The identity of the child and those named in Paragraphs 1 and 3 are not to be disclosed without permission of the Court.
- This is an application by Southampton City Council for a Care Order pursuant to Section 31 Children Act 1989 and if granted a placement order pursuant to Section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002.
- The parents are not in attendance today. They have not attended any hearing since the 11th March 2016. They had sacked their lawyers before that hearing took place. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed today with the final hearing of SCC applications. I am satisfied that they are aware of today's hearing, and the fact that it is a final hearing as I have seen the u tube clip of the 26 th June, which records a telephone conversation between the social worker and the parents, in which in many occasions the social worker advises them of this fact, and asks them to return to this country so that they could see their son and be assessed.
- The Mother of the child is A. She is a Portuguese national. The Father is B. He is an English national. The parents are not married but have been in a relationship for some 3 years. The Father does not share Parental Responsibility for X because he is not married to the Mother nor is his name on the child's Birth Certificate.
- The parents failed to register the child's birth in accordance with Section 1 and Section 2 Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 within 42 days of the birth The birth was subsequently registered by Southampton City Council ( SCC) following the expiry of that period and there being no indication by the parents of an intention to comply with the provisions of the 1953 Act as by then SCC had Parental Responsibility by virtue of an Interim Care Order.
- Before the Court can consider the making of any orders in respect of X the Court must be satisfied that the Threshold criteria as set out in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 has been met. The Local Authority prepared a document dated the 22 nd February 2016 setting out the findings they sought from the Court. This sets out the background of the case and the reasons why SCC issued care proceedings.
- The relevant date upon which the Court should be satisfied that the threshold criteria under Section 31 Children Act 1989 has been met is 06.02.2016, this being the date when police powers of removal were exercised in respect of X.
- At the relevant date it is submitted that X had suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm, and that the harm and/or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given or likely to be given to the child if the order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.
- Further in proving threshold the Local Authority is entitled to rely upon information that has come to light since the relevant date for threshold. Relevant events since that date which are capable of proving the state of affairs at the date of intervention and/or at the relevant date of threshold can be fully relied upon by the Local Authority and the Court (Re G (Care Proceedings: Threshold Conditions) 2001 2 FLR 1111).
- The facts and evidence upon which the Local Authority relies are as follows:
1. The parents have failed to seek appropriate medical attention for their child and have been resistant to intervention from medical and social work professionals in this respect:
1.1. Shortly after X birth on 01.02.2016 his parents expressed a desire to be discharged as quickly as possible and for the child's birth not to be registered or recorded. They were discharged on 02.02.2016 on the understanding that a midwife would check on the baby during the week. On 03.02.2016 and 04.02.2016 the parents denied the midwife, Kim Allen, access to their accommodation and the child.
1.2 . On 05.02.2016 they denied a General Practitioner, Dr Ross, access to their accommodation and the child;
1.3 . Having been requested by Dr Ross to attend Princess Anne Hospital in respect of a check on the child, they left the property and attended a Doula. When the police, who were seeking to check on the child's welfare, attended the Doula's property they were denied access;
1.4 . When X presented at Princess Anne Hospital in the early hours of 06.02.2016 he was reviewed by a Consultant, Dr Sharma, who found him jaundiced and dehydrated. He opined that the child was in immediate need of phototherapy treatment and expressed his concern that the parents had not recognised that the child was in need of treatment.
2. The parents have been inconsistent in reporting health concerns relating to the child:
2.1 . On 05.02.2016 Dr Ross and the police attended the parents' property and said they wanted to check on the child's welfare; the parents acceded to a visit from a midwife. When a midwife attended, they denied that she was needed;
2.2. Following the above incident, on 05.02.2016 at 15:30 Dr Ross received a phone call from the father in which the father said he thought his child was unwell. When Dr Ross spoke to the father shortly after 17:00, the father denied having made the initial phone call.
3. Given the father's medical beliefs, there are concerns that the child may have been treated indirectly with harmful alternative medication through the mother's breast milk or may be treated with harmful medication in future:
3.1 . An investigative journalism piece in 2015 discovered that the father was selling Master Mineral Solution (MMS) as a treatment for cancer and autism. MMS is a sodium chlorite solution equivalent to industrial-strength bleach; the Food Standards Agency has warned it should not be consumed as to do so as directed could cause severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, potentially leading to dehydration and reduced blood pressure;
3.2. The father advocates the use of MMS and his personal website includes paraphernalia for the administration of such products to babies.
4. Based on the behaviour of the parents, there are significant concerns that they may abscond or otherwise prevent enquiries being made about the health of their child:
4.1 . The child was removed to police protection at 05:10 on 06.02.2016. A hearing on 08.02.2016 in relation to an application for an Emergency Protection Order was adjourned until 14:00 on 09.02.2016 on the basis of an agreement made by the parents that they would not remove their child from the hospital in which the child was being treated, notwithstanding that police protective powers expired at 05:10 on 09.02.2016, and a warning from District Judge Veysey that if they breached this agreement then the police would very likely exercise their police powers.
