England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

MISS RECORDER HENLEY

 

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

Case No. MA16C00028

IN THE FAMILY COURT

SITTING AT MANCHESTER

 

In the matter of the Children Act 1989

In the matter of W (born January 2016)

Date 01/07/2016.

Before:

 

MISS RECORDER HENLEY

 

BETWEEN:

SALFORD CITY COUNCIL

Applicant

-and-

 

(1)    M

(Acting through her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

(2)    F

(3)    W

(A Minor, acting through his Children's Guardian, Mr David Gibbons)

Respondents

 

__________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

__________________________________________________________

 

 

Representation

 

Applicant - Miss Case (Counsel)

Respondent Mother - Miss Clayton (Solicitor)

Respondent Father - Mr Entwhistle (Counsel)

Respondent Child - Miss McHugh (Counsel)

 

Introduction

 

1. The Court is concerned with W (born January 2016) now aged 5 months old. W's parents are the Mother, M aged 19 years and the Father, F aged 29 years. The parents' relationship was a short lived one, the Father describes it as "a fling" which involved them meeting on social media and predominantly exchanging messages, only meeting in person on two or three occasions. On one of those occasions W was conceived. Their contact with each other lasted for around a six-month period from the time that their first messages were exchanged. Their contact had ended long before W's birth. Indeed by the time of W's birth, the Mother was in a relationship with DB. The Mother and DB remain in a relationship to date.

 

2. This matter comes before the Court for a Final Hearing in public law proceedings with a time estimate of 3 days.

 

Background

 

1. The local authority's involvement commenced during the Mother's pregnancy as a result of a referrals relating to poor home conditions and the care of her siblings within the home. The Mother had been diagnosed with a moderate learning difficulty and was considered to be a vulnerable adult who may lack capacity. The Mother had accessed antenatal care late, at around 17 weeks' pregnant. At that stage paternity for the unborn child was unclear. The Mother and her siblings had been known to children's services since 2000 due to allegations of neglectful parenting received from the Maternal Grandmother, MW. The Mother's younger siblings were made the subjects of Child Protection Plans in December 2015 under the category of neglect.

 

2. A pre birth Children and Families Assessment of the Mother was carried out by the local authority, dated 21.12.15. Within that assessment significant concerns were highlighted about the Mother's ability to meet the basic care needs of a baby. The Mother was residing with her mother, her sister and younger half siblings at the time. Home conditions were observed to be poor and overcrowded and a clear risk of significant harm due to neglect was identified. Due to the Mother's cognitive difficulties, a PAMs assessment was initiated which identified significant difficulties with the Mother's ability to concentrate and understand what was being asked of her. A full cognitive assessment was indicated.

Precipitating events

 

3. By the time of W's birth on 12 ^th January 2016, local authority assessment of the Mother had indicated the following risks: the Mother's vulnerability as a consequence of cognitive difficulties, immaturity and behavioural difficulties which included risk taking behaviour; the Mother was considered to be at risk of financial and sexual exploitation and unable to recognise sexual risk, and therefore protect from it; the Mother was perceived to be unable to meet the needs of a new born baby resulting in the risk of neglect, physical and emotional harm; a risk of neglect due to unhygienic and overcrowded home conditions; rent arrears leading to potentially unstable housing provision; the Mother was deemed unable to meet her own health and self care needs (including antenatal care) thereby presenting the risk that she would neglect a baby's needs in that regard.

 

4. On 13 ^th January 2016, the local authority issued care proceedings in respect of W. The local authority had by that time undertaken a viability assessment of MF and PW, members of the extended maternal family, which recommended that they be approved as temporary foster carers for W from birth. However, due to conflict emerging between them and the Mother at the time of the birth, when they attended the hospital, the local authority took the decision that W should not be placed with them immediately, pending a full fostering assessment. MF and PW were understandably upset by this decision and by the conflict within the family, and decided to withdraw from the assessment process at that stage.

 

5. An Interim Care Order was granted on 14 ^th January 2016 approving a care plan, which provided for the removal of W into local authority foster care. He remains in local authority foster care to date and has remained with the same carer throughout.

 

Threshold Criteria

 

6.       On behalf of the Mother, the Official Solicitor filed a detailed response to the local authority's pleaded threshold criteria dated 13.1.16. Within that response document dated 18.1.16, whilst recognising the changes and improvements made by the Mother since the instigation of protective measures and following W's removal from her care, he accepts that the threshold criteria is crossed, but did not accept the pleadings as originally drafted, in their entirety.

 

7.       On the first day of the hearing I invited counsel for the local authority to distill the concessions made on behalf of the Mother into a set of simple factual findings, which could be appended to the face of the final order and incorporated into this judgment. Those conceded findings are as follows:

 

(a)       Despite intensive family support the home conditions are poor and overcrowded and the housing situation was unstable due to rent arrears and the family's reluctance to move. The child would therefore be placed at risk of physical harm, neglect and impairment to physical health.

