England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT BOURNEMOUTH

		5th June 2015

1. This case concerns two girls: I who is 2.5 and G who is 7 months. The mother of both children is W (the mother). The father of I is A. He has PR for I. The father of G is B who has PR for G.
2. The girls live with their mother under Interim Supervision Orders. The Dorset County Council has issued Care and Placement applications in respect of both children. I's care proceedings were issued on 21^st August 2014. The 26 week period expired on 19^th February 2015. I extended the period initially to 16^th April because of the premature birth of G. Among other matters, the birth delayed the production of the report of the psychologist Maranne Wass. A number of preliminary hearings took place as is set out in the case summary prepared by Counsel for the local authority.
3. The care application in respect of G was issued on 23/2/15. The 26 week period expires on 25/8/15. The Placement applications in respect of both children were issued on 18^th May.
4. The mother has two other children a son, K who was born in 1996. His father is JS and a daughter, T, who was born in 1998. Her father is TC.
5. The case was originally set down for 4 days. I was told at the IRH that the Threshold Criteria were disputed and that that many matters were in issue. Consequently it was thought necessary to hear from 9 witnesses including the Guardian.
6. By the start of this hearing the position had changed. First, A had decided to withdraw from the case. Miss Ross, A's Counsel, read her instructions to the court. I gave Counsel permission to leave. Secondly the mother had agreed sufficient of the Local Authority's schedule of findings so that the court did not have to investigate the matter of Threshold. A document has been signed by the mother. G's father B disputes the assertion that he represents a medium to high risk of reconviction for sexual offences - paragraph 2(b).
7. B attended on the first day. I was told by his Counsel that B was in considerable difficulty in attending court thereafter. He has to travel from Frome. He cannot afford the cost of travel. I am told that whereas the practice was that within reason the LAA used to refund solicitors who provided their client with the fare in such circumstances, this is no longer necessarily the case. If the solicitors provide the funds to a client, application can then be made to LAA but there is no certainty that the money will be refunded. It is not surprising therefore that solicitors are not prepared to take such a risk.
8. The result in this case has been that B did not attend on the second day. He hoped to find some form of work on that day in order to earn sufficient money to pay for his travel to court on day 3 but did not do so.
9. He has not put in any written evidence but I understand B's case to be that he supports the mother in her application to retain the children in her care. He does not intend to live with the mother but would like supervised contact with G.
10. The mother although present and represented throughout the hearing did not feel able to give oral evidence.
11. A, who operates under a number of aliases, was convicted of 2 counts of cruelty to a child under 16 in 2008. A basis of plea was accepted. On appeal the sentence was varied to a Community Order with a supervision requirement of 2 years.
12. Between 2007 and 2013 A has undergone a number of assessments as to the risk he may pose to children. In his report dated 10/4/13 in proceedings in respect of another of A's children, Dr Mynors-Wallis concluded that A did not have a psychiatric diagnosis and probably did not have a Personality Disorder. Supervised contact, it was said, by A to that child would pose a low risk but the Doctor said that he did not have full information as to the facts surrounding contact.
13. The Local Authority has been involved with the mother since 2010 when she put herself forward as carer for her niece. She was made a Special Guardian but the placement broke down.
14. In February 2012 the mother told the Local Authority that she was expecting I. Because of A's history both he and the Mother were advised not to allow other than supervised contact with A.
15. In respect of the mother the Local Authority's case is that substantial effort has been made to help the mother retain the care of I and G. For example during 2014 agreements were made and a Contract of Expectations signed. The mother, it is said, made promises as to her relationships with A and B. It is said that she was untruthful about those matters. That became clear on the first day of the hearing when a document signed on 2/6/15 by the mother was produced. For the purposes of this hearing it became known as the schedule of lies.
16. Given the admitted serious deception by the mother of the Local Authority, the mother's own psychological difficulties, her earlier history of an unsatisfactory relationship, and the histories of both A and B, the Local Authority says that it is not possible to work with the mother. She would like to care for the children and would accept a Supervision Order while undergoing therapy as suggested by the psychologist, Maranne Wass. The Local Authority and the guardian submit that such a course is not safe for the children.
17. In paragraph 16 of his case summary Mr. Howard, counsel for Local Authority gives an example of the mother's deceitful conduct.
18. I emphasise that the fact of itself that the mother was deceitful does not exclude her from the care of her children. The difficulty in this case it is said is that the mother embarked upon a course of conduct over many months in which she was untruthful about matters which went to the heart of the question of the protection if her children.
19. In May/June 2013 the Mother began a relationship with B. She did not tell the Local Authority of this until July. B had a caution for 2 counts of indecent exposure. The mother in her statement at C102 said that the relationship had ended in February 2014. In fact she has now admitted that a sexual relationship continued until January 2015 and the last occasion that saw him was in March 2015.
