England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT LEEDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

		6th March 2015

IN THE LEEDS FAMILY COURT Case No : LS14C00367

JUDGMENT
1. In these proceedings I am concerned with the welfare of I, a boy, who was born in September 2014. The local authority, Leeds City Council, applied for a care order 15^th September 2014. His parents, LZ and AZ are the first and second respondents in the proceedings.
2. Before me the local authority has been represented by Mr Swiffen of Counsel, the mother by her solicitor Ms Crockett, the father by his solicitor Ms Linden and I, through the children's guardian by Mr Howard.

The Background

3. This application arises from findings in previous care proceedings of serious inflicted injuries having been sustained by J Z (I's older brother, born in June 2005). He and his sister S, born in May 2004, were the subjects of care proceedings which culminated in threshold findings being made by His Honour Judge Hawkesworth QC in March 2006. In June 2006 the children were made the subjects of care orders and placed away from their parents for adoption. The father did not participate in those proceedings.
4. The parties before me have reached agreement as to the factual basis for the threshold criteria in these proceedings. The threshold criteria document records the following:

In earlier care proceedings in 2005-2006 in respect of siblings S and J Z, on the 27^th June 2006 HHJ Hawkesworth QC made threshold findings (which led to the children's permanent removal from their parents ). Inter alia these findings were as follows :

( a ) J had suffered significant physical harm namely multiple bony injuries to several of his limbs (fractured clavicle, 3 fractures to the right leg and one to the left leg )

( b ) the injuries were not caused accidentally. None of the explanations provided for them were accepted by the doctors or the court

( b ) they were caused by either the mother or the father

( c ) these injuries had been sustained by J on at least 2 separate occasions

( d ) that in their care of their parents the children were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care likely to be given to them if an order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.

At the time the local authority issued these proceedings in September 2014 the mother did not accept the findings and judgment which had been made by HHJ Hawkesworth QC and the father was unaware of its conclusions. They were both at the time presenting as a couple wishing to care for I jointly.

5. Given the seriousness of the findings made against the parents in the previous care proceedings, Leeds City Council became involved in planning safeguarding measures for I upon his birth. Following I's discharge from hospital, he was placed in the care of his parents and they were observed within the family home. The placement was supported by a group of 3 nurses who were able to provide 24-hour supervision. Funding was made available for this arrangement to continue for a period of 12 weeks, up to the 12^th December 2014, but since 23^rd November 2014 I has been in the sole care of his father as the mother, at his behest, moved out of the home. That arrangement has continued and the parents are now separated permanently. I will come to the reasons for the separation later in this judgment.
6. During these proceedings a number of assessments were commissioned to consider whether I could be safely parented by one or other or both of his parents.
7. First in time is a report by a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Helen Roberts, dated 10^th November 2014 [C44-71]. Ms Roberts interviewed Mrs Z on 10^th November 2014 and was specifically instructed to consider the reasons why Mrs Z said that she was unable to recall events from her childhood. Ms Roberts had a 3.5 hour interview with Mrs Z and discussed a number of topics with her. At page 89 of her report, Ms Roberts opines that dissociation and repression are primarily unconscious processes "of which the individual has little knowledge and which are difficult to control". Ms Roberts was of the opinion that this did not fit with Mrs Z's presentation. Ms Roberts says that it is theoretically possible that Mrs Z has suppressed memories but she also raises the possibility that Mrs Z may simply not be being honest about what she can remember. Ms Roberts comes to no specific conclusions as to why Mrs Z is unable to recall information from her childhood or of the sexual abuse that she may have suffered.
8. A parenting assessment has been undertaken by R L, the allocated social worker, dated 12^th December (C72-123). I feel it right to record in this judgment that this is a very impressive piece of work and I have no doubt that the diligence shown by Ms L when undertaking this assessment, and having a good eye for the important details of what was being said to her and how this differed from what had been said to others, has produced an outcome for I that is very much in his interests and which might not have been available to him had Ms L not performed her professional duties so competently.
9. Mr Z arrived in England from Iran, via Turkey and Holland, on 25^th October 2000 and spoke no English. He applied for asylum but this application was denied. He met Mrs Z when she was just 16 years of age. 7 months into their relationship Mrs Z fell pregnant with S. During the course of the pregnancy, Mr Z was deported. Mr Z was out of the country for a period of time but then re-entered illegally and has been present in England with no permission to remain and has, as a result, avoided interaction with government agencies and the court. He did not participate in the care proceedings concerning J and S for fear that he would, again, be deported.
10. What became clear during the course of Ms L's assessment was that Mrs Z could not be relied upon to tell the truth. Ms L concluded that Mrs Z had lied about many topics connected and unconnected with the injuries suffered by J. She had misled Ms Roberts, saying she had left school as she was being bullied when, in fact, she had assaulted another student. Ms L concluded that Mrs Z had lied to Ms Roberts when giving an account of her college career and employment history. When discussing Mrs Z's childhood, it became clear to Ms L that Mrs Z did have a recollection of events. Indeed, Mrs Z told Ms L that she was abused by a man named Philip [C86], demonstrating that she did remember some events. At C84, Ms L sets out "It was, however, clear as this assessment progressed that LZ did recall some aspects of her early childhood and whilst there may be some areas of memory that are suppressed/repressed at times she actively chose to deny memories in order to avoid discussion about them rather than having absences in her memory".
11. During the course of the assessment, Mrs Z and Mr Z gave accounts of events that occurred during the course of their relationship. These accounts were then compared with previous accounts given by Mrs Z. For example, at C92, Mrs Z explained that when Mr Z was deported, she went to live with her mother and didn't feel abandoned by Mr Z as he had managed to get his new phone number to her via a friend. Ms L put to Mrs Z the account that she gave in the previous proceedings of her separating from Mr Z as he had supported a friend who had accused her of stealing. In that account she said that Mr Z had returned to the UK after 5 months but had not got in contact with her and she had to seek him out. Ms L put this account to Mr Z and he was confused about why Mrs Z would say something that they both knew to be untrue.
12. There were a number of examples where Mr Z was confused when told of things that his wife had said it the past, the most serious concerned her saying that he had assaulted her with a knife. At C96, Ms L states:

