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

 

Case no.: OX17C00153

 

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF AS, BS, CS AND DS

 

Date:  2^nd July 2018

 

Before: HHJ Vincent

Between:

 

OCC

Applicant

and

                                                                           

ES

First Respondent

and

     

FS

(by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

Second Respondent

and

 

AS AND BS

Third and Fourth Respondents

and

 

CS AND DS

(acting by their children’s guardian ID)

Fifth and Sixth Respondents

 

 

Vicky Reynolds, instructed by Oxfordshire County Council for the Applicant

Jennifer Kotilaine, instructed by Truemans, solicitors for the First Respondent mother

Anne Davies of Reeds solicitors, for the Second Respondent father

Polly Allison, instructed by Oxford Law Group, solicitors for the Third and Fourth respondent children

James Turner, instructed by Griffiths Robertson, solicitors for the Fifth and Sixth respondent children

 

Hearing dates: 25^th, 26^th, 27^th, 28^th June and 2^nd July 2018

 

JUDGMENT

 

Introduction and background

 

1.      The parents have been married since 1999, and have six children: GS, 18; HS, 17; AS, 16; BS, 13; DS, 11; and CS, 10.  GS and HS have not been involved in these proceedings; I am concerned with the four youngest.  AS, BS and CS have recently had birthdays in June, DS will be 12 in September.

 

2.      All six children have lived together with their family for all their lives.  In around May or June 2009, when CS was about a year old, the father and mother separated, and the mother at that time was caring for six children under the age of nine as a single parent.  The parents reconciled and the father returned to the household in March 2015. 

 

3.      The local authority has been involved with the family since around 2009, at which time it is not at all surprising that the mother found herself in need of additional help and support.  Recurrent difficulties over the years have been the state of the home environment, managing pets in the home, providing consistently for the children’s basic needs, and putting in place rules and boundaries to manage the children’s behaviour.  The children have additional needs; AS has a diagnosis of Aspergers, CS was also diagnosed with autism, in October 2017.  BS and DS both have Education Care and Health plans (ECHPs), the local education authority is in the process of putting an ECHP together for CS.  BS attends a school in [name redacted] for boys with special educational needs.  DS is still at mainstream primary school, but has a place at a specialist school for September, which is when he is due to start senior school.   CS is at primary school with DS.  None of the children is attending school full-time.   

 

4.      The children’s father has been assessed within these proceedings by Dr Peter Sargent, consultant psychiatrist, who concluded that he has a diagnosis of a recurrent depressive disorder (moderate), with agoraphobia with features of social phobia and with a generalised anxiety disorder.  Dr Sargent considers the father continues to suffer from significant problems as a consequence of these disorders, and assessed him as lacking capacity to conduct proceedings or to give evidence in Court.  The Official Solicitor now acts on his behalf. 

 

5.      In February 2011 the children came off a child protection plan that had been in place since July the previous year, and support was provided by a team around the family.  In January 2014 the chronology notes the mother contacted the local authority about fitting locks on the windows due to BS escaping and the boys hanging out of the upstairs windows.  There were concerns that there were still no firm rules and boundaries in place, and continuing concerns about the state of the house.  Consideration was being given to BS attending a specialist school, CS was having issues around toileting and with his speech and language.  In September 2014 the mother was hospitalised with pneumonia.  In 2016 AS became involved in a relationship with another student at her school which has been described as toxic and which caused her behaviour within the household to become troubling and difficult for her parents to manage. 

 

6.      From January 2014 through to October 2017 the social work chronology contains a very large number of entries in which similar concerns are recorded again and again.  There are a number of entries where improvements in the home conditions are noted, but within a relatively short time, it would appear that there is a pattern of things slipping.  The chronology is not evidence, but the matters which inform it are recorded in the notes of core group meetings and framework assessment documents within the checklist bundle, and the witness evidence of the children’s social worker in this case. 

 

7.      Throughout this period there are recurring concerns with headlice, with children smelling of urine, with the children not having suitable clothing, or their clothes being smelly and dirty.  There are repeated reports of the house having a strong smell of urine and clothes and food being spread around the house, mattresses without sheets on them and the house being generally untidy and unclean. 

 

8.      An entry on 29^th March 2017 records a telephone call from his school about the ‘desperately poor state of BS’s hygiene.  Said the smell emanating from BS yesterday and even more today has become unbearable.  BS travels to school in a taxi and the other student was vomiting at the smell this morning.’ 

