparent.

 

34.               LM the SW for the children has prepared 3 core assessments in Section C, C6- 28 and C29-44, and C119-167, statements at C45, C298 and C447 and the care plans at section D.

 

35.               It is not clear from his first statement at C45 when he was appointed as the children’s SW. Though I note that at C46 he  describes himself as newly qualified SW and that he started with Gloucestershire CC in August 2014 so it cannot be before that date. His first Core assessment is dated 9 October 2014.

 

36.               On day one of this hearing it was brought to my attention that the L/A had disclosed to the parents’ solicitors through an update of the index of checklist documents that a Storm log existed of a telephone call made by LM to what we now know was the 101 emergency line on the evening of the 9 June 2015. I was told that the update to the index had been issued on 28 October 2015 [C2 application from father] and a copy of the storm log had been sent to father’s solicitors sometime after that.

 

37.               Those acting on behalf of the father were concerned at its contents as on his instruction  the  allegations  made  in  the  log  against  CW  were  untrue.  They asked for a statement from LM but I do not think they did so before last week. I  have  not  been  shown  any  of the  correspondence  that  passed  between  the solicitors. Their C2 application is dated 5 November 2015 but I had not seen a copy prior to this hearing starting on the 9  November

 

38.               I  heard  argument  on  Day  1  around  the  significance  of this  log  and  the allegations around it and adjourned to allow the parties to consider matters further whilst they prepared the amended Threshold.

 

39.               Later that morning I was presented with handwritten statement from the SW. I now know that he prepared it himself having been put in a room on his own to do so. It does not bear a statement of truth, a matter which I raised when I saw it and was told it would do so in due course, but it is signed.

 

40.               The statement is there for all to read and I do not intend to set it out in detail. It recounts that LM came home and found that his partner had been in e mail communication with GM about the sale of baby-grows and that the final e mail from GM said that CW would be coming to the SW’s home on the following Friday to collect them. It was apparent that GM had been given the postcode but probably not the address by the SW’s partner and I am satisfied that CW might have been able to identify LM’s car having seen him with/in it.

 

41.               LM tells me that prior to that date he had found CW to be threatening and he was frightened of him. He had discussed this with his manager at the time he first felt threatened and I am told that a risk assessment resulted in the security team at the council advising LM to call the police if something threatening happened. I understand that this was with a view to getting a log number from the police. Hence the 101 call and not a 999 call. I accept that was LM’s intention when he called. It is clear from the tape that it was to report CW but not to get police action against him.

 

42.               It is clear to me having read the statement and heard the log that LM was in a high state of agitation when he called the police. He told me that he had his 2young children with him and he was very frightened for their safety. He believed from what had been said to foster carers by CW and to him by GM that CW might have been seeking to find out information about him over the internet and may already have done so and therefore not unreasonably in my judgment was concerned for the safety of his family. I do not think he knew what form the specific threat may take but I accept that in his mind he saw justification for fearing a threat existed and that he needed to take action. I do not criticise him for drawing a conclusion from the events that a threat might exist and that he needed to take action. SW’s like LM must live in constant fear of retaliation from disgruntled and angry parents into whose lives they have intervened and that fear must have been magnified by potential involvement of his young family. I do not accept the premise of Ms O’Neil’s line of questioning of LM that in these days SW’s should expect and take on the chin, as it were, attempts by parents to intrude on their privacy by electronic means.

 

43.               The problem here is that as LM accepts in the second of his statements that he filed during this hearing, what he told the police about CW in that call to 101 was at times factually inaccurate and at other times exaggerated in its account of the incident to which it refers.

 

44.               I accept that he was in an aroused state and panicking. That is clear from his voice on the tape. I also accept that in that state he could easily get things wrong  and  did  so.  In  my  judgment  it  is  most  likely  that  he  wanted  to emphasise the seriousness of his perception of threat that he saw CW posing so as to get the support he undoubtedly thought he needed to get to protect his family and he exaggerated the facts to achieve that.

 

45.               I  am asked  by  Miss  O’Neil  to  censure  him  for  making  those  untruthful comments about father in that call on the basis that as a professional SW he holds  a  professional duty to the parents he deals with and that  the  false information he gave to the police was in breach of that duty and it is in the public interest for me to censure him to uphold proper behaviour by social workers. It is pointed out to me with some force that if a parent had made false allegations against a SW like that the L/A would have been seeking their censure by the court.