(b)      Unknown individuals are frequenting the family home, some of whom have been observed to misuse alcohol in the home whilst the Mother's younger siblings are present. The child is therefore at risk of physical and emotional harm.

(c)       The mother's ability to protect herself and the child is extremely limited and despite person centered work being carried out on numerous occasions she has continued to place herself in concerning and dangerous situations on numerous occasions. The child is therefore at risk of ill treatment, neglect, physical and emotional harm and/ or impairment to his physical, mental and emotional health.

(d)      The mother has failed to meet her own health and self-care needs appropriately or to engage fully with antenatal care during her pregnancy. She has had unprotected sex during her pregnancy resulting in her contracting a sexually transmitted disease. The child has therefore been placed at risk of impairment to his physical development and health and is at risk of neglect.

(e)       The children and family assessment conducted prior to the child's birth evidenced that the mother would be unable to meet the child's basic care needs in the absence of extensive and appropriate family support. The mother relies heavily on the maternal grandmother whose younger children were themselves the subjects of children's services involvement at the relevant date.

(f)       The mother presents with little or no understanding of the local authority concerns. The child is therefore placed at risk of ill treatment, neglect, physical and emotional harm and/or impairment to his physical, mental and emotional health and development.

8.       On the basis of these factual concessions, I am satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 is crossed.

 

Positions of the parties

 

9. The local authority seeks a Care Order in respect of W and advances a care plan, which provides for him to be cared for by PW and MF who have been approved as long-term foster carers for him. It is anticipated that in due course an application to discharge the Care Order will be made and that these kinship carers will be supported to apply for a Special Guardianship Order. The local authority care plan, as amended, provides for W's contact with each parent to reduce to a level of monthly contact for around 2-3 hours per session, such contact to be supervised and reviewed after a 6 month period. This contact proposal is in line with the Guardian's recommendation. For as long as the Mother's relationship with DB continues, he will be permitted to join the Mother's contact.

 

10. The Official Solicitor does not oppose a finding that the threshold criteria is met and does not oppose the making of a care order and the proposed kinship placement on the Mother's behalf. Having considered the local authority's revised contact proposals in respect of the Mother, which provide for monthly contact rather than its original plan of contact four times per year, he accepts that this level of contact is realistic and agrees the proposal on her behalf.

 

11. The Mother's partner DB is not a party and is not separately represented in these proceedings. He has attended Court and been present within the Courtroom without objection from the other parties. On the first day of the hearing I clarified with the Mother's solicitor what his position was, I was informed that he accepts the position advanced by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Mother and does not seek to contest these proceedings.

 

12. The Father actively opposes the local authority's care plan and seeks to care for W under any order, including a Care Order. On his behalf, no issue is taken that the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders is crossed on the basis that each of the findings sought relate solely to the Mother. As a secondary position, should he be unsuccessful in his quest to care for W, he seeks a greater frequency of contact than is proposed, at a fortnightly rather than monthly level.

 

13. The Guardian supports the local authority's care plan.

 

Assessments

 

14. On 26.01.16 the Court directed a capacity assessment of the Mother. That assessment was carried out by Dr Rasha Ravenscroft, Clinical Psychologist. On 26.01.16 she produced a Certificate as to Capacity in respect of the Mother, having assessed her on 22.1.16. In her opinion the Mother lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings. The Mother was concluded to have a full scale IQ of 63, within the Mild Learning Disability range, putting her within the bottom 1% of the population her age. On the basis of this assessment, the Official Solicitor accepted an invitation to act as the Mother's litigation friend.

 

15. During these proceedings the Mother has been the subject of a Child and Families Assessment dated 28.4.16 and a PAMS assessment dated 6.5.16. The Child and Families Assessment includes the Mother's partner DB, who had already been the subject of a preliminary risk assessment dated 25.1.16. The outcome of these assessments, which have not been challenged, is that W would be at risk of suffering significant harm if placed with the Mother and DB or the Mother alone. The assessments acknowledge the couple's love for W and their commitment to attending contact and to the assessment process. Overall the assessments indicate that the couple's relationship is not a stable one. DB has been assessed as not able to meet his own care needs and is unable to compensate for the considerable deficits in the Mother's ability to meet the basic care needs of a child and keep W safe from physical and emotional harm. DB has been unable or unwilling to accept that the Mother requires assistance in caring for W and as a consequence does not provide the high level of intervention and support that she requires in order to complete even the most basic parenting tasks.

 

16. A number of negative viability assessments have been completed by the local authority in respect of extended family members including: the Mother's sister JW; the Father's brother AP and his then partner EW and the Paternal Grandmother PGM. These assessments have not been challenged.

 

17. MF, the Mother's distant cousin and her partner PW have been the subjects of a positive local authority Family and Friends Fostering Assessment and before that, a positive viability assessment.