 

9.      On a visit to the home a couple of days later by the family links worker MD, and a housing officer, the smell of the home was described as overpowering.  The parents’ room (which is also the living room) was noted as being the strongest smelling, due to the dogs and lack of cleanliness with dog food and dog dirt on the floor.  At the time there were three dogs, four puppies, two lizards and two kittens in the home.  The housing association carried out at a deep clean, the parents agreed to limit the pets to two dogs and two cats, and they got new mattresses, and tidied and rearranged the rooms.  At the core group meeting in early April 2017, MD was very positive about the changes and hoped they could be sustained.  However, on 4^th May 2017 his recorded feedback after a home visit was that ‘the living environment for the youngest siblings within the family was truly unacceptable’, it is noted he expected the children should have clean beds, sheets on their mattresses and clean pillows, that it was unacceptable that litter trays were in their bedrooms and pets were living in their rooms.  He reported that kittens had soiled the litter tray with several days’ worth of excrement.  It was acknowledged that the downstairs of the home was improved, and a number of the animals were no longer in the home, but it is recorded that he said it was ‘deeply distressing to see a child sleeping on a dirty mattress with no sheets, pillow laid next to a used litter tray.  The mattresses the children use are so filthy they could be compared to those seen in the street after being abandoned.’ 

 

10.  Around that time AS’s behaviour at school was causing a great deal of concern, she was very disruptive, not engaging in lessons, but clearly very distressed and self-harming.  HS was also not attending school, and DS was reduced to a timetable of 50% due to poor behaviour.   Later that month he had a three-day suspension for bad behaviour. 

 

11.  The local authority advised the parents on 30^th August 2017 that proceedings would be initiated.

 

12.  In September 2017 DS was still attending half days at school and CS’s behaviour was deteriorating.  He was wanting to go home with DS.  He was excluded for a day for causing damage to school property and getting into an emotional state.  BS was excluded on 11^th September and didn’t come to school on 12^th, had an unauthorised absence on 18^th September and was excluded on 19^th and 20^th for poor and aggressive behaviour.  The notes report him as having been disruptive, threatening towards the teachers, throwing tables, causing damage and climbing on the school roof. 

 

13.  AS was excluded from school for four days in September for being angry and swearing, and refusing to engage in lessons.  When she was at school she was finding it hard to manage a full day at school and was unable to walk home alone, due to anxiety.  She was struggling to break free from the toxic relationship.

 

14.  On 20^th September 2017 DS’s school reduced his timetable to just one hour a day. 

 

15.  On 2^nd October 2017 CS and DS’s school emailed the social worker to report escalating behaviour of CS and DS.  CS’s behaviour was said to increase significantly when DS and his mother were in the school building; she was bringing DS in to school and waiting for him.  CS was said to seek out DS to patrol the school together, damaging property together.  CS’s soiling and emotional outbursts had increased since the mother’s presence in the school increased and the school was concerned about the impact on his mental wellbeing. 

 

16.  There have been concerns about the children’s dental care.  DS saw the dentist in February 2015 and caries[1] were identified.  The dentist recorded poor oral health and that he had a high sugar intake in his diet.  He and his mother were given advice and told to return within six months.  The next appointment appears to have been in April 2017, when caries were seen and ‘plaque induced gingivitis’[2] was diagnosed.  The note reads, ‘pt does not brush daily – pt thinks its funny’.  An appointment was booked for the following month for treatment but although DS attended, the dentist was unable to treat him because his head was full of headlice.  It appears from the notes that he was not brought back to the dentist to complete this treatment until October 2017.

 

17.  The dental notes reveal similar issues with AS, BS and CS.  AS developed an abscess in September 2016 which was left untreated.  From the notes it appears that appointments were made and not attended.  AS risked her physical safety after she took an overdose of eight paracetamol to try to help the way she felt.  The notes of an appointment with AS in October 2017 records ‘pain started 2-3 days ago – continuous – pain killers taken – provides little relief – pain disturbs sleep – tooth is sensitive to hot and cold – painful to touch tooth – pain is 10/10 – pt is crying’.  BS had caries in five adult teeth and three baby teeth. CS had plaque induced gingivitis and seven holes in his teeth.