20. The Local Authority is concerned that the mother's own need for comfort and nurture take precedence over her duty to care for the children and keep them safe. A striking example of this, it is said, is that when her other daughter T told the social worker that B was still visiting the home (which he was) at a time when the mother had asserted she had finished with him, she told T that she (T) was a liar. The mother maintained this stance until this hearing. Other such behaviour that is relied upon is set out in paragraph 21 of the case summary.
21. B was assessed by Mr. Conroy who was instructed to undertake an initial assessment which was focused on the risk that B may or may not pose to children and young people.
22. Law: The applications for care orders involve two main questions: First are the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act satisfied? Secondly, if so, what order should the court make?
23. The Threshold Criteria are agreed save for the one matter which affects B. In respect of I the allegation is that she has suffered significant harm at the relevant date, namely 21^st August 2014. In respect of G the allegation is that at 25/2/15 she was likely to suffer significant harm.
24. The court's focus, therefore, is to decide what, if any, order should be made in respect of each of the children. In coming to a decision the court has the welfare of each of the children as its paramount concern – S1(1) of the Children Act - and must consider the Check list in S1(3). It must also remember that delay in coming to a decision as to the children's future is likely to prejudice their welfare. In this case the important matters are: the needs of each of the children; the capacity of the mother to meet those needs; the effect of a change in the children's circumstances and any harm which either of the children has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
25. The care plans are for adoption. In its overall analysis of the case the court must consider the welfare of each child throughout her life (S1(2)) and the checklist in S1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The factors of especial relevance are: the needs of each of the children; the likely effect upon each of the children (throughout their lives) of having ceased to be members of their birth families and becoming adopted persons; the relationship which each of the children has with their birth relatives and in particular with their birth mother and the value of that relationship continuing and the mother's ability and willingness to provide a secure environment to meet their needs. In respect of both applications the court must weigh the respective rights under Article 8 ECHR and take the least interventionist approach which is compatible with the children's welfare.
26. The parents do not agree that either of the children should be adopted. If the court concludes that adoption is the right course, the Local Authority seeks the dispensation of the parents' consents. This matter is covered by S52 Adoption and Children Act 2002. The ground relied upon and supported by the Statement of Facts is that the welfare of each of the children requires that the consents be dispensed with – S52(1)(b).
27. In respect of both applications the court must have regard to the range of options which are available – S1(3)(g) CA and S 1(6) ACA 2002.
28. Evidence: In addition to the written material I heard oral evidence from Maranne Wass, Mr Conroy, Shelley Russell, Ros Foster the social worker and the Guardian.
29. Maranne Wass reported on the mother and A. Her main report is dated 19/2/15 at E11. There is an addendum dated 10/3/15 at E59. In her main report she dealt in some detail with A. It was said that he is likely to be an anxious and unsettling partner and parent. He has an insecure relationship style. He has avoided taking responsibility for his actions and habitually attributes blame towards others. He lacks insight and empathy which will adversely impact upon all his relationships. He should only have supervised contact with I.
30. In respect of the mother Maranne Wass reported that she has an insecure/anxious attachment style and has had troubling relationships with the fathers of all her children. She has a dependant and avoidant personality which means that she hides much about herself both from herself and from others. She is socially isolated and has poor self regard. She has failed to protect her children from family trauma and has put her emotional needs before those of the children. She has a great need for nurture which she is likely to place above the needs of the children. This blinds her to the possible dangers presented by unsatisfactory partners. The mother had also derived considerable support from her own mother who has recently very sadly suffered a stroke. The unavailability of her mother is likely to make the mother more likely to seek nurture elsewhere.
31. The mother's understanding of the impact upon the children of physical and emotional abuse is at a very early stage. Such protective measures as she has appeared to take have been induced by pressure of the Local Authority's intervention and fear of losing the children rather than from an internal understanding.
32. In her oral evidence Maranne Wass, having read the new material which consisted of the agreed threshold document, the Schedule of the mother's admitted lies and the report of the mother's attendances at the Freedom Project said that her opinion had not altered. She thought that the new information pointed more clearly to the mother's avoidant personality and how the results of that impacts upon all areas of her life. The mother's assertion that T had lied about B's visits was a method by which she tried to explain her conduct but which was emotionally harmful to T who subsequently self-harmed and left home for a while. The mother suffers from deep seated psychologically based difficulties. As to the prospects of change in the mother Marrane Wass pointed out that the mother needs to go through a psychological process known as the Cycle of Change. This has a number of phases of which the mother is at the earliest. It will take many months and there is always a risk of relapse.
