Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> AB (A child) [2016] EWFC B60 (25 August 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B60.html
Cite as: [2016] EWFC B60
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Case No: ZW15C00544
IN THE WEST LONDON FAMILY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF ’AB’ (a child born in 2015)
Before:
HHJ Corbett
Hearing Dates: July 18 19 20 21 22 2016
JUDGMENT August 25 2016
I identify below the following individuals who appear within this judgment. I intend no discourtesy in the use of abbreviations. I hope this will assist in the understanding of this judgment:
|
|
Individuals and roles
AB’s mother now 17 years old (Counsel Ms Phillips instructed by Coram Children’s Legal Centre)
AB’s father now 15 years old (Solicitor Ms Preece: IBB Law)
AB’s paternal grandparents (Counsel Ms Couper instructed by Rayat & Co Solicitors)
AB’s paternal grandfather
AB’s paternal grandmother
Special Guardianship (SG) assessor of the PGPs who works for XLA
Allocated Social Worker for AB
Independent Social Worker
AB’s Children’s Guardian (Counsel Ms Charlton instructed by Duncan Lewis & Co Solicitors)
The applicant Local Authority – London Borough of Hillingdon (Counsel Ms Le Quesne)
The relevant Local Authority for the PGPs, also holders of an interim care order in relation to F
M’s semi-independent supported placement |
Within this Judgment
M
F
PGPs
PGF
PGM
LC
SW
ISW
CG
LA
XLA
Placement X |
The real issues I am to decide
1. When this case was opened on July 18th the LA plan was for adoption. This was opposed by all parties. The LA position changed following the oral evidence of LC who had assessed the PGPs. The LA and the PGPs supported by the CG ask me to make a special guardianship order (SGO) and 12 months Supervision Order (to be held by XLA) in respect of AB. Both parents oppose this plan, and seek that AB is cared for by her M at Placement X. In the event that I am against the M’s submission, both she and F fully support AB remaining with his parents (the PGPs) under a SGO. As for contact with AB’s parents if she is placed with the PGPs, there is a minor difference between the LA and all of the other parties which I set out later. XLA (who were present and represented for part of the hearing) accept the making of a supervision order for 12 months, the PGPs living in their area.
2. As the hearing progressed the issues in this case crystallised and reduced in number. I shall concentrate in this judgment on those matters which have been important features in my decision making. The financial matters and SG support plan have been the subject of discussion between the 2 Local Authorities (LA and XLA) and a final support plan has been filed.
3. I have considered the evidence contained within the final hearing bundle and the submissions made by the representatives for each party. I have listened with care to the oral evidence during this final hearing. I heard in order from: LC, SW, ISW, M, PGF, and the CG. I have had the enormous benefit of case managing AB’s case since it was issued and of conducting all hearings including the crucial early hearings to determine AB’s interim placement. Following submissions I retired, then gave a summary of my decision, knowing that the family really needed the court’s decision sooner rather than later, and aware that I would not be able to hand down this judgment until now.
The Law
4. The state (in the form of the LA) has no right to intervene in the life of this family unless the threshold is crossed. I use the word threshold to refer to section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. The test is as to whether I am satisfied that AB is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or the likelihood of such harm is attributable to the care given to her, or likely to be given to her if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable for a parent to give to him.
It is only if the threshold is crossed that the door is opened to the exercise of any judicial discretion to make a public law order such as a supervision order, this being reflective of the fact that AB has the right to be brought up by her natural family unless there are cogent welfare reasons preventing that. A finding (or concession) that the threshold is crossed does not of itself justify the permanent removal of AB from her M’s care. Instead it opens up the question of what final disposal is in her welfare interests.
In this case threshold has not been in dispute. The agreed threshold findings are found at the end of this judgment.
When I come to consider the realistic options I must take a holistic (rather than a linear) approach as made clear in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146. This requires my value assessment of the relative positives and negatives of each option weighed in comparison against each other.
I must be satisfied that any orders I make are lawful, necessary, proportionate and a reasonable response to the situation I find. The granting of a SGO and/or Supervision Order represent a curtailment of the private rights of AB and her parents under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which can only be justified by a pressing concerns for AB’s welfare. AB’s welfare must be at all times my paramount consideration.
Summary of background
5. The LA has been involved with M since she was 10 years old. She has had a very troubled and unstable childhood being subjected to neglect and emotional abuse. She has suffered from depression and has a history of self harming, and also absconded from various placements.
6. F became a Looked After child in autumn 2015 when he was considered to be out of his parents’ control following him causing criminal damage to their home with a implement. He has a diagnosis of ADHD, ODD and mild depression. He has displayed emotional and behavioural problems since the age of 8.