 

18.  Proceedings were issued on 1^st November 2017.  The first hearing in the case was before magistrates, and was not listed until 20^th November 2017.  The local authority had initially sought removal of the four younger children from the home under interim care orders, but the guardian did not support this and after reflection, the local authority asked for interim supervision orders instead.  The children have remained at home throughout the proceedings.  The magistrates reallocated the case to a judge.  I saw the parties on 30^th November 2017.  I gave permission for Dr van Rooyen to be instructed to carry out an assessment of the family and timetabled a final hearing in April 2018.

 

19.  On 21^st February 2018 the father applied for a psychiatric assessment, firstly to assess his capacity to conduct litigation and secondly to consider how his mental health difficulties impact on his ability to parent his children and what treatment might be available.  The application was granted and at a hearing before Her Honour Judge Owens on 27^th March 2018, Dr Sargent’s report was considered and the official solicitor invited to act for the father.  This meant delay to the timetable and the final hearing was adjourned until June.

 

20.  I heard evidence and submissions on 25^th, 26^th, 27^th and 28^th June 2018.  As it was AS’s birthday on the Friday, it was agreed by all that I should delay handing down this judgment until Monday 2^nd July 2018.

Positions at final hearing

 

21.  The local authority is represented by Miss Reynolds.  It asks the Court to make a six-month supervision order in respect of AS (although the guardian recommends a twelve-month supervision order, which the local authority would not oppose), and to make care orders in respect of the three boys, placing them in long-term foster care.  It is proposed that they would immediately be placed in ‘bridging’ foster placements, so that a full assessment of their needs could be made before matching them to long-term carers.  It is hoped that in the long-term they would be placed together and in county, but there does not appear to be much confidence in that hope.  So far as the bridging placements are concerned, the local authority has identified a placement in [county A name redacted] for BS, and for DS and CS to be placed together in a placement in [county B name redacted]. 

 

22.  The First Respondent mother is represented by Miss Kotilaine.  She does not oppose the plan in respect of AS.  She strongly opposes the plans for separation of the boys from her and their family.  She asks the Court to acknowledge the significant improvements that have been made to the home environment during the proceedings, to note that all the children are attending an educational setting and are much more settled than they were.  She asks the Court to note that each of these children has particular and very demanding needs, which it would be a challenge for any parent to meet.  She says with support, she is capable, and is better placed than anyone else, to meet those needs.  The harm they would suffer from removal from the family home and separation from their siblings she says would outweigh any risks of their remaining at home.  Her perception is that the local authority has set her a number of tasks in order to improve the situation, she has worked very hard to bring about those improvements as required, yet the local authority still seeks to remove her children.  In the circumstances she queries the fairness of the proceedings and the ability of the social work team to assess her parenting capacity with an open mind.

 

23.  The Official solicitor acts for the Second Respondent father and instructs Mrs Davies.  On his behalf she applies for an adjournment in order to carry out a psychological assessment of the father.  A global psychological assessment of the family was carried out by Dr Van Rooyen, but the father did not feel able to attend an appointment with her, nor did BS.  Mrs Davies submits that there is as a result a significant gap in the evidence which it is necessary to fill with a further psychological assessment, in order that the Court has evidence before it of the measures of support which might be put in place to improve the parenting capacity of the father and therefore properly inform the Court as it carries out its welfare assessment.

 

24.  Miss Allison represents AS and BS.  AS is relieved to know that the local authority’s plan for her is that she remains living at home.  She acknowledges the need for some continuing support, but she does not want a supervision order in place.

 

25.  She does not want her younger brothers to be removed from the family home and placed into foster care.

 

26.  AS has written me a letter and I also had the pleasure of meeting her at Court.  She was understandably a bit nervous and quite shy, but we had a nice conversation in which she made it clear to me her worries, in particular about the uncertainty and seemingly frequent changes in the plans for her brothers, her worry that CS did not really understand what was going on.  As in her letter to me, she said she worried very much about how BS would get on in a placement on his own.  She said that DS’s problems in school started when he was being bullied.  She said she had a difficulty with a girl in her school, and it was this girl’s relatives that were bullying DS.  She said this was something that had been on her mind.

 

27.  BS does not want to be separated from his family and placed into foster care.  If he had to move away from home, he would want to be placed near to where he lives so that he could continue to see friends locally.  He would not want to be separated from his brothers.