33. If the mother engages in the necessary therapy she will need a highly skilled therapist who can disentangle the underling difficulties. Although the mother has now admitted that she lied, in Marrane Wass's opinion the mother does not really understand why she lied or what triggered the recent admission that she had lied.
34. Maranne Wass was of the view that the mother's proposal of a Supervision Order would not work from the children's point of view. Further, the children could not safely remain with the mother while she underwent therapy. Such a process is likely at times to be disturbing to the mother.
35. Marrane Wass's evidence was balanced and careful. I accept her opinion.
36. Mr. Conroy is an independent social worker whose qualifications and report are at E65. He had seen the recent material and reported that this did not alter his scoring of B but would affect the approach to any course of treatment. He formerly worked as the manager of the NSPCC team in Dorset. This undertook assessment and treatment work with adults and young people who had sexually harmed others. B was quite open about his life and gave a lot of information. He showed some insight and felt that he had changed since the last offence. In his analysis at E69 Mr. Conroy reported that B's life history included a high sexual drive that was not properly understood; the use of pornography, prostitutes, sex chat lines and witnessing inappropriate sexual acts.
37. At E73 B is reported as regretting his actions and had moved from a position of denial regarding the indecent exposure to an acknowledgement that he had committed the offences with a sexual intent. There was no evidence that B had offended against children. The allegations of indecent assault made against him by 2 children were at a time when B himself was 12/13 years old.
38. The recommendation at E7 is that B should undertake work to deal with his sexual behaviour and that his IQ should be re-tested so that there could be a better understanding of the programme best suited to B's needs.
39. Mr. Conroy used an assessment tool called Risk Matrix 2000. On this basis B scored as medium/high risk of reconviction. At the time Mr. Conroy was not aware that B's IQ score was 65 although he was aware that he had a borderline learning difficulty. The tool used by Mr. Conroy is dependant upon the subject's IQ being more than 70.
40. In his oral evidence Mr. Conroy said that he had spent 3 days of intensive contact with B. He explained that given the IQ of 65 B would require a specially designed programme of treatment. He was challenged by Counsel for B about the method which had been used. He explained how he had scored B. He had not only used the Matrix 2000 but had gained useful information from B's account of his history (E76 - 4.5) and his own admission that he had "got away" with a number of non-sexual offences.
41. This is an initial report and Mr. Conroy was clear that further assessment and treatment is necessary. I think his report was careful and went as far as he properly could. Clearly there is a need for a carefully designed long term programme of work with B.
42. Shelley Russell undertook the parenting assessment of the mother. The report is at C33 and is dated 12/11/14. There had been an earlier assessment in December 2013. In paragraph at C54 – 19.1/19.3 certain improvements are recorded which had happened since the first report. At paragraph 19.7 it is reported that the mother had given assurances that she would not return to A or embark upon any other unsuitable relationship. It is now clear that the mother had embarked upon her relationship with B. She was asserting that A was G's father and accused T of lying about B's visits. The mother has not improved in her understanding of the risk to her children.
43. In her oral evidence Shelley Russell said that the new material confirmed the worries that she had had about the mother's parenting abilities. Such progress as the mother had made did not go to the significant emotional issues in the case. Reference was made to the report of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Training (D.A.I.T.). The mother had participated well in this course. This is valuable work but Shelley Russell doubted that sufficient results would emerge within the children's timescales. I think that is right.
44. Ros Foster is the social worker. She has put in 4 statements and prepared the Care Plans. She has conducted an analysis of the options which begins at C144. She also carried out the assessments of the various family members. The reports are in section F. Ros Foster was worried about the implications of the mother's lies about B. She thought that the mother had not considered the risks to the children and the effect upon them of starting a new relationship. In 2012 the mother had said that she had had nothing to do with A but had continued the relationship. This appeared to show a similar pattern to what had happened with B. This is in spite of some 2.5 years of work with the mother. Trust and hope was again placed in the mother in 2014. The mother in Ros Foster's view cannot help herself. Her need for support and nurture overcomes the interests of the children. She cannot see the consequences of her actions. I agree with that assessment.
45. The care plans provide for the children to be removed together to a foster placement which is also a suitable adoptive placement. If the children are to be removed from the mother the social worker did not think that Long Term Foster Care was the right course. She thought that adoption is likely to provide security and the chance of a permanent home.
46. Given the history Ros Foster could not see that the continued placement of the children with the mother under a Supervision Order would work. It would not be possible to put in sufficient safeguards and the mother could not be trusted. The Contract of Expectations dated 5/9/14 (F227/8) had been broken. Paragraph 8 provided that the mother "should advise Children's Services immediately if she is contemplating or commences any relationships".