 

18. The Father has submitted to hair strand testing in respect of illicit drug misuse. This was to refute the local authority's assertion that the Father may be misusing drugs as a consequence of his admission that on the night of W's conception he had taken cocaine (on a recreational basis) and had, in the past, used it on other occasions, (again recreationally). The Father asserted that he had never had a drug misuse problem, that he was not dependent and that he had not used cocaine since December 2015. The Father's hair strand analysis covered the approximate time period from the end of January 2016 until the end of April 2016. The results were negative for all substances tested for, which included amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine.

 

19. The Father has been the subject of local authority assessment, which reaches a negative conclusion. The Father fully contests the outcome of this assessment work, which has resulted in the local authority asserting that W would be at risk of significant harm if placed in his care. Due to the number of contested factual matters and "concerns" set out within the local authority evidence in respect of the Father, and due to the nature of the care plan which, whilst providing for a family placement, is a plan for permanence under a Care Order, I directed on the first day of the hearing that the local authority should produce a schedule of welfare findings sought against the Father which would enable the Court to focus upon the evidence, rather than simply highlighting "concerns" and would allow the Father to know the case against him in clear terms and be able to respond to it. These findings sought and responses are set out below, where admissions are made the finding is phrased as a concession.

 

Welfare findings sought in respect of the Father

 

1. (a) The Father accepts that he has been without stable housing throughout the proceedings. He accepts that he has been staying at the properties of others.

(b) The Father accepts that he has accrued significant rent arrears (£708) in respect of his past tenancies.

(c) The Father accepts that he lost a tenancy due to anti social behaviour in 2006 but disputes that he was implicated in antisocial behaviour at his brother's property resulting in that tenancy being lost in 2015.

(d) The Father asserts that he has now obtained a property and has been actively searching for one since the commencement of proceedings. The local authority contend that the Father has failed to address his lack of housing despite being offered support to do so via an allocated Outreach Family Support worker, despite being in receipt of both benefits and income from employment, and despite having the incentive of securing the placement of W in his care.

(e) The Father accepts that the local authority has not been able to visit the Father at home and that this has limited the investigations that the local authority has been able to do as part of its parenting assessment.

 

The local authority asserts that as a consequence of these matters, the Father will not be able to provide a stable home for W, will not prioritise W's needs above his own and that any other risks pertaining to the Father may be enhanced due to the local authority's investigations being limited and by not being able to visit him at home.

2. (a) The Father accepts that he has not been able to manage his finances to enable him to address his housing difficulties whether by reducing his housing arrears to enable him to access social housing or by putting a deposit on a private let.

(b) The Father accepts that in addition to his housing arrears he has significant other debts including loans and debts to phone companies, which total approximately £2,000. He asserts that he now makes loan repayments via a deduction at source from his monthly benefits but accepts that for a number of years he had not made any attempt to reduce these debts.

 

The local authority asserts that as a consequence of these matters the Father will be unable to provide a stable home for W, will not prioritise W's needs above his own and will not be able to provide for W's material needs in a consistent manner.

 

3. (a) The Father accepts that he was dishonest with the social worker about paying off his rent arrears, his employment status and his finances. He states that he was fearful about admitting that he was working whilst claiming benefits in case the social worker informed the relevant authorities, notwithstanding the social worker's assurances to him that her only motivation was to ascertain his financial circumstances for the purposes of providing support with budgeting. He also accepts that he was dishonest with the social worker in respect of his housing as he had a caravan at the fun fair where he was working and did not reveal that he was working at the fair or that he was residing there in between staying with various friends. The Father accepts that he was not open and honest with the social worker initially, and until challenged, about the fact that one of his siblings is DP, who poses a sexual risk to children. The Father asserts that the reason that he sought to conceal this information was that he did not like talking about DP, did not consider him to be his brother any more and is effectively estranged from him.

 

The local authority asserts that in the event that W were to be placed with the Father, the Father would continue to be dishonest about his personal circumstances, the support that he requires and other significant matters about W's care. It is the local authority's case that this would significantly impair the local authority's ability to support the father and protect W. It is the local authority's case that the Father is reluctant to accept professional support and that when combined with the absence of appropriate family support and the fact that he is an inexperienced first time parent, the other risks relating to him are enhanced.

 

4. (a) The Father accepts that during his childhood he was frequently cared for by risky and inappropriate individuals or was left unsupervised by the Paternal Grandmother and that on one occasion he was left unsupervised in the home in the company of his brother DP during which time some youths broke into the home and stole the family's television set.

(b) The Father accepts that there was violence in the family home during his childhood and that DP seriously assaulted the Paternal Grandmother whilst he was in the home. He accepted that the Paternal Grandmother physically chastised him and his siblings during his childhood.

(c) The Father accepts that his brother DP sexually assaulted his younger sister Y when the Paternal Grandmother permitted him to babysit her despite her being aware at that time that the Paternal Grandfather's daughter B had made a complaint of sexual abuse which was being investigated by the Police at the time. DP accepted a Caution in respect of an offence of sexual assault relating to B but not in respect of Y and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register. The Father accepts that DP poses a sexual risk to children.

(d) The Father denies that he was unable to identify that his childhood was neglectful.