4.2. On the evening of 08.02.2016 a duty social worker Paula Thomas attended Princess Anne Hospital to ensure that the parents understood the above agreement. The parents were present with their friend who denied to the social worker Paula Thomas that there had been court proceedings that day;
4.3. The father expressly denied that he had been in contact with his barrister or lawyer that day, notwithstanding the instruction of Sarah Ferrari of Dutton Gregory Solicitors and the attendance of Andrew Bond of counsel on his behalf at the hearing on 08.02.2016.
4.4. The above was reinforced by a family friend who was present with the parents at the hospital on 08.02.2016 and suggested that there had been no court proceedings, that there was no paperwork or evidence of a court hearing, and that he felt the Local Authority were making things up. He suggested the Local Authority were conspiring against the parents.
4.5. Throughout the night discussions took place between the social work team and the police. This culminated in a decision taken by the police around 03:00 on 09.02.2016 to attend the hospital and remove the child into police protection prior to the expiry of the present police protection order at 05:10.
4.6. By way of email at 12:50 on 09.02.2016, the mother's former solicitor Greg Coad advised that she initially instructed Bernard, Chill and Axtell Solicitors who further instructed Daniel Nother of counsel to represent her at the hearing on 08.02.2016 by telephone. On the morning of 09.02.2016 Greg Coad attended the hospital where the mother denied ever having instructed him to represent her, denied the knowledge of any court case and denied wanting to instruct him. She accepted no paperwork from him and asked him to leave the hospital.
- As can be seen from those paragraphs the Local Authority first made application to the Court on the 8th February 2016. This case first came before myself on the 9th February 2016 and I have since then been the case management Judge and overseen all decisions and made all directions concerning the conduct of this case.
- The return hearing for the Emergency Protection Order took place on the 9th February 2016. At that hearing Mr Andrew Bond attended on behalf of the Father having anticipated meeting with the Father early that morning but the Father failed to attend and indeed advised Mr Bond that he had never instructed him. It can be seen from paragraph 4.6 that the Mother adopted a similar position concerning the solicitor and counsel that had been previously instructed by her. In the light of information that the Court had at that time and the evidence which had been filed by the Local Authority the Court considered in the circumstances of this case (and the denial by the parents of any Court proceedings or instructions having been given to solicitors or barristers which occurred since the hearing yesterday) to treat the hearing at that time as an application for an Interim Care Order. That is recorded at Paragraph 15 of the order of 9th February 2016. Accordingly an interim care order was made and the case was listed the case for further consideration of the Interim Care Order and Case Management Hearing on the 19th February 2016.
- On that occasion both parents attended and were represented by Counsel. They both had filed statements and the Mother filed a response to the then Threshold document prepared by the Local Authority. Both parents' statement attached to it a timeline explaining exactly what had happened since the birth of the baby and the involvement that they had had with all of the medical and Local Authority professionals from that time. The Mother did not accept that the Threshold criteria was made out and that was documented in her response to Threshold document. The Father has never filed a document giving a formal response to threshold . The parents' position as documented was that they sought the immediate return of their son to their care and there was a question as to whether or not the Mother would seek for the proceedings to be transferred to Portugal.
- The parents, in particular the Mother, details the misunderstandings that may have occurred during the involvement with the professionals to date. For example in response to Paragraph 6.4.1 she says "The Respondent acknowledges misunderstandings in relation to her original representation and the procedure concerning the application for an Emergency Protection Order which was confusing and not fully explained to her." "The first Respondent now has representation and has made it clear that she seeks to fully co-operate which she has throughout but has been misunderstood."
- Her Statement dated the 17th February 2016 again acknowledges that there had been difficulties with the medical authorities and that "I have been confused and upset at times which I would guess is as natural reaction to the exhaustion of birth, major surgery and the removal of one's newborn child." She again in that Statement re-assures the Court that she was "prepared to work with the Local Authority and take whatever steps are necessary for the return of my son to my care." "I do not accept that my son has suffered any harm or that I have placed him at risk. X is my first child and I only want what is best for him. I have felt there has been considerable hostility towards me from the authorities: however I do acknowledge that it is necessary to work with Southampton City Council and all health professionals. I understand and assure the Court that I will follow advice." She suggests in that document that if the Court considered it necessary that she was even interested in the possibility of attending a Mother and Baby Unit for assessment.
- The Father's own statement records similar points for example: at Paragraph 14 he says as follows: "Taken as a whole I believe it paints a picture of poor communication and mutual misunderstandings out of which has grown mutual distrust between the Mother and myself on the one part and other authorities on the other. Any view that either the Mother or I would not wish to do the very best for our son and ensure that he is provided with the very best care including medical care could not be further from the truth." In paragraph 19 he says: "I believe that our loss of confidence in the authorities stems from the conduct and attitude of the Midwife who attended the birth and the need to call 2 separate ambulance crews. Now that I have read the documents received from Southampton City Council I can understand at least some of the reasons the authorities have lost confidence in the Mother and myself. I am acutely conscious that mutual confidence must be restored and it is my intention to work to this end." Both these statements that have been referred to were signed by and dated by the parents dated the 17th February 2016 and in both documents they confirm that they make the statement believing its contents to be true and knowing that it may be put before the Court as evidence.
