England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT LEYLAND

		Lancastergate Leyland
		Wednesday, 18th February 2015

1. THE JUDGE: This is the final hearing of the Local Authority application concerning three children of the mother who lives in Skelmersdale. Her oldest child is A (born 2005). A's father lives in Bristol. Mother's second child is L (born 2007). His father in Kent. Mother's third child is M (born 2011). Her father lives in Skelmersdale.
2. The three children were removed from mother's care by a contested hearing before me on 6^th November 2014. A. and M. were placed by the Local Authority with their respective fathers. It is the Local Authority's plan today that they should remain in those placements. L. was placed with foster carers. It is the Local Authority's plan to work with his father, with the real possibility that in due course L. will be placed with his father. This plan is an arrangement with which he is content.
3. The issues in the case concern the mother. She seeks the return of all three children to her care. The relevant material has been assembled in two bundles with which I am familiar. I have heard oral evidence from the two social workers, the mother and the children's guardian. The fathers have attended court but I have written assessments and statements concerning their position and a consensus emerged that in the circumstances of the case it was not necessary for any of them to give oral evidence.
4. The background is that there were relationships between the mother and the three fathers in sequence. The common feature was that at the end of each relationship the contact with the father was very limited and in each case the fathers tend to blame the mother for that state of affairs, which is not something which the mother entirely accepts. There was a spell when mother moved away but her first significant involvement with the agencies in this area occurred in February 2014 when the mother's general practitioner reported what he considered to be serious mental health problems. At that time mother described a particularly difficult upbringing with longstanding issues for her. She benefitted from family help during periods in which she was unable to cope. She became involved with the mental health services and engaged fairly fully with the sessions that were available to her. The mental health services concluded, in a report in my papers, that there were no mental health concerns.
5. The psychiatrist, Dr Snowden, has prepared a report. He suggests that mental health concerns can be put aside. He comments that the mother's reported behaviour was likely to be associated with mild anxiety disorder coupled with panic attacks and he suggested that these were not really at a level to cause concern so far as the safety of the children is concerned. Dr Snowden did speculate about a possible association between the mother's behaviour and long-term drug use.
6. In February 2014 the mother's problems led to her placing the three children with a paternal aunt. In March 2014 mother reported that the children had been sexually abused by cousins in that household. The mother's allegations started at the police station on 8^th March 2014. The allegations were fully investigated by joint working between police and social services and the conclusion was reached that there was no cause for concern.
7. The mother was taken through the documents in the witness box and they reveal that in 2014 mother had an absolute preoccupation with the issue of sexual abuse. It is clear that the more she was given reassurance the more she pressed and eventually, contrary to advice, she presented the children at the hospital, requesting examination for signs of sexual abuse. Even in July 2014 mother produced a folder of further allegations for consideration by Social Services and in August 2014 mother was dragging A.'s father into the issue and thereby triggering yet another police visit to see the children.
8. It is clear from the evidence that this was a period in which the mother's behaviour was erratic. There was an occasion when she left A. quite alone; an unsuitable boyfriend was introduced into the household; there was one eight day period in July 2014 when successive observations of the mother were, firstly the presentation of abusive confrontation, next calmness and thirdly giggling. The mother insisted that A. suffered from learning difficulties; she insisted that L. showed symptoms of ADHD and in this mood she requested testing for the children which the professionals were clear was quite unnecessary and unjustified on the evidence. There was, on 19^th June 2014, an anonymous referral to social services indicating substantial drug use by the mother. This is an allegation which she denies and this is an issue to which I will return later in the judgment.
9. Overall then this is the picture when the proceedings were commenced. It is clear to me that these matters cross the threshold for public law orders under section 31 of the Act. Proceedings were brought on 26^th September 2014. Interim care orders were granted with a plan for the children to remain at home with mother. That plan was implemented. It seems to me that the real issue in this case is the extent to which the mother's circumstances have improved since the proceedings were commenced and the interim care order for placement at home was granted.
10. The issue was first addressed at an interim hearing on 6^th November 2014. This was a contested hearing but I was persuaded that it was necessary for the Local Authority to act to remove the children from home. Amongst the relevant factors was the fact that the mother's erratic behaviour continued. This was manifest at a meeting on 13^th October 2014. There was then a pattern of nocturnal text messages to L.'s father on 15^th October 2014. On 21^st October 2014 mother had no money for food, heat or light. There was a period in which the children were turning up late for school. Mother explains that they were playing up; they were running off; they were refusing to go to school and this was something that she had difficulty coping with. The fathers' contact with the children has always been difficult but in this particular period mother continued to present a confusing picture for the children.
11. By my finding in November 2014 the mother then participated in a further episode of the inappropriate investigation of her obsession with sexual abuse. This time the mother participated with the grandmother in recording A.'s comments on this topic.
12. I turn now to the question of drug use. Mother says that she used amphetamines to November 2013 and then ceased. Within these proceedings she failed to comply with two directions that she provide samples before the hearing when the children were removed on 6^th November 2014. Belatedly on 12^th November 2014 she did provide samples. Testing revealed that for each of the three one month periods under review falling between July 2014 and October 2014, a positive finding for amphetamines was discovered. In addition it was a fact that in flagrant breach of the directions order and the explanation she had been given, the mother had engaged in the treatment of her hair in a fashion which might have had the effect of negating or reducing the test result.