(e) The Father accepts that on 27 ^th April 2016, he stated that he would trust the Paternal Grandmother to safely care for his son if he was placed in his care.

 

The local authority asserts that this presents a risk that W may be brought into contact with or left in the care of individuals who pose a risk to him, including the Paternal Grandmother.

 

5. (a) The Father denies that he does not have family support and denies that those people that he has named as his support are unsuitable.

 

6. (a) The Father accepts that he has a history of cannabis use from when he was 13 years old until 10 years ago and that he used cocaine recreationally thereafter until December 2015.

 

The local authority asserts that the clean hair strand tests in respect of the Father reveal a short period of abstinence from drugs and that in the light of the Father's history there is a risk that he will return to illicit drug misuse.

 

7. (a) The Father accepts that he has met a number of women online for the purposes of sexual intercourse but asserts that this is not something that he has continued to do since the conclusion of his relationship with the Mother.

 

The local authority asserts that this is an inherently risky way to meet sexual partners and if this behaviour were to persist it could lead to W being brought into contact with individuals who may pose a risk to him and that there is a risk to the Father's health from him having unprotected sex which is an indirect risk to W.

 

Legal Framework

1.       The law to be applied when considering the issues before the court is well settled. When considering the findings sought by the local authority the court applies the following well established principles.

2.       The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the local authority.

 

3.       The standard to which the local authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred ( Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [15]). Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not ( Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [2]).

4.       Findings of fact must be based on evidence not on speculation. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors ( A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)).

5.       In determining whether the local authority has discharged the burden upon it the court looks at what has been described as 'the broad canvass' of the evidence before it. The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly. Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence ( Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]).

6.       The evidence of the Father is of utmost importance in this case and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of his credibility and reliability. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence of a parent and impression it forms of him.

7.       The court must always bear in mind that a witnesses may tell lies in the course of an investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied above everything ( R v Lucas [1982] QB 720). In light of the Father's admitted dishonesty to the social worker during the assessment process, I give myself a Lucas direction in respect of his evidence.

8.       It is also important when considering my decision as to the findings sought that I take into account of the presence or absence of any risk factors and any protective factors, which are apparent on the evidence.

 

9. I remind myself that W's welfare is my paramount consideration. That is section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. In considering what orders to make I have regard to the Welfare Check List found in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.

 

10. In relation to the threshold criteria of section 31(2) Children Act 1989 I have regard to whether I am satisfied that W is at risk of suffering significant harm. As a consequence of the conceded facts set out in respect of the threshold criteria I am satisfied that W was at risk of suffering significant harm if he were to be placed in the Mother's care. I am also satisfied that at the time that these proceedings were initiated, there was an established factual basis upon which public law proceedings could properly be brought and protective measures taken.

 

11.   I must consider what orders, if any, are in the best interests of W. Any order I make must not only be necessary but proportionate to the risks identified and must meet the welfare needs of the child. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are "very extreme", and should only be made when "necessary" for the protection of the child's interests, "when nothing else will do". The court "must never lose sight of the fact that (the child's) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them". Happily in this case, there is no suggestion that W will need to be placed outside of his birth family.

 

12.   It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33 it was said: "Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and....everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to 'rebuild' the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing."

 

13. I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the realistic options for W, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.

 

14. In considering making a Care Order I have had close regard to the Article 6 ECHR and Article 8 ECHR rights of the Mother, the Father and of W, but I remind myself that where there is tension between the Article 8 rights of the parent, on the one hand, and of the child, on the other, the rights of the child prevail; Yousef v The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210.

 

 

Evidence

 

8. During this hearing, I have heard evidence from the key social worker, Hannah Taylor, who has been the child's allocated social worker since the pre birth period, from the Father and from the Children's Guardian. I have read the bundle of documents filed for these proceedings.

 

9. I found the social worker to be an honest and credible witness. She was balanced, careful and fair. She told me that in order to undertake her assessment of the Father, she met him on thirteen or fourteen occasions by way of assessment sessions. She impressed me as a diligent and conscientious social worker who had attempted to assist the Father by devising a support plan for him at the outset of proceedings in order to assist him to address his rent arrears and by allocating an Outreach Worker to him to assist him in obtaining suitable housing provision. I did not detect that she approached her assessment of him with a closed mind or that he had been summarily "written off" by her at an early stage. She told me that she went through the files held by Bolton Council in respect of the Father's childhood with him, explaining to him the risks arising from this information to W and that at the earliest stage in proceedings she had stressed to the Father what the local authority would be expecting him to do in order to put himself in a position to care for his son; this included obtaining suitable housing and addressing his debts. I do not doubt that she provided the Father with the necessary assistance he would have needed to successfully address these issues. She stressed that it is the collective nature of the risk factors she identified that have led to her conclusion that W could not be safely cared for by the Father. In essence it is constellation of issues surrounding lack of stable housing, rent arrears, sexual history, previous anti social behaviour and recreational drug use which for her amounts to a chaotic lifestyle which is not compatible with the safe care of a child. She gave examples of the Father's dishonesty during the assessment process and stated that such dishonesty renders other risk factors incapable of being reduced to an acceptable level. Without honesty and trust, in her opinion, the local authority would be unable to safely work alongside the Father to ameliorate risk and monitor a placement with him. As a consequence of the Father's failure to inform her of his address(es) during these proceedings, basic checks could not be performed. I make clear that where there are disputes of fact as to whether she asked the Father about his living circumstances and support network I accept her evidence that she did do so.