- At the hearing on the 19th February neither party agreed or opposed the continuation of the Interim Care Order made on the 9th February 2016 and accordingly the child has remained the subject of an Interim Care Order throughout the course of these proceedings. It also recorded that the Mother no longer challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts and did not intend to make any application for transfer of the case under Article 15 of Brussels IIA.
- The parents indicated that they wish to be assessed as joint carers for the child and in the alternative as separate carers. The Mother put forward her own parents as being potential alternative carers for the baby. The Father did not identify any alternative carers.
- In the light of the parents attendance at the hearing and their written clear indication to the Court that they wished to put the events behind them and work with the Local Authority with a view to their child being rehabilitated to their care the Court made directions to lead to a an Issues Resolution Hearing on 10th June 2016.
- The directions made on that day included for the Local Authority to undertake assessments of the parents and also the Maternal Grandparents which was to include an assessment of the support that they would be able to provide to the Mother and/or the Father in both this country and in Portugal.
- Given the issues in the case and the worrying background and bizarre behaviour of the parents which had resulted in the proceedings being issued the Court agreed with the parties that it was necessary for there to be a psychological assessment of both parents. The agreed experts was Joanna Clerk, a Child Psychologist and the questions that the Court approved to be answered by her were as follows:
1) Please complete a full psychological assessment of the mother and the father. Does either parent have a mental illness or disorder (including substance abuse) or other psychological or emotional difficulty and, if so, what is the diagnosis?
2) How do any or all of the above (and their current treatment if applicable) affect that parent's functioning, including interpersonal relationships?
3) If the answer to 1) is yes, are there any features of either the mental illness or psychological or emotional difficulty or personality disorder, which could be
associated with risk to others, specifically X, based on the available evidence base (whether published studies or evidence from clinical experience)?
4) What are the experiences/antecedents/aetiology which would explain the difficulties, if any, (taking into account any available evidence base or other clinical experience)?
5) Please advise, what treatment is indicated, what is its nature and the likely duration of this, taking each parent in turn?
6) What is the capacity of either or both parents to engage in/partake of the
treatment/therapy?
7) Are you able to indicate the prognosis for, timescales for achieving, and likely durability of change, if achievable?
8) Please consider what other factors might indicate positive change in either parent in the future?
9) Please consider the nature of the parent's relationship with each other and whether the other person's involvement would counteract any difficulties in respect of functioning.
10) Please consider within the nature of that relationship, whether the other persons involvement might exacerbate any difficulties in respect of functioning? Please consider whether either parent would be able to better function if he/she were to be a sole carer.
11) Please consider each of the parents religious and health beliefs (Fathers use of MMS treatment and Bishop of the Genesis II Health and Healing Church) and how that would impact on each of them, their ability to access support services in the community and take advice for the benefit of their child.
12) Please consider the ability of the parents to engage with professional support (health, children's services etc.) for their child, and act in the best interests of their child, prioritising that above their own or each others needs.
13) Please consider the parent's genuine insight and understanding in relation to the concerns expressed by the Local Authority and other professionals that lead to these court proceedings and their ability to work in an honest and open manner, both now and in the future.
14) Please consider what resources are available and appropriate for the parents in their local area and their ability to engage with those for the benefit of their own treatment and the needs of their child.
- It seemed to the Court at that time of the hearing on the 19th February that the parents were wishing to co-operate with the Court process and that there was a genuine wish on their part to draw a line in the sand under the events that had occurred which had resulted in the interim care order being made and to work with all professionals in hopefully leading to a successful reunification of their son to their care.
- Sadly that optimism was short-lived in that the Local Authority made an application to the Court on the 11th March 2016 for an order under Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 seeking the Court's permission to refuse contact between the baby and his parents. That application was as a consequence of the Local Authority's concern about the parents' conduct during various contact sessions. They were documented in a letter sent to the parents on the 4th March setting out the Local Authority's concerns and informing them of the decision to suspend contact pending the application to the Court. There is also a statement setting out the reasons for the application dated the 7th March2016.
- The application was listed for hearing before myself on the 14th March 2016. On that occasion the parents represented themselves having dispensed with the services of their legal representation. Sadly on that occasion neither parent would respect the authority of the Court. The Father shouted at myself and was ejected from the Court. The parents were removed from the Court on 2 occasions. After the first occasion they were informed that they could re-enter the Court provided they respected Court procedures but sadly despite assurances that they would, they did not do so and they were ejected again from the Court. It was quite frankly impossible to hold any form of a hearing with them being present as they refused to respect the authority of the Court or the Court's procedures. I asked the Mother at one point whether they were going to register the birth of their child (those assurances having been given to the Court on the 19th February 2016 that they would do so without delay) but at that point the Mother commenced reading a prepared script when she questioned the authority of the Court. As a consequence of that she was removed from the Courtroom as she refused to stop reading her script, and clearly had no intention of answering my questions or respecting the courts authority.