 

46.               I do consider that it was unprofessional of him to act in the way he did with the police but I think that I must take account of the context of that call and the state that he was in. I do not think that many professionals could be expected to be level headed in such circumstances. I also take account of his newly qualified and inexperienced status. However at the end of the day what he said about father in many particulars was simply not true.

 

47.               Unfortunately  matters  do  not  end  there.  LM  filed  his  first  handwritten statement  denying that  he said  the things  recorded  in  the Storm log  mid morning on day one. In so doing he does not say “I can’t remember but I think I said”, he says in terms “I did not report” and “I did not state”. He advances a positive case that the Storm log was wrong. As we now know from the tape the log was almost entirely accurate and reflected the factual content of the call. Before LM was due to start his evidence on Monday (which he did not actually give until Wednesday) I was told by Ms Pitts for the L/A that he had reconsidered the contents of that handwritten statement and was already concerned that he may not have remembered the exact words he used in the call. I am afraid I cannot accept that as any form of mitigation here. This was not a question of having got words wrong. The intent of the statement was to convince the court that the Storm log was wrong.

 

48.               That statement was misleading to the court. If the tape of the Storm log had not been expedited then the court may have accepted the word of the LM as a professional SW that he had not said the things reported and proceeded on that basis.

 

49.               I am gravely concerned about how this young and inexperienced SW was left in this situation and how it comes about that he was left in the position of potentially misleading the court in this way.  I have had no evidence as to the supervision he received. In this context I don’t simply mean in relation to the call itself; LM admits he did not seek to speak to his manager before making the call. This is perhaps not surprising in the circumstances given his panic but it  is  surprising that  a procedure had not  been put  in place when first  he reported his concerns to anticipate the state he might be in if he perceived a threat  in  his own home, and which would  have offered  him support  and guidance. Surely the L/A should have taken stock then and considered either reallocating this newly qualified SW away from this case or offering him support. I also question the support offered for his preparation for court, his understanding of the legal process and appearance before me. The L/A need to look at these issues very carefully, learn lessons and put in place procedures toensure that no other SW, newly qualified or otherwise is put in this position in the future.

 

50.               Father not unsurprisingly says to me that I can give little if any weight to this SW’s evidence.

 

51.               I remind myself that the fact that a person, even if he is a professional, gives untruthful evidence on one matter does not mean that all of his evidence is thereby rendered suspect. I also remind myself that LM was not asked at any point in his cross examination what impact his view of father had upon his assessments and his work on the case and that although he accepted that his assessment as written was insufficiently balanced, concentrating as it did on negatives  and  not  enough  on  positives,  it  was  not  put  to  him  that  that imbalance was due to his view of father. As a result as Miss Pitts says I do not have any evidence that his view affected his ability to “work the case” (as she put  it) and come to the conclusions that  he  has as to the welfare of the children. I also take account of the fact that a lot of his work predates the incident in June 2015 and remind myself that the telephone call itself does not directly reflect on the issues I have to decide i.e. the welfare of the children as Miss O’Neil quite rightly conceded.

 

52.               However given the facts as I set out above I consider it unsafe for me to give very much weight to this SW’s assessments if any at all. I cannot be satisfied that his objectivity has not been affected by his clear fear of father in this case and the view he held of father, as evidenced by the call he made to the police. I also consider that his position in this case has been compromised by the manner in which he has been managed and advised.

 

53.               I  am very concerned  by what  I  see  as  the  complacency of the  L/A  in  their response to this  issue when it  first  arose “in house” as  it  were,  when it  was reported by the SW that he found father aggressive and when he made the call to  the  police,  when  it  was  later  raised  by  father  and  in  this  hearing.  It  is inconceivable to me that they could not see that it had potential to affect the weight  I  could  give  to  the  SW’s  evidence  and  potentially  derail  this  case causing delay and thereby affect the welfare of these very vulnerable   children.