 

10. I found the Father to be a likeable witness who impressed me as motivated in attending contact with his son. I do not doubt that he dearly loves W and I note that there are no concerns about his ability to meet W's basic care needs within the confines of contact sessions. He described W as "bundle of joy" and "the best thing that has ever happened to him". The quality of his contact is very good and I accept that he is natural and intuitive towards W in contact, that he delights in W's development and that he has established a good relationship with him. I accept that the Father genuinely wishes to care for his son.

 

11. The Father was able to give me examples of the neglectful and harmful parenting that he had received as a child. He made a series of admissions in respect of the factual matters pleaded against him by the local authority as I have set out. He did however struggle to explain why he had lied to the local authority about paying off rent arrears when he had not, saying, "It was a spur of the moment thing". At times he asserted that his mother did not pose a risk to W, at other times he accepted that her parenting of him was unacceptable. His case is that she has changed. He was evasive during some parts of his evidence, particularly with regards to why he had not supplied details of his living arrangements to the local authority or the Guardian, simply saying, "he had not been asked" or that "he could not recall being asked". He struck me as an individual who was keen to say what he thought he should say in order to ameliorate concerns about him in respect of certain issues. This was particularly evident when, for the first time in his evidence, he asserted that he had had a stable tenancy for a number of years in the past. This is an important matter, which was not revealed to the local authority or to the Guardian prior to this hearing. The assertion in respect of his previous tenancy has not been capable of being verified, and on the evidence before the Court I am not able to accept what he says about this. If this was the case it is unlikely in my view that he would not have mentioned it before to the social worker, the Guardian or in his written evidence. The Father now says he has a tenancy, which is ready for him to move into. It is bedsit accommodation. He has been unable to supply the Court with a tenancy agreement or any independent evidence to verify this but did concede in his evidence that this property, which he is yet to move into, may not be suitable for W.

 

12. Finally I heard evidence from the Children's Guardian, who has been W's Guardian since the proceedings were first issued. I am grateful to him for his two reports and for the careful and balanced way in which he gave his oral evidence. He confirmed in oral evidence that nothing he had heard during the hearing had caused him to change his view and that on the contrary, that the evidence of the Father had reinforced it. The Guardian has reached a clear conclusion that W cannot be safely cared for by the Father. He is also firmly of the view that the Paternal Grandmother poses a risk of significant harm to W and finds it concerning that the Father cannot fully recognise that risk. He gives very little weight to the argument that the lack of action by another local authority, Bolton Council, in respect of the Father's younger siblings should reassure the Father that the risks posed by the Paternal Grandmother have in any way reduced since it was the Father himself who reported those concerns when he left home. He was able to acknowledge the positives about the Father but stated that the concerns far outweigh those positives. There is no framework or support package, which in his opinion would reduce or ameliorate the risks to an acceptable level to permit W to be placed with the Father.

 

 

Welfare analysis

 

13. I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged assessments of the Mother and her partner DB that neither the Mother alone, nor them as a couple can safely care for W and that he would be at risk of suffering significant harm in the form of neglect, impairment of his physical and emotional development, emotional and physical harm. Although I acknowledge that they love W and would wish to care for him.

 

14. There are only two realistic placement options within the family for W, the first is a placement with the Father, the second a placement with MF and PW. W has not lived with either of these sets of family members.

 

15. In considering whether W could safely live with the Father, I must acknowledge the positives about the Father. I am satisfied that he has attended every contact session with his son punctually and that the quality of that contact is very good. I am satisfied that he can meet W's basic care needs in contact sessions which are supervised and take place twice each week for 1.5 hours per session. Nothing within the evidence leads me to the conclusion that he would ever intentionally cause W harm.

 

16. Having listened to the Father's evidence and considered the independent evidence that he has not committed a criminal offence since 2007; that there is no Police or independent evidence that he has engaged in anti social behaviour since 2006; that the drug test results reveal that he has abstained from all illicit substances over the course of the early part of this year, especially when coupled with observations of him by professionals on a regular and frequent basis throughout proceedings that have never resulted in concerns about his presentation or a suggestion that he was under the influence of substances all result in me being satisfied that he has made a number of adaptations to his lifestyle, particularly since he was confirmed to be W's father. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence before me that he was implicated in his brother's eviction for antisocial behaviour in 2015. There is no evidence that he has continued to meet women online for sexual intercourse during these proceedings, although I note that the social worker has been unable to verify this due to her inability to perform announced and unannounced visits in the absence of an address. I accept that the Father has had no contact with DP for over a decade and accept his evidence that he would never knowingly permit him to have contact with his son.