47. Part of the difficulty is that the mother's reason for lying (the feared removal of the children if the true position were known) as given in the schedule will exist in the future if the children remain with the mother as she asks.
48. Ros Foster agreed that there had been a delay between the allocation of work for B and its start. It is a good sign that B wants to undertake the work which would be helpful to him whatever the outcome of this case.
49. There are 5 statements from the mother and 3 from A. B has not put in a statement. None of them gave oral evidence. As Miss Davies for the guardian pointed out, the mother's deceit places a question mark upon the reliability of her statements, especially since she did not give evidence.
50. The next witness was the guardian. Her reports are at E1 (3/10/14) and E104 (28/5/15). She carried out a careful analysis of the options. Her recommendation is that the court should make Care Orders and Placement Orders. The new information had confirmed her existing concerns and led her to wonder what else had not been revealed. She agreed that it was regrettable that no work had begun with B. She thought that the work with B would take about a year. The guardian agreed with Maranne Wass that there is likely to be an increased risk to the children if Mother undertakes therapy while the children are with her.
51. Although the question of fostering was raised during cross examination of the SW there are only two realistic options before the court as to the future of I and G. The choice is stark. There are no family members who can care for the children. The mother, supported by B wishes the children to remain in her care. The mother agrees to a Supervision Order which would be linked to a Contract of Expectations and other arrangements including a programme of therapy for the mother. The Local Authority, supported by the Guardian, submits that every proper effort has been made to help the mother to be a protective and good enough parent to the children. The mother, it is said, has shown herself to be unable to appreciate what is required of her and to act upon advice within a timescale which is compatible with that of the children. It is said that the position is that nothing else but adoption will do.
52. Submissions: Counsel for the mother put in helpful written submissions. She pointed out that the mother should receive credit for telling the truth on the first day of this hearing. I agree. It cannot have been easy for her to sign the schedule. It is also the case that the mother has shown herself generally to be able to meet the basic practical needs of the children. There has also been some improvement in the level of warmth that she has offered the children. She also made a number of steps to make a fresh start by, for example, moving house and changing her telephone number.
53. The mother has completed her second attendance at the Freedom Programme and has engaged with Recovery Tool Kit course (E125). The mother has said that she will engage with further therapy. The children have remained with the mother during the proceedings. It is submitted that given the mother's new and improved situation, it cannot be right for the court to permit the start of a process which will lead to adoption. The children will have to be removed and adoption placements do fail.
54. On behalf of B Counsel adopted the submissions made on behalf of the mother. It us said that B's background is not as serious as Mr. Conroy suggested. It is submitted that Mr. Conroy would have used a different testing technique had he been aware of B's IQ of 65. I agree that this probably would have happened but Mr. Conroy was undertaking an initial assessment and made it clear in his report that further information was needed about the level of B's IQ. Plainly this must be so if, as B says, he wishes to engage in a course treatment. It is also right to point out that B has attended contact with G and generally been co-operative. B has had no appearance before the criminal courts since his Cautions and the theft of a mobile phone. Further it is pointed out that there is no suggestion that B has harmed a child.
55. It originally had been the local authority's intention to keep the children with the mother under a Supervision Order coupled with a package of protective measures. On behalf of the local authority it is now submitted that the evidence is clear to the effect that the mother cannot protect the children from risk if they are in her care. As to the question of whether B represents a medium to high risk (Threshold statement paragraph 29(b)), Mr Howard submitted that Mr. Conroy's opinion was properly tested and that he was able to satisfy the court. I agree. It is submitted that the mother has shown a long history of failure to protect. She failed to protect her son K from the behaviour of an earlier partner; She allowed I to have unsupervised contact with A; it is said that Maranne Wass's evidence showed the mother to have been unable to put the children's needs ahead of her own. I agree. The mother's deceit is a critical factor. This is because her behaviour in this respect destroyed the local authority's trust in the mother and therefore its capacity to help her retain the children safely in her care. At virtually every hearing since the start of these proceedings the mother has asserted she either had or would separate from A or B but was deceitful about that. Promises were made but not kept in 2012 and 2014. I accept those points.
56. On behalf of the guardian Miss Davies adopted Mr. Howard's submissions. Miss Davies emphasised three important points which, she said, establish that the children cannot remain with the mother: the fundamental defects in the mother's capacity to parent; her habit of acquiring partners who present a risk to the children and the effects of the mother's lack of openness. I think that Miss Davies is right when she says that the mother is not able to make the right decisions for the children.
57. Analysis: Option 1: the children remain with the mother. The factors in favour:

