England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF: Re: C (A CHILD)

		The Law Courts The Quayside Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 3LA
		14th October 2016

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR:

1. This is an application brought by North Tyneside Council for a care order with a plan of adoption in respect of A, who was born on 22^nd April 2016. He is the son of F and M. The father, F, wishes to care for A either by himself but most particularly with Z. M has also expressed the wish to care herself for A. M lacks capacity and is represented by the Official Solicitor who has instructed Mr Banks to act on her behalf. I have had the opportunity to read the position statement of the Official Solicitor dated 13^th September of 2016 in which it is set out that the Official Solicitor therefore does not oppose the application for a care order.
2. M attended court today and had the courage to give evidence in front of me. She wished to do that and a decision was taken that it was appropriate for her to give her evidence at the outset. Nobody sought to cross-examine her and once she gave her evidence she had indicated that she would wish to leave court and certainly the court understood how difficult it has been for M and as Mr Banks mentioned, M is aware of the likely outcome. Perhaps it is right to say at this stage that in the course of her evidence M told the court that she would wish to care for A, but if she could not, she would prefer A to be adopted rather than to be cared for by F.
3. In an application of this nature, it is the local authority which brings the proceedings and therefore the local authority must prove their case upon the balance of probability. The local authority sets out the threshold which they seek to rely upon and following discussions it is agreed that the threshold as discussed can form the basis of proceeding with the case. The agreed threshold is:

(i) The parents have had two elder children permanently removed from their care due to neglect.

(ii) Historically there has been domestic abuse within the parents' relationship.

(iii) The father behaves aggressively towards professionals.

(iv) The mother has threatened to remove the baby from hospital and abscond, and also that the mother had taken two overdoses whilst she was pregnant and obviously knowing that she was pregnant.

4. I have heard evidence not only from M but also from Gillian Davison, the social worker, F, the father, and Nicola Murphy, the guardian. Each of those parties has been cross-examined. I also of course have the written evidence to which I have paid attention including two reports from the guardian, the most recent report dated 12^th September of this year, the parenting assessments prepared by the social worker dated 2^nd August of this year, the statement of F dated 4^th September of this year, and the various other documents contained within the bundle.
5. In considering the application which the local authority makes, and being satisfied that the threshold is made out, I then have to consider whether or not an order is required in respect of A. I have regard to those matters set out at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989 and also section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, bearing in mind the plan that the local authority puts forward is one of placement for adoption.
6. There is a history to this matter in that as set out within the threshold, the older two children of the parents were removed from their care and placed with Y and X, the brother and sister-in-law of F, under a special guardianship order. The court heard lengthy evidence in relation to B and C and gave a judgment on 21^st February of 2014. The court was satisfied on that occasion that the parents took the view that their parenting of B and C had been adequate and that any difficulties were due to the fact that the support which they had received was not support which was the most helpful or appropriate.
7. F's case as put forward today is that he has not been given the help and support or opportunity to enable him to show that he is able to parent A. Mr Finch put forward very ably on his behalf that F has the capacity to parent and he has not been give the opportunity to demonstrate that he can parent and thus there is a gap within the evidence before the court as F has not participated in a parenting programme which may have assisted his abilities as a parent. The local authority it is said has fallen short of their responsibilities in that he was not offered the necessary or appropriate parenting programme.
8. In February of 2014 the court found that in fact the level of support which went into the family when they were in Residential Site A was exceptionally high. Some days there would be up to ten phone calls from F and M to the professional workers on site. The plan was that the workers on the site should go in twice a day but in fact it was often much more than that and the health visitor spent considerable time showing M and F how to care for their children. F during the course of that hearing was critical of the local authority. He was not accepting of the fact that his parenting fell short at all and he was advancing to the court the view that with different support he would have been a perfectly adequate parent.
9. The court found, contrary to F's assertions, that the support was not all focused upon M, but that he had support which was one to one support to assist him to deal with his anger problems and to give him the opportunity to talk about his difficulties and the support which he required. The difference F puts forward now is that he is no longer in a relationship with M, they separated at the end of March of this year prior to A's birth, and that now he is in a secure and supportive relationship with Z.
10. The evidence which F gave to the court today focused upon the fact that there had been as he put it no suggestion whatsoever as to courses he could undertake, and the evidence given by the social worker and recorded in the case minutes for the meeting of 17^th March of 2016 wherein it is set out at 5.9 of those minutes:

"If parents have no understanding of the historical concerns or accept any responsibility for what happened, it is questioned how they can ensure these concerns will not be repeated in the future. F and M have not attended any parenting courses since the children were removed and prior to M's current pregnancy. However, F insists that he has asked for this support previously. The couple has been provided with guidance in accessing the children's centres but this has not been done."