 

17. I do not accept the local authority's assertion that because the Father engaged in occasional recreational cocaine use and used social media to meet women for sexual encounters prior to W's birth that this leads to a risk that this behaviour would continue if he had the care of W. These lifestyle issues must be seen in the context of him being a young single man at the time with no dependents. I do not condemn him for engaging in casual sex or for using the Internet to meet sexual partners; such practices are not uncommon, particularly for young men of his age. There is no evidence that he was ever dependent on or addicted to drugs. I do not accept that substance misuse poses a realistic risk to W in this case.

 

18. That said I do accept that the factual background is that the Father has led a transient and nomadic lifestyle during his adult life and that he has failed to achieve a degree of stability or a settled home. His life has been a chaotic one and, as can be seen by his admissions, has involved partying, taking recreational drugs, working on fairgrounds whilst claiming benefits, sofa surfing and meeting numerous partners for sex online. This lifestyle is clearly incompatible with the safe care of a child and it is against this background that I must assess his current lifestyle and ability to make and maintain change. During the first risk assessment of him in early February 2016, the Father was able to acknowledge that at that time he was "not in a position to afford W the care he requires" as a consequence of him not having an appropriate tenancy, finances or resources to meet his needs. I must assess whether the Father has demonstrated the necessary changes to now be able to do so.

 

19. Having considered all of the written and oral evidence in this case, and the submissions of counsel on behalf of the local authority, the Father and the child, I am satisfied that sadly, W cannot be safely placed in the care of his Father now or in an acceptable timescale commensurate with W's needs. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows:

 

20. I am satisfied that the Father was well aware from the outset of his involvement in these proceedings, from February 2016 onwards, that he needed to obtain suitable accommodation for himself and for W. This is a basic and fundamental requirement for any child. I am satisfied that he was given all of the necessary advice and support to achieve this objective and that although there can be no guarantees where social housing is concerned, given the high priority he would have attracted, I consider it likely that had he followed the advice and accepted the support given he would in all probability have secured social housing in a timely fashion such that by the time of this hearing, he should have had an opportunity to begin to demonstrate his ability to maintain a safe, hygienic and tidy home, manage his finances and budget for the running of a household. He did not take that opportunity. He accepted during his evidence that this was his fault and not the local authority's. Rather than avail himself of the support he was offered he chose to "do things his way". He rejected offers to assist with social housing and chose to attempt to obtain private rental accommodation instead, which did not require a deposit. He lied to the social worker about his income and lied about paying off £300 worth of rent arrears. Within his final written evidence he states that he had saved up £300. When I asked him if this was true he told me that it was at the time the statement was written but that he had since spent some of it on clothes and that he now only had between £150-£200. He has not chosen to use this money on repaying his debts or rental arrears despite £300 being a significant amount of money in the context of his rental arrears which, could have placed him in a position to begin to be accepted for social housing. According to the social worker he would be classed as high priority for social housing and therefore his decision not to pursue this route is difficult to excuse or explain. Indeed he could not give me an acceptable explanation for it. He was, at times, unclear about how much money he owed in loans. He accepted that to date he has made only one payment of £30 by standing order towards his rent arrears. I find that his attitude towards debt and finances is immature. I have no confidence on the available evidence before me that he would be able to budget successfully and prioritise necessary expenditure in order to provide a home for W in the short, medium or long term.

 

21. Despite his case being that he has now found a property and is about to move in to it, during cross examination he accepted that even that property may not be suitable for W to live in and that he may need to move again to a more suitable property. Given the length of time that has already passed and the lack of progress that he has made to date, I have no confidence that he will be able to do so within an acceptable timeframe for W.

 

22. I accept the submission of Miss McHugh that the housing issue is not as simple as a practical lack of accommodation. I agree entirely that if this were the only issue precluding him caring for W it could and should be remedied by the local authority. There are, as she identifies, five strands which flow from his failure to secure housing: firstly it is indicative of a lack of motivation, secondly a lack of commitment on his part to care for W, thirdly it reveals an inability to manage his finances, fourthly an inability to follow advice and lastly demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the urgency of this issue for W. All of these factors point clearly towards him being incapable of caring for him at this time or within an acceptable timescale.