- At that hearing the Court was very concerned about the evidence produced by the Local Authority, documented in the Social Worker's statement of the 7th March 2016. The parents had entered into a Contract of Expectations on the 11th February 2016 which set out the expectations of the parents during contact sessions and the role of the contact practitioners to ensure that contact ran smoothly and was a positive experience of the child. However the social workers statement documented that the parents had failed to comply with that contract in that in almost every contact session that had taken place there was a refusal by the parents to accept or act on advice, they were being disrespectful to the contact supervisors and there was an increasing concern about the Mother's presentation during contact sessions and the impact that this was having on the quality of contact. The Local Authority were also concerned about the behaviour displayed by both of the parents which was becoming increasingly threatening and disruptive to the contact which, in turn, impacted on the quality of the contact and the emotional experience for their baby.
- The Court was clearly concerned given the age of this baby that the parents should be given an opportunity to reflect on the position in the hope that further contact between themselves and their baby could take place. The order therefore of the 14th March records the Local Authority agreement to arrange contact between the baby and the parents twice a week provided the parents attend a meeting with the Local Authority to discuss the management and arrangements for the contact and that they sign a Contract of Expectations. It was on that basis, the Court taking that agreement into account, made the order under Section 34(4) Children Act 1989 which was of course a permissive order only, permitting, if appropriate, the Local Authority to refuse contact. The anticipation of the Court and the expectation of both the Guardian and the Local Authority was that following that hearing the parents would meet with the Social Worker, sign a free contract of expectations and that then further contact would take place.
- Sadly that has not been the case and these parents have not attended the Social Services offices nor have they made any attempt to re-instate contact and therefore they have not seen their baby since the 4th March 2016. Some four and a half months ago.
- On the same day the Local Authority made application to Mr Justice Baker under the Inherent Jurisdiction for orders as the parents were publishing information on Facebook and other social media outlets concerning these Court proceedings.
- From documents that the Court considered on that occasion it was apparent that the parents had dispensed with legal representation in this country and had consulted with a self-styled Chief Federal Judge, David-Wynn Miller.
- Various documents have been served on parties and the Court and on that occasion the court considered a document headed "Educational – Correspondence – Claim. It is a bizarre document which makes quite frankly not a word of sense but is a clear claim by them that the Local Authority have kidnapped their child. This has been a theme which has run through the documentation which has been on Facebook and on YouTube and has persisted throughout despite the injunctions which were made by Mr Justice Baker on the 14th March 2016.
- On the 6th April 2016 the Local Authority made a further application to the Court for an urgent hearing to address the continued lack of engagement by the parents and their unwillingness to participate in the parenting assessment offered by the Local Authority or to engage in the proceedings at all. That application was heard by the Court on the 11th April. On that occasion the Court considered that it was appropriate for there to be a parallel approach, in the hope that the parents could understand that there was only a short period of time that this court was prepared to wait to see if they wanted to engage in the court process, or wanted even see their son.
- Paragraph 12 of that order records the parties' position.
12.THE PARTIES' POSITIONS:
a) The Local Authority has offered appointments for a parenting assessment between 15 March 2016 and 12 April 2016. The parents have not attended. The parents have not attended the appointment offered by Dr Clarke. Sadly, the Local Authority is concerned that the parents see their "fight" with the Local Authority as more important than getting to know their baby and for him to get to know them.
Decisions for the baby's future care have to be made.
b) The parents' position is not known other than for the information they have placed on the internet. They continue to say that their baby has been kidnapped by the Local Authority in order to be adopted. They put forward their account of the birth and the removal of the baby from their care through social media and it is likely that they have contacted Portuguese TV and the Daily Mail. They have not co-operated with the Local Authority in finding a way in which they could have contact with their baby.
c) The Guardian's position is that she wishes to know that every effort has been made to inform the parents of the court process and to encourage them to engage, and that every effort has been made to contact the maternal grandparents.
- The order provided that if the parents contacted the team manager by 4.00 pm on the 15th April confirming that they wish to be considered to resume the care of their baby and to care for him throughout his childhood then the assessment process undertaken by the Local Authority would be extended to enable that to occur. In the event that they did not do so then the timetable of the 19th February 2016 would apply. The purpose of this parallel approach was to give the parents a further opportunity to reflect on their position and to consider whether they wished to engage with the Local Authority and with the assessment process and to ensure that they were clearly aware of what would need to be undertaken before the Court would consider the care of their baby to their care.
- Sadly they did not notify the team manager by the 15th April. The Court at the same time hearing had made further directions for the Local Authority to pursue an assessment of the grandparents. The Local Authority had been in consultation with the Portuguese Embassy and enquiries had been made which confirmed that they did not wish to be assessed as alternative carers and that in the week of the 4th April 2016 a member of staff from the Portuguese Embassy informed the Local Authority that the Maternal Grandfather had said during a telephone call that he did not want the Embassy to contact him and it is reported that the Maternal Grandfather was rude and aggressive in his response. However the Local Authority were intending to telephone the Grandfather with the assistance of an interpreter on the 11th April to establish whether they wished to be assessed.