 

54.               It  is  of  course  a  matter  for  the  L/A what  steps  they take  as  a  result  of this debacle. That is a matter for them though I have set out above what I would have thought  it  would  be  sensible  for them to do. For his part LM has very sensibly  said  in  his  most  recent  statement  that  he  has  enrolled  himself  on further training. In my judgment that is essential for  him.

 

55.               I was asked by Ms O’Neil to consider lifting the anonymity of the SW in this case on the grounds of the likely public interest in my findings. As will be apparent from this judgment I have decided not to do so because in my view it is too easy to “name and shame” individual frontline professionals when it is the management and systems higher up that are in fact at fault as I think may be the case here.

 

56.               Unsurprisingly father submits that the evidence of the other expert witnesses and in particular GE and DH were influenced by the evidence of LM.

 

57.               GE  was  asked  about  this  specifically  in  cross  examination.  She  replied  that whilst she was aware of a pattern of behaviour on father’s part from the work in the court bundle she did not approach her work in that way because as she put it “people change”. She based her conclusions on her work with the  familyand the interviews she undertook. With reference specifically to father she saw her job as giving him an opportunity to speak and in the end she felt he had. She observed that father had been very “defended” when he had started his work with her but had in the end responded to a semi-structured interview approach though he remained prone to minimisation and evasiveness. As is apparent from her report and her evidence most if not all of her conclusions are born out of her observations and analysis of the family dynamics and I don’t feel that her evidence can be considered tainted and devalued by the situation with the LM’s evidence or the approach that has been taken to the threshold allegations.

 

58.               Likewise  DH  had  read  the  core  assessments  prepared  by  LM.  However  he made it clear that his assessment was based on the observations he made and interviews  he  undertook.  He  is  a  SW who  qualified  in  2006  and  became  a senior practitioner in 2012 and who has undertaken what sounded to me to be extensive training in preparing PAMS parenting assessments. He works as a part time SW preparing such assessments outside of the team that LM works in. When given details of GE’s assessment of father’s capacity at E29 (which had  not  been  available  to  him  at  the  time  of his  work)  he  said  he  was  not surprised and that it was in line with his observations. He accepted that he had mistyped  a  comment  in  a  negative  form about  father’s  attitude  towards  the assessment but overall I found his evidence to be balanced and where he could he gave credit to father for what he did well in the assessment. In my judgment my ability to  consider  his  assessments  is  not  affected  by my  conclusions  in respect to  LM.

 

59.               Analysis of options applying the welfare checklist

 

60.               I will deal with the issue of placement for C and W first and then in the context of my decision in respect to that consider contact arrangements.

 

61.               Wishes and Feelings

 

62.               I  am sure  that  all of these  children would  wish  to  be  brought  up  by their parents  provided  that  their  safety  was  assured,  and  the  care  and  attention which they received in their parent’s care met their needs.

 

63.               The CG’s report recounts that C has consistently expressed a wish to return to her father’s care. The CG says that C feels a sense of loyalty to father having previously raised concerns herself about his care, but also defending him if her younger siblings have raised similar concerns. If she cannot return home she would want to stay with her present FC’s. I am told that she will be upset if I say she cannot return home and will need support to process that decision.

 

64.               GE assessed C as having insecure attachments and her attachment relationship with   her   father   was   disorganised   and   enmeshed   alternating   between compulsive care giving and punitive aggression or withdrawal E44   6.1.6.4.

 

65.               Father says that she is his golden girl and his view is clear that there is a strong bond between them.

 

66.               The CG reports that W is settled in his placement and thriving. He asked the CG  spontaneously  whether  if  he  went  home  his  foster  mother  could  come home with him so “she could tell daddy how to look after me”. He is described as  being  happy  in  foster  care  but  maybe  would  like  to  go  home.  The  CG reports that W is aware of C’s views and reluctant to express his own as a result.

 

67.               GE assessed W as having an insecure disorganised pattern of attachment and displaying ambivalent feelings towards his father and has shown fearful and anxious behaviour  and  anger  during  contact  with his  father. In the  Bene Anthony test W indentified a low level of emotional attachment that was ambivalent to father. In contact he showed a high level of emotional arousal anxiety and anger.

 

68.               At E47 C GE reports that the results of the Bene Anthony test for C showed that her interactions in respect to W were 100% negative. He was the last of her siblings that she chose to save. Similarly W in his response identified a low level of emotional involvement for C.

