England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

The Law Courts

Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE13 3LA

Monday, 14^th May 2018

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WOOD

 (In Private)

B E T W E E N :

                                                                    A local authority                                                    Applicant

-  and  -

(1) M

                                                                    (2) THE CHILDREN                                            Respondent

_________

MR C. MCCAIN  (instructed by the local authority)  appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

MS J. CHARLTON  (of David Gray & Co.)  appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

MS J. GRANGE  (of Ben Hoare Bell & Co.)  appeared on behalf of the Children via their Children’s Guardian.   

__________

J U D G M E N T

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WOOD:

1                    This is an application by the local authority for care orders in respect of B1 and B2, half-brothers, B1, who is rapidly approaching his eleventh birthday, B2 who has recently had his sixth birthday.

2                    The children’s mother is M.  She has only engaged fleetingly within the proceedings and is not present at this final hearing, having failed to comply with any orders that have been made, whether in respect of threshold response, witness evidence or hair strand testing.

3                    The fathers of the children have never been positively confirmed.  B2’s father is thought to be F2.  It has not been possible to obtain his contact details or date of birth.  It is thought that it is at least possible, if not likely, that he has returned to Pakistan.  In respect of B1’s father, a man called F1 is suggested.  The mother, again, was unable to provide any contact details or date or birth.  Some vague suggestion as to the area in the county where he lived and the existence of a Facebook account is the height of what is known and it has not been possible to trace him.  It does not appear that either father has played any part in the lives of their children and it is not even known, because the mother has failed to provide birth certificates, whether they hold parental responsibility.

4                    The matter is listed today for issues resolution hearing.  At the case management hearing, given the then reported behaviour of the mother, the court issued the clearest warning that it would, if at all possible, make final orders at the issues resolution hearing and the orders which are proposed are entirely supported by the children’s guardian, Anna Wood, who, like, the local authority, stresses the importance of orders being made sooner rather than later for these two rather older boys for whom uncertainty is entirely contrary to their interests, particularly when therapeutic support is needed which cannot begin until their futures have been decided.

5                    There is a long and very concerning history in respect of the mother’s exposure to domestic abuse, her drug and alcohol use and abuse, her volatile and unpredictably behaviour and her association with completely inappropriate adults, including sex offenders, whose presence in the lives of their children is directly harmful to their wellbeing.

6                    The children themselves, B1 in particular, has made alarming threats of harm against him by his mother.  There is a significant history of mental health issues, whether the cause or effect of the substance abuse is perhaps a moot point, but it has included, as I will come to, some quite serious threats of self-harm.  These children who, against that long and difficult history, are left with significant issues, in B1’s case aggravated by his being diagnosed at being on the autistic spectrum as well as having a formal diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

7                    The precipitating event occurred shortly before Christmas when the fire brigade attended the family home on two separate occasions due to fires that had seemingly broken out in the house.  Following the second one, three separate ignition points were identified, as was the existence of the use of an accelerant and as a consequence the upstairs of the house was completely destroyed.  The immediate response to the fire was that the children, happily unharmed, were taken to a neighbour’s address where, remarkably, they stayed until the early part of this year with the neighbours simply stepping in and providing them with the support and help that they needed.  It should be said that the mother and a friend of hers who was present in the house at the time that the fires occurred, were arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life arrests that resulted in no criminal proceedings, apparently following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis that both were intoxicated at the time.  Suffice it to say that the mother’s behaviour continued to be concerning thereafter, again, as I will come to. 

8                    On 18^th December, the mother was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs following a significant road traffic accident.  She was sentenced in respect of that on 13^th February to a Community Order with a rehabilitation activity requirement.  Her own behaviour has continued to be concerning.  On 31^st December, she threatened suicide by jumping of the Redheugh Bridge.  A review of the parenting assessment and the final evidence prepared by SW indicates that there has been significant ongoing concerns throughout the litigation during the course of checks where the police have had to be called out.  In addition to the threat to jump off the Redheugh Bridge there have been overdoses taken, there was an occasion when her wrists were slit with a Stanley knife, she threatened to stab herself in the stomach and on one occasion indicated she was going to some cliffs and threatening to jump off them.

9                    Following the issue of proceedings it became clear that the placement for the boys with the selfless neighbours who had stepped in was unsustainable and so shortly following the case management hearing on 8^th January arrangements were made for the boys to move into foster care and that, as I understand it, happened shortly thereafter.  They have been in foster care ever since.  They have been the subject of a sibling assessment.  It is clear from that assessment that each has a very different perceptive of the care that they have received from their mother, with B2 being anxious to return to his mother’s care, B1, at the present time, refusing to see her at all.

10                At the case management hearing, as I have indicated, the court gave the clear steer that a final order would be made at the issues resolution hearing and suggested that in the event that the mother did not engage in the parenting assessment this hearing today could be brought forward.  One of the questions in the court’s mind when it came to consider the papers was why this hearing had not been brought forward, but having read the parenting assessment it is clear that there have been some short-lived episodes where the mother has engaged, has attended contact, has indicated that she would wish to take part in the parenting assessment and so on.  On each of those occasions it has to be said that the mother’s appearance was concerning and the fact that ultimately she did not attend sessions really indicates that she continues to be significant affected by her issues specifically in relation to alcohol.