"This situation did begin to alter when AZ began to actively question the validity of information LZ had provided to the Court and other professionals in respect of: him; their relationship and what happened to J during the previous Childcare Proceedings. The nannies noted that at times LZ would remove herself from the room to avoid AZ's questions, on one occasion left the house and the physical affection that had previously be observed between the couple gradually reduced. Nonetheless for the main part the couple's differences did not impact on the way they conducted themselves in front of the nannies or on I's care. The nannies did, however consequently become aware of discord between the couple as AZ appeared to be low in mood and LZ at times appeared to be critical of him. On the night of the 12^th November, the couple's behaviour alerted the nanny on duty to significant difficulties as both presented as emotionally upset in the middle of the night. This followed AZ advising his solicitor, earlier that day that, he did not accept LZ's account of J's injuries and wanted to be considered as I's sole carer.

On the 20^th November 2014 AZ advised the court that he wished LZ to leave their home and she agreed to this".

13. At C105, Ms L states:

"On the 5^th November 2014 AZ was provided with the key documents from the previous proceedings translated into Farsi after which his position changed considerably. As on the 12^th November during an assessment session he reported, "read loads, someone did this to kids lots didn't know before" and reported that he had told LZ that if, "if anything happened just tell me and we know truth. Anyone makes mistakes. She say you don't believe me". AZ can only be described as being distraught during this assessment session as he shared that having read the paper he was aware LZ had 'lied to me': "lied; I not been round and I want to go to Leicester, we never want to go to Leicester. Clavicle broke, leg 3 place". AZ said that he had told LZ, "I know you change now maybe you did something just tell me truth I want to know truth. She just crying, crying, crying". Furthermore, he shared that he had challenged her on her constant assertions that the Judge, doctors, solicitors are all 'lying' and had told her, "everyone lying but you. No".

AZ questioned repeatedly why LZ had continuously 'lied' to him for the last eight years about what had happened with their children and said that having read the papers he believed that she was responsible for J's injuries. Although clearly distressed AZ said that he no longer believed his marriage could work and no longer trusted LZ. The following day (13^th November) the Local Authority was notified by AZ's legal representative that he did not accept LZ's account of the injuries to J and wished to be considered as the sole carer for I".