- Despite the order made by Mr Justice Baker the parents continued their campaign on the Internet and through social media and an application was made by the Local Authority to commit the parents to prison for contempt of Court. The matter came before Mr Justice Baker on the 14th April 2016. On that occasion he decided to adjourn the application to commit. He gave a full judgment and ordered that a transcript of the judgment in both English and Portuguese should be served upon both parents and the Maternal Grandparents. His judgment is yet a further plea to the family to engage in the Court process. In paragraph 23 of his judgment he said the following:
- According to the postings on the internet it seems that these parents believe that their baby has been stolen by the local authority, with the connivance and collusion of the medical authorities, lawyers of the Court, so that he could be put through what they call a "forced adoption". That is completely untrue. If the parents believe it, they are deluded. If anyone is encouraging them in that belief, they are acting in a way that is wholly contrary to the interest of this child and his parents.
- And in paragraphs 24 and 25:
If the parents want to do the right thing by their child, they should return to this country at once and co-operate with the Local Authority and the Court to ensure that all necessary assessments are carried out. There will be a fair hearing to determine whether the threshold for making a care order under section 31 of the Children Act is crossed and, if so, what order should then be made.
I implore these parents to think again, to put their baby's interests first, and come back and co-operate, so that the Court can make the right decision about X. There is a very real danger that, by continuing with their current internet campaign, they will only achieve the very thing they profess to be trying to avoid – permanent separation from their son.
- The case came back before myself on the 20th May for what should have been the IRH. The Local Authority however had not complied with the directions for filing their final evidence and Care Plan and considered that in fact further steps should be taken to enquire or to establish whether the Maternal Grandparents were a viable option for the care of this child. At the hearing a member from the Portuguese Consulate attended again. They had received previous notification of the proceedings in accordance with the Vienna Convention this was the second hearing that was attended by a representative from the Consulate, (the first being on the 6th April). At that hearing the Court were given information that an Independent Social Worker was at that very moment in Portugal attempting to contact the Grandparents. The attempts during that visit to meet with the grandparents were not proving successful. The Consulate Official volunteered further assistance by the Portuguese Children's Services in contacting the Grandparents direct and such offer was accepted by the Local Authority and the Court. The Court accordingly made further directions in relation to the Grandparents position The Court recorded the following in the order of the 20th May:
AND UPON the Court directing that it be recorded that:-
(1) The parents have a final opportunity to engage with the Court and with the Local Authority.
(2) The parents have until 3 June 2016 to file a statement (or statements) setting out their reasons for not engaging with the Local Authority, and not responding to either the Local Authority or the Child's Guardian. They must also respond to the Local Authority revised threshold statement dated 22 February 2016 by this date.
(3) The parents must contact the Local Authority by 3 June 2016 in order to arrange contact with X and to arrange to be assessed to care for him.
(4) In the event that they do not contact the Local Authority and do not file a statement, the Court will proceed on the basis that they do not want to be assessed and that they do not wish to be involved with the Local Authority.
(5) The Court had approved arrangements for the parents to be assessed as carers for X and would normally expect and encourage parents to co-operate with such arrangements.
(6) The Court has accepted jurisdiction in relation to X.
(7) If the parents do not respond to the revised threshold statement by 3 June 2016, the Court will have to proceed on the basis that the facts set out in the threshold statement are true and the Court will make findings on the basis of that threshold statement.
(8) In the absence of any co-operation with the Court process and orders by the parents, the Court will have no option but to proceed to making final orders as soon as possible in accordance with the timetable below.
(9) The parents have not seen X since 4 March 2016. The Court has to make decisions for his future as soon as possible. It is far better for him to be cared for within his natural family, if that is at all possible, but if the parents and Grandparents have not complied with the Court process of investigation into the family's circumstances and of evaluating what is in the child's best interests, then the Court will be left with no alternative than to make orders permitting the Local Authority to place X for adoption.
AND UPON the Court directing that the Local Authority must be in a position to inform the Court about dates for the filing of final evidence, and if appropriate the date for the ADM to consider the case.
Parents
The Parents shall each file and serve by 4.00 pm on 3 June 2016:-
A statement dealing with the following matters:-
(1) Their reasons for not engaging with the Local Authority and the Court process.
(2) Their reasons for not responding to the Local Authority and the Child's Guardian.
(3) Their responses to the revised threshold statement dated 22 February 2016.
(4) Their proposals for the care of Baby x.
Other Directions
Unless the parents file a response to the amended threshold statement dated 22 February 2016 by the 3 June 2016 then the Court and Local Authority shall proceed on the basis that threshold is agreed on the basis of the Local Authority threshold document.
Unless the parents file a statement as described above by the 3 June 2016 then the Court and Local Authority shall proceed in the basis that the Local Authority evidence is accepted and no further evidence shall be filed unless directed on 10 June 2016.
- The Court also directed that by the 3rd June the Local Authority should file a report from an Independent Social Worker who had attempted to communicate with the Maternal Grandparents and a report for the Portuguese Children's Services setting out their actions in communicating with them.
- The parents from that order would have been in no doubt that they had one final chance to engage in the Court process and if not the Court would be left with no other option other than to consider permanent placement away from them.