 

23. Throughout the course of this year the Father has "sofa surfed" and lived between the houses of friends and caravans on fair grounds. He has not provided a single address to the local authority during the proceedings, save for his mother's address which he uses as a postal address, thus thwarting the social worker's ability to perform background checks on these properties or on the friends that he is residing with. Historically his friends have included those that have engaged in recreational drug misuse. It remains unclear whether his friendship group is more suitable now and his lack of co-operation with the local authority in failing to facilitate such checks has, in my view deliberately, resulted in the local authority being unable to check the suitability of his social circumstances and current lifestyle. This lack of co-operation is indicative of the Father's overall attitude towards the local authority. His lifestyle, as far as working and sleeping arrangements are concerned at least, remain chaotic and not conducive with the care of a child of any age let alone a vulnerable baby. The Father has taken no steps to secure employment which would provide a more stable lifestyle for him and his son to date, whilst he told me he intends to do this in the future and that he would put W in nursery and work within nursery hours, I cannot accept these reassurances based on the evidence before me. He has taken no steps to attend parenting classes and indeed does not think he needs them, no steps to make contact with his local Sure Start or to make any realistic or practical arrangements to care for W to date. I accept the social worker's evidence that the Father has the capacity to resolve his housing situation and address these matters; he simply lacks the motivation to do so. I do not find that he is unable or unwilling to prioritise his son above his own needs, but I am satisfied that the Father is unable to prioritise urgent and important issues in his life in such a way as to secure a stable home for himself or for a child.

 

24. I was troubled by the Father's assertion that he would not need parenting support or advice from the local authority and would not inform them if he had difficulties in parenting W. Whilst I accept that he can meet W's basic care needs in contact, he has never cared for a child full time. His confidence that he would have no difficulties in managing W's day to day care as an inexperienced first time single parent is misplaced and unrealistic. Despite the position he advances that he would work with the local authority under a Care Order, his dishonesty during the assessment process and repeated answers in the witness box that he would undertake work or comply with their expectations "if he had to" does not inspire me with confidence that he would do so in an open and meaningful way. His plan to care for W is embryonic and naïve. Despite asserting that he has family and friends who could offer him support, he has only ever put forward the Paternal Grandmother and his brother AP as individuals who could be assessed by the local authority. During cross-examination he reluctantly accepted that his brother AP was not a suitable support to him in respect of caring for W. Notwithstanding the negative childhood experiences he recounted, he has maintained his position that the Paternal Grandmother is a suitable support for him and poses no risk to W.

 

25. I am satisfied that the Father's childhood was blighted by neglect and unacceptable parenting at the hands of the Paternal Grandmother. I am satisfied that as a result of a lack of adequate supervision and her failure to protect him and his siblings, the Father suffered emotional harm and preventable traumatic experiences. The Paternal Grandmother's style of parenting has been described by the Father as "dangerous" during assessment sessions. I agree with Miss McHugh that it is surprising in that context that he put her forward as a prospective carer for W and I find it even more surprising that at the end of the assessment process, just prior to the filing of the local authority's final evidence, he again confirmed to the social worker that even with the acquired knowledge that he had from Bolton Council's files about her, he would put her forward again. I am not satisfied that this necessarily means that he will go on to emulate his mother's parenting style. He is undoubtedly loyal to his mother and sees her on a very frequent and regular basis, as often as daily when not working away from the area. It is clear to me from his evidence that she is his main source of support and would be his first port of call if he required help or assistance. He has struggled to identify that she may repeat her abusive parenting style in future and as such, that W could experience inadequate and unsafe care if left unsupervised with her. Whilst it is understandably difficult for him to criticise his mother, this is not a situation in which he has been simply given information about the risks she may pose from local authority files and expected to accept them. He clearly has recollections of abusive parenting from his childhood and teenage years. Indeed, when he chose to leave the family home at the age of 17 years he made a referral to the Aftercare Service expressing his concerns for the safety of his younger siblings and reported that they were being left in the care of a Schedule 1 offender by his mother.

 

26. Based on the Father's own experiences of being parented by the Paternal Grandmother and the care that his siblings received, and on the professional advice that he has received, I am satisfied that he should be able to appreciate that there remains the risk for W if left unsupervised in her care, that she may expose him to neglectful and physically abusive parenting and may fail to protect him from sexual abuse. At the very least I would expect him to err on the side of caution. The Father is now unable to identify those risks at all and does not accept that she would need to be restricted in her access to W in any way. Given W's vulnerability as a consequence of his age, the Father's lack of caution in respect of these matters is troubling. His preference to seek parenting advice from his mother rather than from the local authority and his failure to identify any other suitable friend or family member that he could turn to for advice and support when asked by the local authority and the Guardian in advance of this hearing, does in my view establish a finding that he does not have appropriate or suitable family support and that there is a risk that in times of need he would leave W in the care of an unassessed family member or his mother.

 