 

69.               Physical  and  emotional  and  educational  needs/any  harm  the  children have suffered

 

70.               C suffers from a form of scoliosis for which it is anticipated she will need spinal surgery in 2016. She also has talipes. I am told by the CG that in spite of this she is an active child and doesn’t let her conditions interfere with her day to day activities including I am told riding lessons once per week.

 

71.               There are no health concerns for W.

 

72.               It was put to both GE and DH whether they considered the children as being disabled and therefore entitled to disabled services which they did not receive. Neither  accepted  that  label  for  any  of  the  children  even  C  with  her  health issues.

 

73.               GE assessed all of the children and her conclusion is best summarised by what she says in her executive summary at E 25 that they “continue to require an above average level of care to meet the complexity of their individual needs”.

 

74.               She set out her assessment of C starting at E40 and I don’t intend to set that out again here.

 

75.               At E42 she records that the assessment on the Adaptive behaviour test for C in the   Autumn  term  2014   i.e.   before   her   accommodation   fell  within  the extremely  low  range  for  the  General adaptive  Social and  practical domains and her conceptual domain was borderline.

 

76.               Similarly the rating for Autumn term on the Achenbach scales fell within the range of clinical significance for withdrawn/depressed Anxious depressed and Composite internalised scales with the school reporting that on the Introverted scale the schools concerns were that she felt hurt when criticised, worries and is self conscious nervous enjoys little rather be alone than with others sad and secretive and on the extrovert scales argues a lot mood changes stubborn explosive temper lies and cheats. C is described as finding it hard to enjoy anything, never smiled nor started a conversation, looked miserable with an absence of joy and very low self esteem.

 

77.               GE  analyses  C’s  attachment  style  with  Father  at  E44  6.11.6.1.  The  overall pattern is  insecure and disorganised. At  6.11.6.2 she sets out the features of C’s presentation that lead to her conclusion.

 

78.               GE cites care giving by father that has been highly anxiety provoking lacking stability; place moves, new mother figures, and poor quality of care giving as likely causes of such behaviours.

 

79.               Interestingly GE reports that when GM completed the same scales for C she reported her presentation in similar terms to that of the school, whilst father’s rating for her fell within the normal range.

 

80.               GE’s assessment of W appears at E56 and once again I do not need to quote it at length  here.

 

81.               The Achenbach scales pre-placement showed that W fell within the clinically significant range for internalised, externalised and total scores. Again it  is interesting  that  father  placed  W  in  normal  range  for  all  scales  save  for externalised which he placed at borderline.

 

82.               W was described by the school as presenting with explosive anger; could not cope with losing a game, becoming red in the face, swearing out of control and running off. He presented with a number of behaviours associated with high anxiety and fearfulness and was fearful of the dark and felt unsafe at night.

 

83.               His attachment was fearful and anxious overlaid by disorganised strategies and at 6.11.23.1 GE sets out the behaviours she identifies as indicating this style.

 

84.               It  is  clear  that  in  terms  of their  emotional needs  both C  and  W present  as extremely needy children for who reparative parenting of a very high standard as GE suggests is required.

 

85.               GE sets out her views as to the aetiology of those emotional needs at E59. She sets  out  a  list  in  bullet  point  format  of  the  factors  that  she  would  say contributed to the development of those needs. GE was cross examined on those by Ms O’Neil as to the extent to which the allegations of exposure to inappropriate chastisement and physical abuse which of course have not been proven  contributed  to  GE’s  conclusions.  GE  responded  that  the  most significant factor in her view was the social/emotional behaviour of father and its impact on the children. The unproven allegations had not influenced her view to any significant extent.

 

86.               GE’s report as to the position of the children now on the Achenbach scales indicates that their needs have reduced in foster care. Similarly the school through JW reports that the children have significantly improved since their accommodation.

 

87.               GE told me in her evidence that the children showed signs of trauma when they had contact with father. Their arrival at contact with father was a trigger for them to regress in their behaviour and to become very disturbed. They did not show this traumatised response when they met as a group of children; their style of behaviour was completely different. She described this response as hyper arousal similar in type to sufferers from PTSD; “it was as if they were being taken back into the environment when they were at home a place of hyper arousal and insecurity”.