7. The parents formed a relationship in early 2015. There has been a high level of conflict between the parents which has at times escalated into physical violence. AB was subject to a pre birth child protection plan in view of her parents’ histories and the identified risks. Placement X provides placements for young people who cannot live with their families but have support needs. M moved in there mid-2015 ; M understood that she was going to continue to be placed with AB, once born, at Placement X. That turned out not to be the plan and M was hugely disappointed. M is back at Placement X now, since early January 2016.
8. Towards the end of 2015 M and AB commenced a 12 week residential parenting assessment. She did not engage with the assessment and it was recommended by the assessors that she could not care for AB independently or in a supported context. As is accepted by the M and set out in the threshold findings below, the M’s relationship with the F caused M difficulties which resulted in AB’s care being affected negatively. M now acknowledges the professionals’ concerns about her care of AB while she was at a residential parenting assessment centre. I note from the detailed report from the residential parenting assessment centre their grave concern about M’s level of emotional neediness, her obsession with F, her prioritisation of that relationship over AB and her consequent failure to meet AB’s day to day needs.
9. The LA applied for a care order and AB was placed in foster care pending a hearing before me very early in 2016 when, following a contested hearing, I made a Child Arrangements Order to the PGPs so that AB was to live with them in the interim. AB’s parents and the CG agreed with this plan, the LA did not. AB has remained with the PGPs since. In addition on that day I made an interim supervision order and a non molestation order forbidding F from entering or attempting to enter the PGPs’ home. F has breached that twice. The LA opposition to placement with the PGPs was due to their concern that they would not be able to put boundaries around F and the consequent risk to AB’s safety. The LA were so manifestly disappointed with my decision on that day that they refused to professionally supervise the parents’ contact, and submitted that I should make any interim supervision order to XLA (who were not present).
10. F had returned to his parents’ home in late 2015 but agreed to move out when AB was placed with them following the hearing in very early 2016. F’s next placement with his own grandmother broke down due to his aggressive behaviour and he was placed in a residential unit in outside of the LA area where he remains.
11. XLA has prepared a SG assessment of the PGPs, the written conclusion of which was not to recommend them as Special Guardians (SGs). Their report sets out concerns about the PGPs’ relationship with F their son, and their understanding of safeguarding issues. A senior social worker at the applicant LA carried out further direct work with the PGPs regarding safeguarding and boundary setting. She concluded that she feels they would struggle in turning their back on F, they have demonstrated that they are willing to put AB’s needs first and that they would benefit from ongoing training in this regard. The PGPs told the CG that they had befitted from session with that senior social wroker. In evidence LC agreed that the only real issue was the PGPs’ ability to manage F. She agreed that given the recommendations of the senior social worker for further work for the PGPs, that this could be managed under a supervision order.
12. An ISW has carried out an assessment of M, which although initially optimistic that M could, in a supportive environment, safely care for AB, by the time of her addendum report from Spring 2016 the ISW concluded that this was not possible because of the resumption of M’s emotionally intense relationship with F by the time of the addendum report which was likely to have an adverse effect on M’s care of AB, even with the support of staff at Placement X. The parents had separated prior to the ISW’s first report dated a few weeks earlier.
13. The parents remain a couple, albeit the F is living at a placement outside the LA area. He speaks very frequently to M. They are very much in a relationship. M had a termination of pregnancy in mid-2016.
14. The LA issued an application for a Placement Order. Following the oral evidence of the first witness, LC from XLA, the LA without any indication from the court, changed its care plan to one of SGO to the PGPs. In the course of the next few days the LA produced an amended care plan providing for a SGO and Supervision order, and agreed a support plan. Those documents are now in their final form.
The witnesses
15. I immediately record that care proceedings for any parent are likely to be a huge emotional challenge. The issues being tested and examined can be both painful and problematic. At the heart of the process is the future care of a child who is loved and very much wanted. The stakes could not be higher for each parent. I do not minimise the impact such stress can have on the somewhat sterile process of evidence giving. M gave evidence in an impressive manner, calmly yet firmly expressing her wishes for AB. Her love for AB was clear for all to see.
16. PGF gave evidence on behalf of his wife (PGM) and himself. I was left in no doubt of their commitment to AB, and of their willingness to prioritise her. His evidence was compelling. He said he and PGM want to “break the cycle” for AB and give her the life she deserves. He told me of the enormous relief they felt when the LA changed its plan on the first day of the hearing. He added that he was sure that both M and F would make fantastic parents in the future.
17. The professional witnesses LC, SW, ISW and CG each gave focused and robust evidence. I found both them all to be appropriately focused on the points in issue. I consider each to be witnesses upon whom the Court is entitled to place significant weight.