- The parents have failed to comply with that order and accordingly the Court having read the evidence filed by the Local Authority and the parents having failed to comply with the order of the 20th May, the Court is satisfied that the Threshold criteria as set out in Section 31 Children Act 1989 is made out in accordance with the Local Authority's revised Threshold document dated the 22nd February 2016 which is recorded in full at Paragraphs 5-8 in this judgment.
- The Court has since the parents' failure to contact the Local Authority by the 3rd June proceeded on the basis that they do not wish to be assessed and they do not wish to be involved with the Local Authority. The Court has had the opportunity of viewing many YouTube clips which the parents still place on the Internet from which it is clear that they persist with their campaign outside the Court proceedings that this is a child who has been kidnapped and is subject to forced adoption by this Court but yet have failed to do anything within these Court proceedings to resist the Local Authority's application.
- The case was listed for an Issues Resolution Hearing on the 10th June to consider the case further. There was no report from the Portuguese authorities concerning the efforts they had made to engage with the grandparents and establish whether they wished to be assessed. There was also no attendance by anyone from the Consulate. However having regard to the ISW report it was the court view that these grandparents would be given one final chance to engage with this court process, and if they did not then the court would presume that they were not a realistic care option.
- The courts views were documented in the order that was made and are recorded at as follows
- AND UPON it having been recorded in the order of 11 April 2016 that:-
(1) That the Solicitor for the Local Authority has contacted the Portuguese Embassy. With the assistance of the Embassy staff, enquiries were made of the Maternal Grandparents. On 21 March 2016, the Solicitor for the Local Authority was informed that the Maternal Grandparents did not wish to be assessed as alternative carers. In the week of 4 April 2016, a member of staff from the Portuguese Embassy informed the Solicitor for the Local Authority that the Maternal Grandfather had said during a telephone call that he did not want the Embassy to contact him; it was reported that the Maternal Grandfather was rude and aggressive in his response.
(2) Nevertheless, the Local Authority agreed to arrange for a telephone call to be made on 11 April 2016, to the Maternal Grandparents through an interpreter, to ask them if they wish to be assessed and will record their answers.
AND UPON the Court having been further informed on 20 May 2016 that:-
(a) The Solicitor for the Local Authority contacted the Portuguese Embassy and the Portuguese Consulate. On 21 March 2016, the Solicitor for the Local Authority was informed that the Maternal Grandparents did not want to be assessed.
(b) However, by 31 March 2016, the Local Authority was informed that the Maternal Grandparents did want to be assessed. The Local Authority contacted the ICACU. All enquiries were to be undertaken through the Central Authority.
(c) 4 April 2016: ICACU advised the Solicitor for the Local Authority that they will create a file and transmit a request for information to Portugal. This was likely to take 4 weeks.
(d) 5 April 2016: The Solicitor for the Local Authority is informed by a member of staff at the Portuguese Consulate that she had spoken to the Maternal Grandfather. He was aggressive and obstructive. He accused the UK of "kidnapping". However, contact details for the Maternal Grandparents were passed on.
(e) 11 April 2016: The Solicitor for the Local Authority was contacted by Lina Goncalves of the Portuguese Consulate seeking confirmation if the Maternal Grandparents who have been contacted have put themselves forward as carers.
(f) 11 April 2016: Telephone conversation between a Portuguese interpreter and the Maternal Grandfather. The interpreter's note is as follows:- "J was very upset about the situation and he did not make a lot of sense as he jumped from one thought to another. When I asked if they could keep the children in case the Court decides the parents are not able to keep him, he showed some stress and the following are the sentences/information he provided:-
(i) What England is doing to their daughter and grandchild is child trafficking and kidnapping.
(ii) He does not agree at all with this situation.
(iii) What is happening is inhuman.
(iv) Of course that as Grandparents they will keep the child but children should not be sent to Grandparents
they should stay with their parents.
(v) This is a disgusting attitude.
(vi) Tremendous injustice.
(vii) All they want now is that they (daughter and grandchild) return to Portugal.
(viii) All is a lie.
(ix) The nurse receives money to kidnap babies.
(x) His daughter and the young man (although English) are good parents. When I informed him that I was just an interpreter trying to pass a message between the Southampton City Council and then (the Grandparents) and I wasn't judging anyone he calmed down a bit and apologised for being so stressed out and asked me to make sure I passed all the information.
(g) Local Authority decided to attempt to speak to the Maternal Grandparents again to ask specifically about being assessed.
(h) 22 April 2016: Calls were made to the phone numbers held for the Maternal Grandparents. A Social Worker from the Friends and Family Team made the call through an interpreter but she is not confident either that she was speaking to the Grandmother or that the process of any assessment was understood and considered.
(i) 28 April 2016: The order and the judgment of Mr Justice Baker were sent to the transition agency.
(j) 4 May 2016: Translations of the judgment and order were received. A letter to the Maternal Grandparents was also sent to be translated and received on 11 May 2016.