 

88.               I accept GE’s analysis of the children’s needs and their origin. I am satisfied that these  children  have  suffered significant  emotional and  developmental harm such that it has affected their attachment behaviours and has left them extremely needy and that harm is attributable to the care given to them by their carers, most recently CW and GM.

 

89.               I am also satisfied that they now need reparative parenting of a standard that can offer them the consistency of care that will give them an opportunity to recover.

 

90.               Likely effect of any change in circumstances

 

91.               Both C and W are described as thriving in the care of their  foster carers. Of course it  must be borne in mind that foster carers have support and resources that  ordinary parents  cannot  normally call upon.  And  if  they were  to  return home  to  father  it  would  be  expected  that  he  would  have  to  receive  support services of a like kind to help him meet their   needs.

 

92.               JW told us that after he was accommodated K received support from a service called Hop Skip and Jump which JW felt had been very beneficial to him and effected  real change  in  his  education.  Father  asks  “why wasn’t  I  given that level of support when I had K’s care?”. In that case the simple answer is that K  as  a  looked  after  child  was  fast  tracked  to  that  resource  whereas  in  the community that resource would have only been available to him once he had exhausted  the  separate  schooling  option  which  at  the  point  of  time  he  left father’s care he had  not.

 

93.               The beneficial effect of such services for the children in father’s care would depend on the ability of father to  accept them and work with them. The evidence which I have heard and which is mostly accepted by the parents is that when the family moved to Gloucestershire they did not wish to receiveservices from the Local Authority. They did not want to have the children put on a CIN plan so that they would receive more services. GM said she did not wish to because of her experiences in care, CW because they had not liked the support they had in south Wales.

 

94.               The one area of support they did accept and thought helped them was the FSW who CW likened to “nanny Macphee” though it would appear that came too late to avoid the children’s accommodation.

 

95.               In my judgment having heard father I am not satisfied that he would really accept services for the children if they were in his care because he doesn’t really have any understanding of why such services would be needed.

 

96.               Capability of father in meeting their needs

 

97.               The summary of GE’s assessment of father appears at E25. He presents with a “significant number of risks factors in respect of his psychological profile and associated poor outcomes for children including ongoing minimisation lack of acceptance and externalisation of blame and responsibility for the children’s [behaviour ]”

 

98.               The more detailed assessment appears at E29 but I don’t intend to set that out here. In her oral evidence GE highlighted father’s lack of empathy as being the key to his poor parenting “because that was what I saw was  missing”.

 

99.               At E34 she sets out her analysis of the risks that CW poses in his parenting. I do not intend to set that out here because it there for all to read. At 6.3.5 she says CE “presents with a coercive pattern of behaviour in terms of parenting which is associated with poor outcomes for family functioning escalation ofdysfunctional behaviour…” and at 6.3.9 CW’s “difficulty in terms of ability to acknowledge difficulties to open and honest poses a further risk”. At E38 6.9.3 she says CW “finds it very difficult to offer …empathetic care-giving. He does not pick up on the emotional cues of the children and or have the ability (awareness insight and knowledge) to respond seek to understand the meaning behind the individual behaviours of one or more of his children” and at the foot of that page she concludes that CW “lacks the capacity to provide care for any of the children”.

 

100.            These conclusions were echoed by DH in his parenting assessment which was prepared independently of GE’s report, and in his evidence to me.

 

101.            At C240 he writes CW “showed little insight into the help he needs with the significant shortcomings in his parenting, his perception of his parenting is therefore skewed only indentifying help needed with feeding. He is unable to prioritise his children’s emotional needs … inconsistent with his responses to the   children’s   challenging   behaviours   and   appears   very   passive   and permissive in his parenting style which explains the neglectful parenting which the  children  have  grown  up  with…..  he  cannot  deescalate  his  children’s challenging behaviours.”

 

102.            CW describes his parenting in the past as lazy but DH would say that his parenting went  beyond  mere  laziness. Father struggled with guidance and boundaries.

 

103.            Although not asked to assess the option of father looking after only C or W or both  in  his  parenting  assessment  because  father  was  seeking  retrun of  all  4 children, DH was able to tell me  from his findings that he did not think  thatwas a viable option and that father would struggle to look after either of C or W.