13. On 29^th January 2015 mother provided another sample for analysis. The test results show that for the month period up until the middle of November 2014 again a positive finding for amphetamine was discovered but the subsequent periods between November 2014 and January 2015 were clear so far as drugs were concerned. Again before providing this sample the mother had treated her hair in a way which might have reduced or negated the test result in spite of the clearest advice to the contrary.
14. At the interim hearing in November 2014 I drew the inference that mother's drug use continued. The additional evidence now available tends to support the drawing of that inference. There is conflict on this topic but I accept that the mother has been inconsistent in her own account of her drug use, quoting March 2014 for cessation rather than November 2013 and including cocaine as one of the drugs used in addition to the amphetamine that she has described on other occasions.
15. Mother accepted in evidence that she still feels a craving towards the use of amphetamine. After many years of drug use that comes as no surprise but equally it comes as no surprise that it would be very difficult for the mother to stop her drug use, which increases the probability that she has not been able to stop as she asserts. For me her erratic presentation is evidence that her drug use continued. The anonymous referral of June 2014 is consistent with the generality of the evidence on this topic.
16. Amidst all this dishonesty it is difficult to reach a clear view. Mother stands by cessation in November 2013 and says that she cannot really understand the positive tests at later dates. She speculates that it may be she came into contact with amphetamines in teas and coffees provided by drug using associates. The overall picture drives me to reject that suggestion. It is clear to me that the mother's use continued at least until November 2014. Since then craving of course continues to be a problem for the mother. I admire her engagement with the drug services on 24^th December 2014 seeking help in abstaining from drug use. The reality is that it is necessary to establish a significant period of abstinence in order to establish that the risk of relapse is low. I would look for the conventional touchstone of twelve months' abstinence and I am afraid at the moment the mother has achieved at best three months of that period.
17. In relation to sexual abuse I heard mother cross-examined on this topic. The reality is that she is still very critical of the approach taken by the authorities. She regrets that she did not approach the topic in a calmer way but she candidly concedes that she would go to the police again if complaints from the children seemed to her to justify it. I am driven to conclude that this is something that it is necessary to protect the children against. This obsessional pursuit of clearly unnecessary further investigation is not only intrusive for the children but emotionally harmful for them.
18. In the background it seems to me there is an unaddressed problem. The mother herself was the victim of physical and sexual abuse and she tells us that her childhood was dysfunctional. These problems have never properly been addressed. Mother was discharged by her mental health team when she told them that she did not feel that she needed treatment. I asked the mother myself whether she needed help to deal with her problems from the past and her reply betrayed complete non-comprehension that there was any issue there to be grasped. She did, of course, say that she would do whatever she was asked to do but the need to do something to overcome problems from the past is a level of insight which the mother needs still to attain.
19. The guardian reflects that these problems for the mother are established to be not matters of mental illness, which makes them all the more difficult to change, and it does seem to me that assistance producing change for the mother in this difficult area is not a short-term proposition.
20. Stepping back the fundamental point is that there is no reason to think that life would be better for children with the mother now than it was six months ago. The mother has re-established her relationship with the maternal grandmother which she believes to be a positive. However, historically their relationship has been a turbulent one and recent telephone contact has allowed one of the fathers to overhear continuing difficulties in the relationship between mother and grandmother. It is impossible to forget that mother blames her own mother, not only for using alcohol in her childhood, but for making the amphetamines available to her in the first place and for many of the other problems which afflicted her childhood. In these circumstances I conclude that it is not possible to place reliance on the relationship between mother and grandmother as a positive change in the analysis of this case.
21. In mother's favour contact has clearly established that she loves her children, who love her in return. There is clear emotional warmth and contact is clearly an enjoyable experience to which all look forward. This element has been consistently present over the months even though I suppose there have been occasions when mother has said silly things, for example concerning the fathers.
22. My summary is that with the mother the children would be exposed to a high likelihood of a high level of emotional harm. The mother's capability to meet a quite ordinary level of needs with these children is, I am afraid, significantly impaired.
23. I turn now to the fathers. The father of A. separated from the mother as long ago as 2006 when A. was a small baby. He had some contact until mother put barriers in his way. He then moved away and geography, coupled with ill-health, explains the absence of contact. He re-established contact by telephone with some regularity before the proceedings were commenced. The Local Authority assessment of him was in favourable terms. A. was placed in November and has settled in his household where he is clearly doing very well. A. misses his mother and misses his siblings. This is being addressed through contact for which the father has established himself to be a reliable participant. A. clearly likes living with his father.
24. M's father's relationship with the mother was between 2010 and 2011 and he had no contact with his daughter. Mother accepts that she obstructed his role but he stepped forward when he became aware that the Local Authority were involved and the Local Authority assessment revealed that he is an experienced parent. There is domestic violence in his past but not in his current relationship. He has been open about cannabis use but it seems that this is controlled and the assessments indicate that it has not had an adverse impact on his style of life or his employment. Contact started and has been very successful; successful so that M. was placed with her father in November 2014 and that placement is clearly a success.