Discussion and Conclusion
18. The options before me are placement with the M or to remain with the PGPs under a SGO and supervision order. Either option means that AB would live within her birth family which will enable her to have the fullest understanding of her identity and background.
19. I consider a child would, if able, express a wish to be cared for by her natural parents so long as this was consistent with secure and consistent care. Her emotional stability and consistency is vital. In my judgment it is the foundation for meeting physical and educational needs. AB has a strong need to develop secure and permanent attachments within the next year or so. Such a foundation will enable her to progress in life developing appropriate and secure attachments as she goes. Any instability in her care during this period is likely to impact on this capacity and has the potential to impact upon her life long outcomes.
20. All agree that AB has thrived with her PGPs. The M does not point to any negatives about this option; her submission is that AB should be with her (as AB’s mother).
21. M is making good progress at Placement X and according to the CG she has achieved some emotional stability that was not present before. She clearly struggled at the residential parenting assessment centre due to her own emotional issues stemming from her own childhood and the problematic relationship with F which caused her to disengage to a large extent with parenting AB. The couple remain in a relationship albeit many miles apart. It is uncertain whether F will remain at the placement outside the LA area; he has been warned that it will be terminated if his behaviour does not improve. If the parents spent more actual time together there is a high risk that M would repeat the behaviour exhibited at the residential parenting assessment centre. I agree with the CG that if AB was in M’s care there is a greater risk that F will gravitate back to the LA area or surrounding area, which would create serious risk to AB if in M’s care. The level of conflict between the couple is contained at the moment due to the distance, but even so there are occasions when they argued over the phone.
22. The residential parenting assessment centre’s report provides the court with evidence of the impact of the parental relationship on M’s parenting. It was as recent as late 2015. The the residential parenting assessment centre’s highly trained staff found it very difficult to manage the risk to AB when the couple’s relationship was highly conflicted. Placement X is set up for older teenagers, it is not a mother and baby support. Placement X is funded by the LA and will be reviewed on M’s 18th birthday, this is a lesser point in my considerations but I note it.
23. The residential parenting assessment centre’s report sets out that the couple argued almost every other day, resulting in staff having to intervene to care for AB. Further that she spends her time talking to F on the phone until the early hours and then sleeps all day, resulting in her being distracted and disengaged from AB. She was absent without authorisation several times.
24. Knowing that M felt that the residential parenting assessment centre was unsupportive to her I turn to what has happened since she left there at the beginning of this year. The chronology sets out numerous instances of M’s self harming due to arguments with F, and when she was missing leading to contact being cancelled. She missed contact in Spring 2016 so that she could attend the criminal court with F. She missed appointments with her psychologist and psychiatrist at Placement X as recently as a month later as she had been arguing with F the night before by phone and was too tired. It is clear that even in the welcoming and nurturing environment of Placement X there were ongoing difficulties for M mostly affected by her relationship, and F was out of the LA area at this time.
25. Even if she was not in a relationship with F, M has a high level of emotional need which increases her vulnerability to forming abusive relationships.
26. I have seen the letter from M’s psychologist; she meets with M weekly. She notes that M has managed to be emotionally well despite very complex and difficult circumstances, and while there is a possibility that at some point she may become less emotionally stable than currently, with a combination of continued support from staff at Placement X and psychological and psychiatric input, hopefully M will continue to maintain her current level of well being. M’s treating psychiatrist sets out in her report the diagnosis of depressive disorder currently in remission and a likely co-morbid emerging borderline personality disorder, she says that M has gradually made improvements due to tremendous support from Placement X and that over the last 2 years M has slowly but surely started to improve her engagement with CAMHS. M’s psychiatrist refers to the ‘massive amount of psychological input from [M’s psychologist]’ and that M appears more stable more independent confident and able than in the last 3 years, it is likely that she will need ongoing follow up in adult psychiatric services.
27. I have also seen a statement from M’s key worker at Placement X, which sets out the supportive environment there, M’s developing maturity and positive progress. It is clear to the court that M is starting on the journey of managing her emotions consistently.
28. Despite F’s good start at his placement outside the LA area his latest review report sets out that he is not willing to change his behaviour which has deteriorated. He has been arrested for criminal damage in mid-2016, and has assaulted staff twice. He is regularly missing from home and smokes cannabis ‘continuously’. The report also states that F talks to M most days which alters his mood mostly negatively.