(k) 4 May 2016: The Social Worker wrote to Children's Services in Portugal. The letter explained that the Local Authority wanted to be sure that the Maternal Grandparents have had every opportunity to be assessed to care for the child. However, there is doubt that it was the Grandmother who spoke to the Social Worker who called on 22 April 2016. The Local Authority can arrange for a Portuguese speaking Independent Social Worker to assess them if they are willing to be assessed. A response was received on 9 May 2016 via ICACU to the effect that the Local Authority can take such steps as it thinks fit to make enquiries of the Maternal Grandparents if the situation is such that no steps are required of the Portuguese state; the email in response refers to a synopsis of the decision of the ECJ (Case No. C-332/11) that Regulation 1206/2001 "does not govern exhaustively the taking of cross border evidence but simply aims to facilitate it …. According to this analysis a foreign Social Worker can come to Portugal, if he does the assessment alone ie. without the co-operation of the Portuguese Services, and only with the agreement of the person or family assessed". As a result, the Local Authority arranged for a Portuguese Independent Social Worker to go to Portugal to attempt to speak to the Grandparents. The Independent Social Worker was asked to ascertain whether the Grandparents wished to be assessed and if so, to undertake a short visit so that a decision could be taken whether to proceed to a full assessment of them as alternative carer.
AND UPON the Court now having the report of Nilza Saide, dated 23 May 2016 at E24. The report shows that there was one telephone call between Ms Saide and the Maternal Grandmother. K said she was willing to care for X and that he should therefore be placed in Portugal. However, thereafter neither grandparent answered the Independent Social Worker's telephone calls or allowed her access to their
address.
AND UPON the representative of the Portuguese Consulate, Lina Goncalves attending Court on 20 May 2016.
AND UPON it being recorded that the 20 May 2016 the Court and Ms Goncalves were informed that the Independent Social Worker was present in Portugal and all were informed that bar one telephone call, the Maternal Grandparents had not co-operated with the Independent Social Worker. Ms Goncalves was informed of the essence of the history of the case while in Court.
AND UPON the Court noting that on 20 May 2016, Ms Goncalves volunteered the assistance of Portuguese Children's Services and proposed that Portuguese Children's Services would communicate with the Maternal Grandparents to ascertain whether they wished to be assessed and to consider what arrangements could be made for them to come to England to see X and to be assessed.
AND UPON it being recorded that the following recitals were recorded in the face of the order of 20 May 2016 in the light of Ms Goncalves' representations to the Court.
"AND UPON the Court being informed that a Portuguese speaking Independent Social Worker instructed on behalf of the Local Authority travelled to Portugal on 18 May 2016 and went from the airport arriving at the Grandparents' house on 19 May 2016. A telephone call was received by the Local Authority to the effect that the Grandparents would not discuss the case with the Independent Social Worker unless they were reassured that she was attaining on behalf of the Local Authority. Steps were taken to communicate with the Portuguese Consulate in order to provide reassurance to the Maternal Grandparents. The Independent Social Worker tried to contact the Grandparents on 20 May 2016 but without success.
AND UPON the Court authorising the Portuguese Children's Services to contact the Maternal Grandparents in order to ascertain whether they are willing to put themselves forward to be assessed and to consider arrangements for assessment, including them coming to the UK for the purpose of seeing Baby x and being assessed".
AND UPON the Court having made an order permitting the Local Authority to file and serve a report from Portuguese Children's Services setting out their actions in communicating with the Maternal Grandparents, in reliance on the representations made to the Court on 20 May 2016.
AND UPON the Court having considered the correspondence between Ms Goncalves and the Local Authority since that time.
AND UPON it being recorded that:-
(1) The Court considers it to be unclear why the Portuguese authorities have not provided the information that was offered at the hearing of 20 May 2016.
(2) In the light of the high profile that this case appears to have in Portugal, the Court is surprised that there is no representative of the Portuguese Consulate at Court today and that there has been no response to the email to Ms Goncalves from the Solicitor for the Local Authority dated 8 June 2016 asking for clarification.
AND UPON it being made clear that the Court only seeks clarification whether the Maternal Grandparents wish to be assessed as alternative carers. If they do wish to be considered, consideration will then be given to the arrangements which can be made in the light of their expressed views.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:-
15. STATEMENTS
(7) In the event that the Maternal Grandparents wish to be assessed as carers for the child then by 4.00 pm on the 22 June 2016 they are to:-
(A) Contact the Social Worker, Anita Grant, by email, her email address being anita.grant@southampton.gov.uk (and copy in her Assistant Team Manager, Catalin Maric, whose email address is
catalin.maric@southampton.gov.uk) to confirm this and confirm when they can come to Southampton to have contact with their Grandson and be assessed.
(B) File and serve a statement setting out their proposals for the care of their Grandchild.
(8) In the event that they do not comply with Paragraph 7 above then the Court shall assume that they do not wish to be assessed as carers and shall proceed with considering the Local Authority's applications on the basis that the Grandparents caring for the child is not a realistic option.
- The case subsequently returned before the Court on the 24th June. The Local Authority had filed a Statement from the Independent Social Worker documenting the efforts made by the Independent Social Worker to contact the Grandparents and the Portuguese Authority had also filed with the Court the attempts that they had made to contact the Grandparents.
- In accordance with the order that had been made on the 10th June the Grandparents having failed to comply with the provisions of that order (which had been translated into Portuguese and served upon them) the Court on that occasion could only come to the conclusion that the Grandparents did not wish to be assessed.