Maintains the children's place and relationships with the birth parents;

I and G would have contact with their extended birth family;

The children have made some progress with existing level of support;

All the parents say that they love and care about their children;

The sibling relationship would be retained;

B has had good interaction with G at contact;

The parenting assessments show that the mother can meet the children's basic needs.

58. Factors against:

The expert opinion that raises serious concerns about the mother's impaired capacity to put the children's needs ahead of her own;

The mother's inability to reflect upon the matters which are raised with her about her care of the children;

The mother's inability to appreciate the impact upon the development of the children of her behaviour and her lack of insight and empathy;

Her lack of understanding as to why she should comply with advice;

Lack of a supportive family network;

None of the parents accept responsibility for the children's situation and condition;

The lack of open and honest dealing with the local authority.

59. Option 2: Placement for adoption: factors in favour:

It is probable that the children's emotional and physical needs will be met in an adoptive placement;

Adopters will have been fully assessed as being able to meet the needs of these two children;

The children are to be placed together. G is of an age when she will be able to cope with the transition from her mother's care. This may more difficult for I but is likely to be successful if done with care and careful planning;

The children each have an avoidant attachment with the mother;

Letter box contact and life story work will provide the necessary understanding of and link with the birth family;

The children will be safe and secure and not suffer significant harm;

Living in a stable household will allow the children to develop into balanced and emotionally stable adults.

62. Factors against:

The children permanently lose their relationship with their mother who loves them;

They will also lose the relationship with their respective fathers and other family members;

They lose their sense of identity as part of their birth family;

I is of an age at which she is likely to find a move more difficult to manage;

Adoptions are not always successful. If this were to breakdown the children would suffer further emotional harm.

60. Conclusion: The mother's situation is very sad. She has been in a state of distress throughout this hearing. Her mother is very unwell. Having said that however, I accept the submissions made on behalf of Local Authority and Guardian that there is no sufficient basis of trust to implement the sort of scheme which the mother proposes. I fear that she may enter into further relationships with risky partners. She has said that she will remain apart from B only until the conclusion of the court proceedings.
61. It is clear from the evidence of Maranne Wass that even if the mother has made some progress towards an understanding of what is required of her, that is at the earliest stage. There has been no sign of a fundamental improvement in her parenting capacity. The children cannot wait to see if the mother truly has come to terms with the position and will benefit from the intensive therapy that is necessary. I cannot see that the mother will be able to undergo the therapy and care for the children at the same time.
62. Adoption is not a panacea but I am satisfied that both the guardian and the social worker have conducted a proper analysis of the realistic options. I accept them. I am also satisfied that this is a case in which it is right to find that adoption is necessary and that nothing short of that will do.
63. In that event the court moves to consider the question of consent. Having considered all the matters in this case and the welfare of the two girls, I have concluded that their welfare requires that the consent of the parents should be dispensed with.
64. I therefore will make a care order for of each of the children. I shall dispense with the consent of the mother in respect of both children, and the consent A in respect of I and of B in respect of G. I shall make a placement order in respect of each of the children.

HHJ Bond 5^th June 2015.