 

28.  The guardian supports the local authority’s plans in respect of AS save that she thinks a twelve-month supervision order is more appropriate.  She supports the local authority’s plans for care orders in respect of the youngest boys.  She would have preferred them to be placed together and in county, and acknowledges disadvantages of the local authority’s current plan that they be separated and BS be placed very far away from home.  However, she does not think that those disadvantages are such that they tip the balance of harm to the extent that she would not approve the care plan as it stands.  She recommends that as well as long-term foster placement for BS, the local authority considers the possibility of his attending a residential school.

The law

 

29. In all care cases the Court must ask two questions; it must first consider whether the threshold for making any orders as set out at section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is crossed.  If that threshold is passed, the Court then has to consider what order to make, having regard to the matters set out in the welfare checklist at section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989.

 

30. The question of what order to make is properly determined by reference to all the factors on the welfare checklist. 

 

31. In reaching my decision the welfare of all four of the children is paramount and their welfare has been at the forefront of my mind throughout this hearing.  I also have full regard to proportionality.  A court should not make any orders unless it is satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate, and that no other less radical form of order will achieve the essential end of promoting the child’s welfare. 

Evidence

 

32. I have read all the documents in the bundle for these proceedings, as well as the contents of the checklist bundle. 

 

33. I heard evidence from Dr Van Rooyen, from the children’s previous social worker, JF, their current social worker KF and the social worker who carried out the parenting assessment, PM.  I heard evidence from the children’s mother and from the guardian.

 

Dr Celest Van Rooyen

 

34. Miss Kotilaine and Mrs Davies have referred me to the case of Re NL (appeal: interim care order: facts and reasons) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam), in which Dr Van Rooyen was criticised for accepting an instruction to provide ‘a triage psychological assessment’ of a mother to be provided within a single working day.  Having provided such a report, she was criticised for commenting on the attachment between the mother and her baby and the mother’s ability to meet the baby’s physical and emotional needs, without having met her, nor spoken to any professionals who had been involved in her care.

 

35. In this case, Dr van Rooyen was instructed to carry out a global family assessment.  In the event, she was unable to assess the father or BS, because they felt unable to attend their appointments with her.  Miss Kotilaine and Mrs Davies suggest that Dr van Rooyen has repeated the NL error in this case by nonetheless forming firm conclusions about both the father and BS, when she did not have the evidence base to reach those conclusions.  They submit that as a result her whole assessment is flawed and should be disregarded, and they urge the Court to be cautious as to the weight that is given to the evidence of the social workers in this case who they say have adopted much of what Dr van Rooyen asserts.

 

36. The fact of Dr van Rooyen having been criticised in the past cannot undermine her opinion in itself; all parties had notice of the intention to instruct her as the expert and no objections were made.

 

37. Miss Kotilaine referred Dr van Rooyen to the NICE 2018 guidelines in respect of assessing attachment difficulties in children.  She noted that assessment should take place by way of interview; allowing the children to talk freely, whereas Dr van Rooyen did not meet with BS at all, and with CS and DS used a ‘projective technique’ of using Bene Anthony question cards.  She explained the names of key individuals in the children’s lives were written in different boxes and the children were asked to match the cards to a box (‘this person gives me cuddles’, ‘this person tells me off’, ‘this person plays with me’).  CS did not complete his interview with her and his mother did not bring him back the next day to finish the assessments.  The NICE guidelines note that parenting quality can lead to attachment difficulties, but suggests a thorough assessment before any intervention, in particular to take account of any mental health problem or neurodevelopmental condition, including antisocial behaviour and conduct disorders in children, autism, social anxiety disorder and depression.  Finally, the guidelines recommend diagnosing an attachment disorder only if the child’s attachment difficulties ‘meet diagnostic criteria as defined in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5^th edition (DSM-5; reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder) or the International classification of diseases and related health problems, 10^th revision (ICD-10; reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited attachment disorder).

 

38. Dr van Rooyen’s report shows a thorough knowledge of the evidence with which she was provided, and sets out in detail the interviews she had with the children and the assessments she carried out.  She has not assessed BS, but in my judgment rightly and fairly does draw some conclusions about him based on the information she has received from his mother, and the other children, her assessment of their responses to him, as well as evidence from the papers she has read.  She does not make any formal diagnosis of an attachment disorder in relation to any of the children, but identifies a level of insecurity in their attachments.  She is clear that CS does have a primary positive attachment to his mother; she was the only person he associated as meeting his needs, but she identified some underlying insecurities within the relationship.  Similarly, she identifies DS’s primary emotional focus as his mother, where ‘he does experience positive regard and associated her with the person he looks to for his needs to be addressed.’  However, because those needs are not consistently met, Dr van Rooyen identifies some insecurity there.