14. In her court statement dated 29^th October 2014 [B19], Mrs Z states "I would wish to take responsibility for the injuries that have occurred to J whilst he was in my care in that I accept that I was the only adult present when those injuries occurred. I was responsible for J's safety even though I did not directly cause his injuries". In an assessment meeting with Ms L on 17^th November 2014, clarification was sought of what Mrs Z was saying had happened. She told Ms L that she admitted that she had hurt J as 2 children were "too much" for her. She said that she had been "changing him on floor, wriggled, pulled back forward, crying called AZ and said S did it. Didn't know what else to say was scared didn't know how to change what I said so stuck to that". When asked about whether she remembered the detail of what happened or whether the memories had been repressed and recently resurfaced, Mrs Z said "of course I remembered".
15. When reaching her conclusions as to whether Mr or Mrs Z could provide care for I, Ms L states:

(a) "There is no question that LZ suffered childhood adversity and abuse and that this has had a profound effect on her emotional literacy, developing personality, inter-personal relationships, coping mechanisms and the way in which she views and interacts with her world. These issues do not, however account for the injuries to J as whilst it is recognised that adults who experience abusive childhoods are, "less likely to be able to provide a stable and supportive environment for their children" (Brown and Ward, Childhood Research and Wellbeing Centre Oct 12 pg 69) it does not, as LZ recognises, follow that they will abuse their children. This in my opinion is more likely accounted for by LZ's entrenched and dysfunctional coping mechanisms which allow her to compartmentalise, reframe and omit negative incidents and feelings from the accounts that she provides to professionals, family and friends and at times possibly to herself" [C121].

(b) "Therefore whilst recognising the severity and concerns pertaining to J's injuries and LZ's culpability an equal if not greater concern of this assessment is LZ's behaviour and functioning. As her propensity to make subtle but notable omissions of information and changes in emphasis to the information she provides to different professionals is indisputable………. This in my opinion presents an unmanageable level of risk for professionals as it will prevent them from understanding the true situation of any child in her care and thus from assessing their safety and welfare" [C121].

(c) "LZ's multifaceted personality and engagement in disguised compliance increases the risks to any child in her care as it will without doubt prevent professionals from assessing and identifying the true situation of any child in her care and ensuring that they are afforded appropriate safeguarding" [C121].

(d) "Therefore, it is the recommendation of this assessment that LZ cannot be considered as a primary, backup or part-time carer for I as to do so would place him at risk of harm. Furthermore, in view of the identified risks LZ's contact with I will out of necessity need to continue to be closely supervised" [C122].

(e) "This assessment has equally considered AZ as a sole carer for I. AZ has throughout this assessment shown himself to be able to consider and act on professional advice. Prioritise and ensure I's needs are met and since being his sole carer has demonstrated that he is a capable man who is keen to ensure that he is caring for him to the best of his ability. To this avail he has at times appropriately sought professional and informal advice to ensure that he is doing so. Furthermore, AZ has been proactive in addressing issues such as sourcing a nursery to enable him to ensure that he is able to sustain his business in order to continue to financially support I whilst balancing his parenting role by using the nursery for only a few days each week" [C122].

(f) "It is therefore the recommendation of this assessment that AZ is able to provide appropriate parenting and safeguarding to I" [C122].