- This is an extraordinary case where there could well have been an alternative option or outcome for this child. Whilst the circumstances which resulted in the care proceedings being instituted by the Local Authority were concerning there was certainly a real prospect that the concerns of the Local Authority could have been allayed during the course of the assessments which were to be undertaken by them of the parents and grandparents.
- In addition to the health concerns and the parents' conduct towards those in those early days of the baby's life there were of course the other particularly worrying concerns in relation to the Father's beliefs and in relation to the administering of Master Mineral Solution (MMS). Those concerns again could have been allayed by the Local Authority and Court being satisfied that despite his beliefs such a solution would not be provided to the baby and/or that the Mother would be a sufficient protective factor to ensure that nothing untoward was ever administered to the baby. Also as a backstop position if the Court were not sufficiently satisfied in relation to the Father it may well be given the Mother's position at the commencement of proceedings that she, herself, could have cared for the baby on her own. All of these seemed very realistic options available to the Court at the commencement of these care proceedings.
- Sadly in this case however as can be seen from the chronology which has been detailed in this judgment the parents and the parents' family have left this Court with no other realistic options other than the one proposed by the Local Authority.
- In considering the welfare issues in this case the following matters must be considered. The welfare of the child is my paramount consideration and I must consider all the matters in the welfare checklist as set out in s 1 (3) CA 1989
- The SCC supported by the guardian propose a plan of Adoption.
- The Children Act makes a presumption that involvement of a parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare provided that parent can be involved in the child's life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm;
- This court recognises that children should be brought up if at all possible, and consistent with their welfare needs by their parents, or one of them or if not, within their wider family. It also recognises that the local authority's have a duty to support and eventually reunite the family unless the risks are so high that the child's welfare requires alternative provision
- Placement of a child away from his family is a draconian order and should be the last resort for a child
- The local authorities plan is for adoption. The courts paramount consideration is the welfare of the child throughout his life. That is set out in s1 of the ACA2002. The court must also consider all the matters in the welfare checklist as set out in s1(4) . The case law stress that a judge must be satisfied that the parents' consent to adoption should be dispensed with because the child's welfare "requires" that. In considering that I ask myself "What is it about the circumstances of X and the offer of a home for him with the applicant that made it necessary to reject that offer and choose adoption?". "Adoption" should only be contemplated as a last resort" (Re B [2013] UKSC 33; Re P (a child) EWCA Civ 963; Re G (a child) EWCA Civ 965).
- The Local Authority and the Guardian in their final written evidence provide analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the various options available to the Court. In this case as I have already mentioned the parents have put forward no realistic or indeed any option for the Court to consider. Simply demanding through the media for their baby to be returned to them is not something that the Court could start to take into account as a plan or an option without there being first a full assessment of them to understand whether that would be not only a realistic option, but a safe option for the child.
- This child has been waiting in the care system almost from his birth since the 9th February 2016 for decisions to be made about his future.
- The parents have abandoned him in that they have not taken any steps which would enable the Local Authority or the Court to consider recommencing contact let alone rehabilitation and they have abandoned him since the 4th March 2016.
- It is not clear when the parents went to Portugal. They were in England on the 8th April 2016 when they were served notice of the hearing on 11th April. They were still in England on the 12th April when they were served with the order of the 11th April. But it is clear that they have remained out of the country now for some considerable time and it is unclear that they have any plans to return to this country.
- It is not only a question of the parents having abandoned him but there are no family members who have put themselves forward despite the tremendous efforts made by this Local Authority to engage them during the course of this process.
- In my judgment the Local Authority in this case must be commended for the efforts they have made through these proceedings and the attempts that they have made to engage with both the parents and the Grandparents. They have gone far beyond what would normally be expected of a Local Authority to undertake.
- In the light of the parents' failure to engage in the Court process the Court is unable to assess positively the capacity of the parents to meet the child's needs now or in the future. The parents behaviour and the misguided campaign they have pursued is evidence of them having no understanding of their child's needs. Even meeting the most basic need of forming an attachment with their child has been failed by their parents as they have not seen him since the 4 th March, and instead they left the country.
- As a consequence of the parents' behaviour the child has no relationship with his parents nor any relationship with any of his relatives. The Court is satisfied that there is no-one who is in a position to meet the needs of the child and there is no relative who has the ability or willingness to meet the child's needs.
- The making of the orders sought by the Local Authority are a serious matter and should only be made if nothing else will do. There is no other option in this case let alone ant realistic alternative option. The Court takes into account the Article 8 Rights of both the parents and the child but given the circumstances of this case where the parents have refused to engage in these Court proceedings, refused to engage in the assessment process and having abandoned their child and have taken no steps to see him since the 4th March 2016 the Court is satisfied that the Local Authority's plan is a reasonable and proportionate interference with those rights and that in the circumstances nothing else will do.
- Accordingly the Court makes the Care Orders sought by the Local Authority. It dispenses with the consent of the Mother, the welfare of the baby X requires that (it is not necessary to dispense with the consent of the Father as he does not hold Parental Responsibility for the child) and the Court makes the placement order sought by SCC.