 

104.            In terms of father’s capacity to change this situation GE was not optimistic. She described CW as pre-contemplative in terms of the cycle of change. She described his insight into the problems as poor and thought that father couldn’t really do anything to effect change unless he accepted his difficulties. Even then she said a lot of empathy is innate and although the situation can be improved  possibly  through  counselling  this  is  not  an  issue  that  will  be amenable to change in a short course of treatment.

 

105.            When father came to give his evidence the issues raised by GE and DH were quickly apparent. He showed little understanding of the problems he faced and the impact he had on his children through his behaviours, blaming others for those problems. He couldn’t really understand what the issue was with his lack of  empathy.  To  refute  GE’s  conclusions  he  cited  examples  of  when  he addressed the children’s emotional needs in contact which he thought showed that he had shown empathy. Unfortunately all that did was highlight what GE and DH had observed namely that he misses most of the cues and only picks up on the most obvious ones.

 

106.            He couldn’t really identify any services that he thought he might need to help him with C and W’s care. I do not criticise him for not knowing what services were available but he showed no recognition of what issues those services would be targeted at addressing. In my judgment that confirmed what I was told about his lack of insight.

 

107.            Conclusion

 

108.            Comparing  the  needs of these  children and  the  evidence  I  have  of  father’s ability to meet those needs I am driven to agree with the expert opinion in this case that best placement for them is foster care and not with their father. These children  need  ongoing  reparative  parenting  of  a  high  quality  and  level  of stability that I do not consider that father could offer to them. Therefore I will make a care order for C, K, S and W.

 

109.            I  think  that  father  himself  may  recognise  that  he  cannot  meet  C  and  W’s needs. In a rare piece of insight by him in unguarded evidence he said that K and S  would  be  in  a  safer  place  in  foster  care.  He corrected himself almost immediately but that slip of the tongue I think indicates that father in his heart of  hearts  probably  really  knows  he  cannot  provide  the  sort  of  care  these children need and that return to his care would result in them suffering further  harm.

 

110.            I know that he will be disappointed by this outcome as I believe he does love them.

 

111.            Arrangements for L, K and S

 

112.            There is consensus that L will be placed with mother under a care order and that  K and S will remain in  foster care under a care order. That is  now proposed by the L/A supported by the CG and accepted by the parents who consent to the orders. I have not gone through the welfare checklist for L, K and S in detail for that reason. I am satisfied that L remaining with mother is in her welfare interests provided mother continues to stay focused upon and meet her needs and stays separate from father. I consider that given the history there is a need for an order and it is necessary for me to make a care order in respect to L.

 

113.            I have read the amended care plan for L and approve the same. I have not at the time of writing seen the transition plan but I am satisfied that is a matter that can be safely left for the L/A to agree with mother.

 

114.            Contact

 

115.            GE told me that in her view the children need to see their father less frequently than  they  do  at  present.  She  recommended  6  times  per  annum  during  the school  holidays  so  that  the  contacts  could  be  activity  based  and  with  each child separately and or in small groups and not as a group of all 4 at once to avoid  the  trauma/hyper  arousal she  identified.  She  also  felt  that  the  contact needed to be supervised to avoid any risk of father seeking to undermine the placement. I accept that   advice.

 

116.            The CG agreed with GE but did say that there needed to be some opportunity for all 4 children to meet with father once a year as a group and I can see the attraction of that. However given the very clear evidence of the traumatic effect  of  such  contacts  I  think  that  GE’s  advice  should  be  canvassed. Unfortunately I was not aware of this proposal from the CG when I had GE before me so that I could ask her. However this need not delay the conclusion of these proceedings. Contact will be the subject of constant review by the L/A as part of the LAC process and this aspect can be dealt with within that context.

 

117.            I will order contact between the 4 older children to be arranged a minimum of 6 times per annum for each child, arrangements to be agreed between the L/A and father.

 

118.            K  needs  to  have  contact  with  L  as  soon  as  that  can  be  arranged  to  be supervised by GM and K’s foster   carer.

 

119.            Contact should be arranged between the older 4 children and GM and L. the evidence I heard was that GM was more empathetic than CW and better able to interact with the older children and it is important for them to develop their inter-sibling relationships.