29. The PGPs have 3 other children who are performing well, indicating that they can parent successfully but struggled to cope with F who has the diagnoses mentioned above. The situation would be different if AB developed behavioural issues as they would not have other minor children to consider. They have been able to call the police appropriately even knowing that this could result in their young son’s arrest. On the other hand there have been occasions when their desire to support and protect F have overtaken and as the CG puts it so well, they have not fully exercised the judgement expected of them as AB’s carers. I am able to accept the wide spread professional view that they are willing to reflect and try and learn new ways of responding to F thereby increasing their protective capacity.
30. This M has many strengths, but the progress made so far is very recent. It is agreed that she is caring to AB and contact is very good quality. The PGF said that she will be a ‘fantastic’ mum and F will be the same, ‘but not now’. M and F have what PGF described as a toxic relationship. They both have huge emotional difficulties. M accepts that they have a turbulent relationship and that it would be harmful for AB to witness arguments. In my judgement there is too high a risk that their turbulent toxic relationship would affect AB
31. The professionals in this case have given measured, careful thoughtful, compassionate evidence but they are of one opinion that AB would not be safe in M’s care and could not be made safe, and that she should remain with the PGPs. I have no hesitation in accepting that united professional opinion. The positive benefit to AB of being brought up by M are far far outweighed by the likely harm to her if she was placed with her to live.
32. Contact is of very good quality for both of these young parents. No one suggests that I make an order for contact. There is an agreed transition plan to reduce the frequency of contact and to ‘hand over’ to the PGPs as supervisors. The SW recommendation is that contact to M and to F is reduced to a level where it is no less than 6 times a year with additional contact for family celebrations and important events.
33. The PGPs whom the LA entrust to have a SGO submit that the contact should be a minimum of monthly plus Christmas and birthdays. They are committed to ensuring that both their son the F and the M stay in AB’s life. The M and F say that they respect the views of the PGPs. I make no criticism at all of the LA recommendation, The SW was genuine and professional when she gave evidence, but I conclude that if I should entrust AB’s welfare to her PGPs for her minority, then I should entrust them to note the LA’s concerns, but also entrust them to make the decision as to contact which is right for AB.
34. Mediation as to contact is welcomed by the PGPs. I hope that a mechanism can be identified which will provide for mediation if needed in the future.
35. It is vital that neither M nor F acts in any way to destabilise this long term placement with the PGPs. I would though wish to thank them for their conduct during the hearing and the polite and calm way in which they have conducted themselves in court. They are both young and have a long future ahead. If they take the help which is being offered to them they may find themselves in a better position in the future to provide the good enough parenting which a child requires. I really hope the PGF is right when he says they will make fantastic parents in the future. I wish the entire family well. Without the PGPs it may well be that AB had a care plan of adoption. AB and her parents are very lucky indeed to have the PGPs ready willing and very able to care under a SGO.
__________________________________
FINAL COMPOSITE THRESHOLD
CRITERIA – Findings made by consent 22.7.16
__________________________________
At the relevant date of in December 2015, AB was likely to suffer significant physical, emotional or psychological harm and neglect, and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to her, or likely to be given to her, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. The facts relied upon are:
1. Both M and F have a history of absconding from placements, though M did not abscond during her pregnancy when she was placed at placement X (C7-C10, C13, p2 M’s parent response).
2. M accepts that on occasions including over New Year’s Eve, she has left the day to day care of AB to others when she has not returned to the residential parenting assessment centre when she should have (C5, A6-A7, p2-3 parent response, E20).
3. F has a history of behavioural concerns including violence. He has diagnoses of ADHD and ODD which can make his behaviour unpredictable and volatile (eg. C8-C9, C11, C24).
4. M sometimes relies upon maladaptive strategies such as self-harming to manage her mood. She relapsed with self-harming behaviour when her relationship ended with F in December 2015 (p4 mother’s parent response, E69, E73).
5. During the the residential parenting assessment , M failed to consistently tend to AB’s physical care needs even with prompting from staff. This was attributed to her low/fluctuating mood and moderate depression and her relationship difficulties with F. For example, M acknowledges that with pending court proceedings she has felt depressed and has habitually overslept leaving others to care for AB (p3 and p5 mother’s parent response, E17, E73, E33). M also contends that the move away from placement X unsettled her and added to her difficulties.
6. AB received little emotional warmth and stimulation from M when M was affected by low mood or preoccupied with the difficulties in her relationship with F (eg. E22, E29). M recognises that during the the residential parenting assessment her relationship with F caused her difficulties (p.5 mother’s parent response).
7. AB has been placed at risk by exposure to arguments between her parents. The residential parenting assessment centre’s staff on two occasions removed AB from those arguments to keep her safe from emotional and physical harm. The arguments have been mainly verbal but on in November 2015 involved physical violence (eg. E26), although not in front of AB due to placement staff removing her from the situation.