16. Following the admission by Mrs Z that she was responsible for the injuries suffered by J, and Ms L's view that Mrs Z had been repeatedly dishonest with her, further questions were sent out to Ms Roberts. At C126, Ms Robert states that "Mrs Z's capacity to maintain a lie is a cause of great concern. Her preparedness to manipulate her husband's knowledge and understanding in order to maintain the relationship means she has not prioritised her children……..It appears that Mrs Z's dishonesty has continued during the current proceedings and even with her most recent admissions, there is no guarantee that she now provides an accurate account. Without confidence in Mrs Z's honesty, it is difficult to se a way of ensuring I's safety without contact being supervised".
17. The local authority sets out its plans for I in the final social work statement at B29 and the care plan at CP7. At paragraph 9 of the statement, Ms L reports that Mrs Z "is admitting culpability for some of J's injuries but she continues to seek to justify/blame others for this rather than take responsibility for failing to seek support or advice at the time of the incident. She does not take responsibility for not telling AZ that she was not coping in her parenting role and continues to blame him for always being at work or at the gym leaving her on her own to care for two young children. LZ is not able to recognise that her deceit of the last 8-9 years has had a significant and detrimental impact not only on S and J but on AZ too".
18. The care plan for I proposes that I is placed with Mr Z under a child arrangements order and that a supervision order is made to the Local Authority for a period of 12 months. It is proposed that Mrs Z's contact is reduced to once per month for one and a half hours and that it remains supervised. The Guardian supports the local authority's proposals.
19. Mr Z supports the local authority's plan. Mrs Z accepts that I should remain in the sole care of his father and she does not oppose the making of a 12 month supervision order. In her final statement, at paragraph 16, Mrs Z informs that she has been to see her GP and has been referred for therapy. I have been informed, in a position statement filed for today's hearing, that Mrs Z had her first session with a named therapist on 2^nd March 2015 and that she has been offered 12 sessions. It is proposed that the therapist has sight of the reports of Ms Roberts. In my judgment it is essential that the therapist also has a copy of the assessment of Ms L. In the absence of the therapist acknowledging that she has seen Ms L's report, the court could not, at any future hearing concerning contact, have any confidence that the therapy provided had addressed the issues that must be addressed before it could be concluded that it would be safe for Mrs Z to have unsupervised contact with I.
20. Mrs Z accepts the local authority's proposals for contact but there has been some dispute as to the wording of a recital on today's order to reflect how Mrs Z's contact is to be reviewed and what information would be provided to the review meetings about the therapy being undertaken. The local authority proposes that it undertakes reviews on specific dates and takes into account whatever information is provided concerning the therapy undertaken. As is usual, the only information to be provided by the therapist would be whether Mrs Z was attending and engaging but not concerning the content of the sessions themselves. Mrs Z originally wanted a specific commitment from the local authority that it will, once it receives information from an appropriately qualified therapist that Mrs Z has engaged in therapy and has made progress, undertake a further risk assessment with a view to consideration of the reduction or cessation of the supervision of contact. The amended position before me is that the order recites the following:

'It being accepted that on the completion by mother of appropriate therapy as detailed by the psychologist Helen Roberts in her report dated 15^th January 2015, that the local authority will, if this occurs during the course of the supervision order, carry out a review of contact with a view to consideration of the degree of supervision being reduced or being unsupervised'.