27. I must consider whether the risks that I have identified in respect of the Father can be managed or ameliorated by any services or support package. The Father concedes that W could be placed with him under the auspices of a Care Order, and whilst this is not the local authority's care plan I must consider whether this type of order, being the most protective and draconian available to me, could protect W within a placement with the Father. I agree with Miss McHugh that five components would be necessary for this to be a safe proposal: firstly I would need to be satisfied of the Father's honesty in working with the local authority in future, sadly I cannot be so satisfied and accept her observation that a number of his responses in evidence were opportunistic and appeared in my view designed to provide reassurances that he thought I might want to hear rather than be based in fact, secondly he would need to demonstrate insight into the difficulties he may face and the risks that he may need to protect W from. There is little evidence that he is able to do that or that he has developed insight into the risks that his mother in particular may pose; thirdly he would need to demonstrate that he is capable of working to a plan put in place by the local authority - his clear lack of ability to do so in respect of the housing issue amply demonstrates that he is not able or wiling to do so; fourthly it would require an ability to work in a co operative way with professionals - whilst I do give him credit for attending all thirteen or fourteen assessment sessions with the social worker, working with professionals requires far more than punctual attendance; a meaningful open and honest working relationship would need to be established. The evidence I have is that this father does not work openly and honestly with the local authority and instead that he is prepared to conceal information and lie to professionals in order to present a more favourable impression. I cannot be satisfied that he would volunteer difficulties or seek out assistance in future, especially in circumstances in which he may fear it would reflect badly upon him. Lastly, he would need an ability to anticipate problems before they arise rather than react to them. I am satisfied that the Father is not able to that and this is best revealed by his inability to conceptualise any difficulties in caring for W in future. I would add to this list that simply following professional advice and guidance is not enough, I would expect him to be able to independently formulate his own conclusions about risks to W and to take protective action to prevent those risks materialising. Based on his lack of ability to extrapolate from his own experiences of neglectful abusive parenting during childhood that W could be placed at risk if left in a similar situation with the Paternal Grandmother, I have no confidence that he is able to do so.

 

28. Overall, I have reached the conclusion that the Father is simply unable or unwilling to follow the advice and accept the support of the local authority which, given his lack of suitable alternative support networks and the risk factors identified in respect of his lifestyle means that I cannot be satisfied that there is any intervention or support plan that could be put in place to assist him to safely parent his son.

 

29. I have read the local authority's assessment of MF and PW. I am told that the local authority's fostering panel gave oral approval to them as long-term foster carers for W on 23.6.16. No party seeks to challenge the assessment of them or assert that they would be inappropriate, unsuitable or unsafe carers for W. The Father's case is that W should live with him as he is his Father, in advancing that case it is to his credit that he has not sought to launch any kind of attack against MF or PW and I am satisfied that they would be appropriate carers for W who are capable of meeting his needs both now and throughout his minority. On the first day of the hearing I invited the local authority to request that they attend Court during these proceedings so that I could see them, as both a courtesy to them and so that I could confirm with them their commitment to providing long term care to W. They attended Court that very afternoon, effortlessly demonstrating their commitment to him and to this process. They also readily accepted my invitation that they should meet the Father, both to hopefully reassure him about them in the slightly unusual circumstances of them being prospective kinship carers, who on the local authority's case could in as little as 12 months' time be managing contact arrangements with him directly, despite having never met him to date. I commend the Father for participating in this process. I am told that this meeting was a positive one. I hope that this has gone some way towards reassuring each of them that they will be able to work together and respect each other as the very important members of W's family that they are. Having read the local authority's assessment, I am satisfied that these are family orientated carers who are able to appreciate the significance of each of W's parents in his life and that they will promote contact. Their position in that assessment was clear - they did not contend to care for him in competition with either parent, they have put themselves forward in case he could not be cared for by either of his parents. I hope that each parent appreciates that these are carers who have stepped forward to retain W in his birth family and that they have in no way sought to compete as carers for him.

 

30. Having considered the most suitable legal framework for this placement, I am satisfied that only a Care Order will provide the required level of support for this placement at this stage. MF and PW have never met W and I consider that at this stage, any lesser form of order, including a Special Guardianship Order, is simply not robust enough to protect and meet the needs of W. These carers require the full statutory support of the local authority to ensure that W's transition to their care goes smoothly. They also require the local authority to monitor and manage contact arrangements to W's parents in a way that removes them from having to make decisions in this regard at the present time. Decision making and management of contact can only lawfully and effectively be carried out by the local authority if they share Parental Responsibility for W with the parents, and I am satisfied in these circumstances that it is both necessary and proportionate for it to do so.

 

31. I am satisfied that W's amended care plan is the appropriate one for him and I approve it and make a care order in favour of Salford City Council. I am satisfied with the contact arrangements for W with each of his parents, which are provided for within that plan. Such arrangements will be kept under review during the life of the Care Order. I acknowledge the Father's understandable desire to have contact on a more frequent basis than monthly and accept that a reduction from the present level of twice weekly contact will be a significant change, however I am satisfied that this reduction is necessary at this stage to enable W to be introduced to his new carers and to settle into their care and form attachments with them. It is the placement, which must be the priority at this stage. I am satisfied that the local authority understands its duty to keep contact arrangements under review during the life of the Care Order and that at each LAC Review they will need to consider whether the current contact provision is meeting W's needs and is in his best interests. Contact may be increased or decreased at those reviews. It is essential in my view for the local authority to fully inform the carers of the risks which present in this case and to that end I give permission to disclose a copy of this judgment to them. Prior to any relaxation of the supervision of contact for each parent, the local authority would need to revisit its risk assessment of in respect of each of them. The onus is on the local authority to do this rather than to leave this as an issue for the carers to decide.