11. The social worker referred to the signposting to these services. F did not accept that the local authority had assisted him in this way. He could not recall being at the meeting on 17^th March although his name is included in the minutes. He could not remember discussing these matters and he said that he did not recall being provided with any guidance or any reference to Centre B or elsewhere. He told me no one suggested anything. In fact, it seems that he aware of Centre B, indeed he has contact there, and has spoken to the workers at Centre C, but maintains that he has received no support or guidance in relation to the courses and he has approached these places on his own behalf and without Social Services support they were not willing to assist him.
12. The social worker was clear in her evidence that it is not unreasonable to expect the parents to be proactive if they genuinely wanted to make a change, but one of the problems with something like the Solihull course is that there has to be an acceptance of responsibility in relation to previous problems, in this case of neglect, which had not been forthcoming. During the parenting assessment, the most that F would say was that he could have done better. The evidence of Miss Davison was that F continued to blame M and the professionals and was very adamant during the parenting assessment that he had not neglected the children.
13. The first indication of any acceptance of responsibility for the neglect of the children or indeed that the children had been neglected is contained at paragraph 4 of the September statement which has been filed on his behalf, in which he stated: "I accept that I neglected my previous children, C and B, who now live with my brother and his wife under special guardianship order. I accept that I failed to consistently meet their basic care needs, but I did not neglect them deliberately."
14. He told me in evidence that at the beginning he was embarrassed to admit that he had neglected his children and that he tried his best with them. It seems that he now accepts that there were difficulties with feeding the children and that it could be cold in the property, however the focus of his evidence before me was that as he was named as the main carer for M and therefore had the care of M and the two children, and it was too much to handle, preparing meals, looking after the children 24/7. When that claim was investigated a little bit further by Mr Banks, it became apparent that in fact F was not required to care in any significant way for M. She was able to care for herself, she did need help with the cooking, but he had had to show her two or three times how to use the washer and thereafter she was able to do so.
15. The evidence that the court accepted on the last occasion was that M complained that F would often leave her to go and see his brother and that she was frequently left on her own with the children. Thus the assertion that F could not care properly for B and C because of his responsibilities to M I find is not correct. The court accepts that there is no evidence of domestic violence in respect of F assaulting M but there was domestic abuse, continuing arguments, and indeed I think the social worker said five occasions where there was continuing evidence of F either losing his temper or being so frustrated that he was punching the wall, breaking I think his hand. It is clear that the relationship between F and M was a difficult one but in looking at what was wrong, F does not seem to have seen the domestic abuse as a contributing factor to the neglect of these children.
16. The children are subject to a special guardianship order which M and F made application to discharge upon the basis that they wanted the children back in their care and that B and C were not being cared for properly by Y and X. When F was asked why he made the application, his evidence was that there was not any reason for making the application but there was a lot of stress. He seemed to blame M because she wanted to make the application and he was so fed up of her going on about it that he joined in the application. He told me "I should not have put in the special guardianship discharge". However, he was part of the application and it caused a great deal of upset and unhappiness for his brother and his wife and had an effect upon his children, B and C, by reason of this.
17. The social worker told me that in fact by way of Facebook F had made threats to kill. Clearly the relationship was extremely difficult. Y and X were applying to reduce the level of contact because of the difficulties and confusion for the children. As Mr Kincaid submitted, there seemed to be no empathy or understanding from F as to the effect that such application would have upon his brother and wife and his children. F did not even come to court for the final hearing but did not seek to withdraw the application. He sets out in his statement for these proceedings that his brother and wife are there as support for him despite the fact that it was as recent as 11^th April that the court had to determine the application for a special guardianship discharge in respect of B and C.
18. The case put forward by F envisages caring for A alongside Z. Z is the mother of D, his son born in January of this year. The domestic arrangements in respect of Z, F, M and W are entangled, and while of course the court does not make a moral judgment in relation to how the parents behave, the welfare of A is my paramount concern and the court is entitled to look at how the adults' behaviour may affect the child. It seems that there has been a blurring of boundaries in relation to those four individuals for some time. F accepts that he had an intimate relationship with Z at a time he was still living with M, indeed he could hardly deny it bearing in mind that D was born in January prior to his separation from M. Z moved in to live with both of them between March and September of 2015, so was living it seems with F and M when D was conceived. Z moved out in the September of 2015 and moved back in again in April 2016, F says as a lodger, until the May.
19. M took an overdose on 23^rd March 2016. F in giving evidence said "I don't know why she was upset, I tried stopping her." When asked if he felt any responsibility for M's distress he said "I accept a partial responsibility, a quarter responsibility, I didn't force her to take the overdose when she was pregnant." He told me that all the parties were to blame. He did not attend the hospital when M was removed by ambulance. He denies that he was preoccupied by playing on the computer. I make no findings in that regard, I have not heard the detailed evidence, but it seems that when M was discharged from hospital he went on living within the joint property and Z moved in very shortly thereafter.
20. The changes that F indicates have occurred since B and C were removed seem to amount to the fact that he is no longer living with M and that he is in a stable relationship with Z and that if he goes on a parenting course there is no reason why his parenting cannot be appropriate and adequate. I accept that during his contact, to which he has been committed, during the one and a half hour period he has been able to show warmth to A and carry out basic caring tasks. However, from the evidence both that I have heard and what is contained in the papers the continuing lack of empathy and understanding seems to indicate that there has been no change in F's ability to understand the emotional needs of his children or indeed other adults.