25. M.'s nursery were initially concerned at the prospect of M. moving to this new father figure, particularly in the context of a child properly attached to the mother, but the recent feedback from the nursery is that they are impressed by his role and relationship with his daughter. The Local Authority suggest that he should have the benefit of the support of a supervision order which he would welcome. This is not a level of support which it is felt that A.'s father needs in his care for A...
26. L's father presents a more complicated picture. His relationship with mother was between about 2006 and 2009. He accepts the Local Authority's assessment that he is not ready to assume the care of his son. The Local Authority plan to work with him, considering him to be a better prospect than the mother. If appropriate the Local Authority care plan extends to the transfer of L. from foster care into the care of his father. This is the care plan which I am asked to approve. Again the only opposition is raised by the mother. Against him it is of course the case that there was domestic violence in his relationship with the mother between 2006 and 2009. It was a household in which alcohol and drugs were used, not least by him. He then moved away to Kent and had no contact with L. until March 2014.
27. I have read the Local Authority assessment. There was a need for some prompting in relation to some parenting tasks, although there were promising areas too. His mental health difficulties from the past seem to be properly managed on medication, although there is a recommendation that he take advantage of some additional services in that department. His alcohol use needs to be kept under review. It is important to note that he is willing to engage with the various areas of support that are proposed and of course it is important that L. is very keen to be in a family placement. He took time to settle in foster care; he asks why it is that he is different and is placed outside the family; he is desperate for a decision to be made and it is common ground with all parties that he needs a decision now in his best interests as to what the objective should be.
28. As his father accepts, it is clear that L. cannot yet go to him and the care plan is to help him and to keep his progress under review which is clearly the right plan in the circumstances. Of course I reflect that the Local Authority remains under a general obligation to keep the mother's progress under review and in the final resort the court remains available to both parents in the event that irreconcilable differences emerge as to the way forward for L. further down the line.
29. Overall the mother does not actively challenge what the fathers are able to offer. If she cannot care for the children she would like the fathers to do so. The one advantage which the mother can offer is the reunification of these three siblings. I have referred already to her clear attachment to all of the children but I have referred sufficiently to the risk of emotional harm which she represents and to her inability to meet the children's needs.
30. The alternative to placement with the mother, the proposal favoured by the other parties, has advantages; the needs of the children will be met; the children will be protected from harm. However, it does have the disadvantage of separating the siblings and of course, given the geographical facts of this case, the separation is a quite dramatic one. The children miss one another but the carers are committed to sibling contact which has already been successfully established. It is important for me that the separation of the siblings has actually occurred. This is not a case with a theoretical assessment of what the impact on the children might be. We know, and the social workers and guardian alike have seen, that the children miss one another although the impact has not been seriously detrimental for them. The interim placement of A. and M. with their respective fathers has created an assessment opportunity and it is clear that the fathers have done well and that the children have succeeded in their care.
31. In relation then to the separation of the siblings it is common ground that reunification could not justify placing these three children together in foster care so my task must be to consider the reunification of the children in the mother's care. It is clear in that context that the disadvantages of placement with mother far outweigh the advantages of reuniting the children in her care. For A. and M. removal from their successful placements with their fathers could not be justified. L. is in foster care but he is doing well in foster care. Neither L.'s father nor mother are in a position to offer care for him at this point in time and so it is necessary and proportionate that he stay in foster care.
32. I turn to the topic of contact. The plan in relation to L. in foster care is that the parents should have the opportunity to exercise contact alternate weeks so there would be fortnightly contact with mother, fortnightly contact with father. That seems to me to be right. M.'s placement is local to the mother's home so a fortnightly contact pattern is practical and right in her case too. A., placed in Bristol, is a more difficult proposition. The plan is that there be contact with the mother each school holiday. That is not very much; it is probably not as much as A. would choose to have; it is certainly not as much as mother would choose to have but the geographical reality must be taken into account. It seems to me these practicalities really prevent anything significantly higher than that level. Indeed when mother was asked about the topic she realistically but wistfully commented that her ambitions were really to achieve a higher quality of contact through activities and being able to take the child out from the contact facility and increased frequency did not form part of her own overt thinking.
33. It seems then that, putting the welfare of the children as my paramount concern, as I must in relation to all these decisions, the Local Authority's plan should be approved, although I will welcome submissions from the advocates as to the extent to which contact should be recorded on the court order. It seems important to have clarity but at the same time to allow the flexibility which will be needed going forward.
34. An issue arose during the course of the case concerning the names by which A. and L. should be known. Mother had taken steps to attempt to change the surnames but she does not actively resist a reverting to the original names which do properly respect the paternity of A. and L. respectively.
35. My conclusion then in relation to the live issue for my determination is that the best interests of the children would not be served by their return, either one or all, to the mother's care. I approve the Local Authority's plan which includes an important role for the mother going forward through the exercise of contact. I have already distributed, in draft, an order about which I invite comments.

Approved 8.6.15

RD