21. I remind myself that I's welfare is my paramount consideration. I have taken into account all the matters set out in the welfare checklist in determining what order to make, if any, to promote I's welfare. The threshold criteria pursuant to section 31(2) Children Act 1989 is agreed and I find the threshold satisfied in the terms set out at paragraph 4 above.
22. The assessments in these proceedings have not been challenged by any party and I accept the written evidence of Ms Roberts and Ms L. I accept the recommendations of the Guardian as set out in the final analysis report.
23. It is not at all unusual for parents who cause injuries to their children to deny that they have done so. Injuries are often caused by a momentary loss of control at a time of stress. The parent denies that they did anything wrong and, once that lie is told, it then becomes very difficult to retract. The parent who caused the injury not only fears losing care of their child but also losing their partner if they admit to the partner that it was them who caused the injury.
24. It is difficult to imagine what Mr Z must have thought about the English Family Justice system given the information provided to him by his wife. His absence from the proceedings before the court in 2006 enabled Mrs Z to misrepresent him to the court and to the local authority and facilitated her continued manipulation of him. This is not a case where an otherwise honest and safe parent has lied about the cause of the injuries but has been credible about every other aspect of her life. Mrs Z has, on the unchallenged evidence before me, lied about all manner of subjects unconnected with the cause of J's injuries. I agree with Ms L's analysis of the risk that this poses to any child in Mrs Z's care. The breadth of her dishonesty will require that almost everything she says is checked and verified.
25. It is a tragedy for S and J that Mrs Z was not able to accept what had happened to J before the court made adoption orders. On the information available at the time, the court had no choice but to place both children with permanent carers who could provide them with the safety and security that they needed. Mrs Z let her children be placed for adoption and away from their father, who Mrs Z knew had done nothing to cause them harm.
26. J and S have been in the care of their adoptive parents for approaching 8 years. Mr Z accepts that an adoption order cannot be reversed and, given that J and S will see the adopters as their parents, neither should it be. They are an established family unit that should not be challenged or in any way undermined.
27. At para 47 of the Guardian's report, the Guardian states "Mr Z has asked me to consider his situation regarding to S and J. Mr Z fully understands that the adoption of his two elder children is irreversible and that any contact with them can only be agreed with the full consent of the adoptive parents. In my discussions with R L we have agreed that she will make contact with the adoption agency in order that at a minimum there should be a later life letter prepared for S and J with regard to the circumstances in which they were removed from their parents' care. Any contact or knowledge that is given to the children with regard to their birth family and especially their full brother, I, will be by necessity at the discretion of the adoptive parents".
28. Given that it is proposed that I will have regular direct contact with his mother, it may be the case, that the S and J's adoptive parents are reluctant for there to be any direct contact with I. However, following careful thought and assessment, some direct contact might be possible and I grant permission for this judgment to be disclosed to S and J's adoptive parents so that they can consider for themselves what would be in the best interests of their children.
29. The parties will be aware that Section 9 of Children and Families Act 2014 introduced sections 51A and 51B into the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and this provides the court with jurisdiction to make contact orders at any time after a child has been adopted. Whether such an order should be made, and whether a birth parent should be granted permission to make an application for an order, is not a matter upon which I could or should pass comment today. What is in the best interests of S and J will have to be considered by their adoptive parents but, so as to avoid unnecessary litigation, the local authority will need to be actively involved in addressing this issue with them and explaining their responses to Mr Z. Given the circumstances of the case that I have outlined, it is not in my judgment unreasonable for Mr Z to want I to have a relationship with his full siblings.
30. Having considered all the papers provided to me in the court bundle and the helpful oral submissions on behalf of the parties, I make a child arrangements order providing that I shall live with his father, A Z and will have contact with his mother, L Z, for 1.5 hours per month. That contact is to be supervised by the local authority. I also make a supervision order to the local authority. I have considered the mother's request that the order contains a recital that places an expectation upon the local authority to undertake a further risk assessment. I remind myself that now that I have made a child arrangements order, the responsibility for making decisions about I has left the local authority and passed to his father. Mrs Z retains her parental responsibility and if it is not possible for her to reach agreement about contact with Mr Z, who will no doubt take advice from the local authority, then Mrs Z can make an application to the court. It may well be that the local authority will agree to undertake a further assessment before any private law court application. It may be that this would only happen if the court decided that circumstances were such that it was appropriate to place a demand on the local authority's resources and require it to provide a section 7 welfare report. I am not prepared within the order I make today to decide what may or may not be appropriate in the future. On the basis of what I have read, and I have read all the papers in the bundle, this mother has a long way to go before unsupervised contact would be considered safe. Given the history, in my judgment it is entirely appropriate for the burden to be on Mrs Z to demonstrate that she has changed and not on the local authority to commit to any further work with her until she has demonstrated to them, or a court , that further assessment is warranted. I will not include any recitals to the order as requested by Mrs Z, even if the wording is now agreed by the local authority. In my judgment, the local authority should manage the supervision order as it sees fit, in co-operation with both parents. What happens thereafter is a matter for Mr Z but I expect him to take advice from the local authority, and probably from a lawyer, before he agrees to any unsupervised contact between I and Mrs Z.
    
31. The facts of this case demonstrate, in a stark way, what can happen if one parent does not participate in Family Court proceedings. I cannot say what decisions might have been made had Mr Z been present and represented in the 2006 proceedings. I am entirely convinced that it has been the high quality assessment and investigation by Ms L that has resulted in such a positive outcome for I. It is to I's advantage that Mrs Z finally felt able to admit how she had caused physical harm to J. Her failure to do so at any time in the previous 9 or 10 years has had a profound impact on all 3 of her children. I very much hope that she engages in the therapy that Ms Roberts has proposed.

Recorder Howe QC

32. ^th March 2015.