21. He did not make any applications in relation to D. He did not ask to be assessed as a carer for D, despite the fact that he is putting forward his relationship with Z as a secure and continuing one. He told me that the reasons for that were that D was settled in the care of the grandparents I think it is of Z and that he did not want to alter that, but although he had not put himself forward as a carer for D at present, in two to three years time he foresaw that he would fight to get D back. He said that presently with Z he was in a different position because he did not have the stress of being M's carer. He saw no difficulties in relation to the fact that if he was successful in A being returned to his care, he would be asking Z to care for somebody else's son whilst she did not have her own son in her care. He said "She's told me that there are no difficulties."
22. He also told me that he had not really pushed to enquire why E, Z's older son, and D were not in Z's care. He told me "I've tried to explore why E is not in her care but haven't pushed." He said he thought it was domestic violence and neglect in her previous relationship but he could not understand where the idea of concern about neglect of A in their care came from, and that the difficulties that Z had with E were down to her previous relationship.
23. The problem remains that F has not been able to demonstrate any insight into the deficiency in his parenting. His view is that his parenting has been adequate, could have been a bit better, but it has been adequate, and if he goes on a parenting course he will be able to demonstrate that he can care and meet the basic needs of A and his ongoing development. The local authority has not offered the resource of a parenting course as they have assessed that there is no change in F's attitude and approach and indeed capacity to provide adequate parenting for A.
24. He is I find unrealistic in his plan that there would be no stress involved and no difficulty in he and Z caring for A, and he continues to fail to take responsibility for the significant harm sustained by B and C. He continues to say that he was not given the right help and while he has said that maybe he is partially to blame, if one looks at what he is actually saying, it seems he is only giving lip service to such a claim in that he told me on a number of occasions during the course of his evidence that it was not down to him, he should not be blamed for it, and indeed it took him until September to accept that there was anything at all inadequate in relation to his parenting.
25. He has still been unable to detail really what he sees as the inadequacies, apart from saying the property was cold and that the feeding could have been better. He continues to place blame on other people and I am satisfied, as the guardian said, that for courses to be successful the parent must accept that the previous care was inadequate and F does not do that. The guardian supports the local authority plan and I am satisfied that F, with or without Z, is unable to provide the care that A needs and that it is unlikely on the evidence before me that any parenting course would make any significant difference in that position.
26. It is very recently that he has even articulated any acceptance that he neglected C and B and he largely has continued to justify himself by reference to others being responsible for the unacceptable position which arose when C and B were in the care of himself and M. To her credit, M has effectively recognised despite her wish otherwise that she cannot provide the care for A and I am satisfied that neither parent can and that the section 31 criteria are made out.
27. Of course, the plan is placement for adoption and the authorities make it clear that the court must look at every available option and that it must not be a linear process. The options available to the court are sadly limited. F has put forward Y as a possible carer but Y has not come to the local authority to ask to be assessed with regard to A. Indeed, when Y and X came to court in relation to the discharge of the special guardianship order they were recognising that with the birth of their own child in May they would indeed, to put it colloquially, have their hands full caring for the three children and that caring for another child of M and F would place further pressure upon the already difficult situation at that time between them and F and M. It seems that this is not a realistic option. There are no other family members who have been put forward.
28. A is still a matter of months old. To look at foster care or any other form of care is not realistic. Therefore in considering all the options available it is difficult to identify any alternative to adoption. I am of course conscious that adoption will mean that A will lose contact with his full siblings and his half-sibling, but he has never been brought up alongside any of those three children. His needs are those of any young child and it is important that his future is secured as soon as possible. Therefore, while accepting the loss to A of his birth family and the fact that if he is adopted he will cease to be a member of the birth family, I am satisfied that he will be subject to significant harm if any other plan is undertaken.
29. So I am satisfied that there should be a care order and I approve the care plan. Mr Finch, do you wish me to go ahead and deal with the placement?

MR FINCH: Please.

THE JUDGE: Mr Banks, I am presuming? Yes.

30. I have in front of me the application made on 24^th August 2016 for a placement order. I also have the statement of facts dated 24^th August and the report prepared in support of the application for a placement order. Neither M nor F consent to the making of a placement order but for the reasons that I have set out within the judgment I have just given I am satisfied that the welfare of A requires me to dispense with their consent. In an application of this nature it is the welfare of A not only during childhood but throughout his life which is the paramount concern of the court and I have regard to those matters set out at section 1(4), some of them I have already referred to.
31. It is not a step that a court takes lightly. The court must be satisfied that nothing else will do and sadly in the circumstances of A his welfare can only be safeguarded I am satisfied by the making of a placement order. The local authority has provided for indirect contact which I find is appropriate in the circumstances and I am satisfied that A deserves the stability and security and continuity of care that he will receive by way of adoption and is not available to him otherwise. In all the circumstances I make the placement order. I will order a transcript is prepared, the cost of which will be divided four ways.
[Judgment ends]