11                In a helpful analysis prepared by SW, the children’s social worker, she expresses the view of the local authority that the children would not be safe returning to the care of their mother, either at the present time or at any time in the foreseeable future.  The history shows that they have been exposed to neglect and significant harm as a consequence.  The mother has not engaged with the local authority in respect of contact or assessment.  The assessment has largely been carried out based on historic information.  It is not really necessary to go into a great deal of detail for the purposes of this ex tempore judgment, but it is clear from the lengthy background that this mother, sadly, is a woman who experienced considerable difficulties and trauma within her own childhood and early years.  Those difficulties have continued into her adult life.  They include substance misuse, both heroin and alcohol, domestically abusive relationships where substance use was a feature and the mental health problems to which I have alluded, thus, leading to the conclusion that the issues presently evident in terms of drink and mental health are longstanding.  I have mentioned the precipitating event and the subsequent conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Sadly, there has been a further similar incident on 20^th February, when she was again under the influence of alcohol, driving whilst disqualified a vehicle that she had apparently taken without the owner’s consent.

12                The engagement that the local authority has had, such as it has been, has been characterised by the mother being under the influence of alcohol or some other substance when attempts have been made to speak to her.  Her own solicitor reports very similar experiences in terms of her attempt to make contact with the mother.  Alcohol use is something that is commented upon, sadly, by the children.  The issue of violent relationships remains a concern.  I think an assessment meeting in early April was cancelled because the mother reported she had been assaulted by an ex-partner.  The same man had apparently threatened to set her on fire.  However, just a couple of weeks later, adult social care received a safeguarding alert from the police after that same man had contacted them, having awoken in the house to find that the mother had gone and he was concerned about her wellbeing.  As the social worker observes, it rather points to her continuing to engage in an abusive and violent relationship right up to the present time.  Sadly, there is no evidence that she is a mother who is able to appreciate the impact that these events have had on her children and she has serially demonstrated an inability to sustain meaningful engagement with professionals in order to bring about any change.

13                It is against that background that the guardian, who has similarly experienced difficulties in making contact with the mother, entirely supports the position adopted by the local authority.  The final threshold which was prepared in April and has not been responded to reflects the concerns I have outlined and I do not think it is necessary for the court to repeat within the judgment the detailed particulars which are set out in the schedule, but they reflect the history I have referred to, the precipitating event and the mother’s ongoing issue of drink.  The court is quite satisfied, in the absence of any response, that each of the matters alleged within the schedule is made out and it should form part of the final order.

14                Care proceedings, of course, involve two questions.  In the first instance, is the threshold for making a care order under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 satisfied and, secondly, if so, what order should the court make?  The court can, of course, only make a care order if it is satisfied that the child, or here children, are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, such harm or its likelihood being attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to them if an order were not made, such care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give that child.  On the findings that the court has made there is no question in the court’s mind that the local authority has proved to the standard of the balance of probabilities that the threshold criteria are met.

15                In those circumstances, the court then has to consider the second question as to what order it should make.  In answering that question, the court applies well-established legal principles, it bears in mind the rights of the mother and the children under Art.8 of the European Convention to respect for family and private life and under s.1 of the Children Act the welfare of each of B1 and B2 is the court’s paramount consideration within care proceedings, noting under s.1(2) that any delay in making decisions regarding their future is likely to prejudice their welfare.  The court also has regard to the checklist of factors provided in subsection 3 in order to determine where the children’s welfare lies and what order should be made.  In this case, the particularly important elements are the needs of each child to be kept safe in a secure, predictable and loving environment, the capacity of the mother to meet those needs, the background of each child and the harm that they are at risk of suffering.

16                The court is quite satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, there is no alternative to the care plan proposed by the local authority.  The mother is plainly not in a position to meet her children’s needs safely or at all at the present time or for the foreseeable future.  The children’s fathers play no part in their lives and have not been identified.  No other relative has been identified or put forward as being a suitable person to provide kinship care for the children.  The children, in the circumstances, therefore, have an urgent need for an alternative, permanent placement to be provided.  They are, given their ages and respective issues, not children who could be considered as being appropriate children to be adopted.  In the circumstances, the only order that is open to the court is the making of a care order and that is the order I make in respect of each child.

17                It is the hope and, I should add, expectation that these children will remain in the foster placement that they have been in since January or early February.  That is plainly a good placement.  It is plainly one to which B1 has already invested a significant amount of emotional energy.  It is vital for each of them, but particularly B1, that therapeutic work begins as soon as possible in a safe, secure, permanent placement to enable that therapy to have the best possible opportunity to try and repair some of the damage which they will undoubtedly have suffered by reason of the neglect they have experienced in their lives thus far.  Therefore, I endorse the guardian’s particular plea that, notwithstanding the fact that this is an agency placement as opposed to an in-house foster placement, with potential financial implications, that this placement is secured as a long-term placement if at all possible.  I endorse the suggestion that the guardian be encouraged to write to the Independent Reviewing Officer, setting out very clearly her concerns before any decision as to permanence is made.

18                This is, at the end of the day, a desperately sad case.  At the present time, the mother is not having contact.  In the event that she can address her problems then, of course, she should have contact, but I agree with the proposal that that will need to be the subject of a risk assessment, given the history of her engagement in contact thus far.  So far as B1 is concerned, it is not something that he is looking for actively, indeed, the reverse is the case.  So, far as B2 is concerned, I have no doubt that the lack of contact is a significant loss in his life.  It is likely to contribute to any sense of abandonment that he must have arising from the circumstances that I have described and I very much hope that the mother can, sooner rather than later, access some help which will enable her to re-engage with the local authority and have contact.

19                In the final analysis, the order the court makes is the only one that is available to it.  It expresses the hope that this is an order which will give each of these boys the best opportunity that may be available to them to fulfil whatever potential they may have in a safe and predictable environment and I wish them and their carer well going forwards.                                    

__________

Opus 2 International Ltd. Hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd. (Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital This transcript has been approved by the Judge