 

39. There are no parallels in my judgment between Dr van Rooyen’s report in this case and that as described in the NL case.  This report is detailed, the evidence upon which Dr van Rooyen’s opinions are based is clearly set out and her conclusions well-reasoned.  In my judgment she has not overstepped the mark in respect of BS.  In respect of the father, she has commented on the responses of other family members to him, during the course of her assessment of them, and drawn some reasoned conclusions, but she has not asserted that he was assessed by her. 

 

40. Her conclusions in respect of the mother and the children she did assess were consistent with those reached by other professionals in the case.  Her descriptions of the mother resonated with those given by those professionals, and was consistent with the impression the mother gave to me when she gave her evidence. 

 

41. Dr van Rooyen described the mother as having tried, and as someone doing her ‘very very best’, for example she noted how the mother was running backwards and forwards on assessment day to try and get everyone to their appointments at the right time.  She made clear that she recognised the mother was loving and affectionate towards her children.  She said, ‘it’s not that she doesn’t care and it’s not that she isn’t loving, but the more complex their needs, the more they act out, the more anxious they become and the harder it is to focus on more than one of them.’  She described the mother as ‘running ragged looking after them’. 

 

42. Dr van Rooyen accepted that the children had a high level of needs, and all were displaying a high level of anxiety.  It was put to her that these needs were not all caused by the parenting they had been given, but Dr van Rooyen was very clear that the physically and emotionally neglectful care they had received did have a very significant impact on their presentation and current level of need.  She described the mother as ‘defended’ and as someone who, ‘invests in minimising the concerns and struggles with any criticism associated with the parenting care offered to the children. She clearly loves her children and believes all the while she loves them and is providing them with affection, she is caring for her children.  She clearly struggles to consider the impact of the neglect on the children, which raises serious concerns as to her capacity for empathy and ability to consistently respond with sensitive care giving, where she is required to be in tune with the less obvious emotional need.  She was assessed to have great difficulty understanding the harmful impact of the neglectful care, unmet needs and permissive parenting style on the children.  [She] does accept improvements are needed, but minimises the concerns and tends to externalise blame, certainly looking to the children’s diagnoses as an explanation as to why they present with difficulties.  What she fails to consider is the role the neglect and unmet needs have on the children’s emotional and psychological functioning and the impact this has had on any other vulnerability they may have.’

 

43. Dr van Rooyen’s evidence was not in my view flawed in the ways suggested, although of course she fairly accepted the limitations of her report as a global assessment of the family when the father and BS had not been assessed.  In her oral evidence she explained clearly the reasons and evidence base for her opinions, and I accept her conclusions.

 

44. It is hurtful for the mother to be told she lacks empathy, or her attachments with her children are regarded as insecure, but Dr van Rooyen was at pains to explain that her opinion is not that the mother lacks love or affection for her children.  The mother did certainly show strong feelings for her children and was able to describe clearly how they might be affected should they be separated from their family.  This showed empathy, but I understand Dr van Rooyen also to be concerned that the mother did not fully accept what it was like for the children to have been neglected in the way they have, and was limited in her ability to see things from their perspective.  She gave as an example a discussion she had with the mother about the children’s dental treatment.  The mother told her that she herself may need all her front teeth removed and this had affected her own self-esteem. When asked to consider her experiences in order to gain some understanding as to the children’s experiences, Dr van Rooyen says the mother just felt criticised.

JF

 

45. JF worked with the family for just over a year from around February 2017 until her retirement in April 2018.  It was unfortunately not a happy relationship, the parents have described feeling judged and criticised by JF, and they felt she was unsympathetic to them and because she did not regard them as capable of looking after their children, they felt she did not show the creativity that was required to find ways in which they could be helped and supported. 

 

46. The parents have worked well with other social workers and conclude that if JF found them difficult, it was because she upset the mother and lacked understanding of the specific difficulties the children experienced. 

 

47. In her evidence JF appeared to have a good recall for particular meetings or conversations.   However, there were significant conversations or events which she recalled but had made no written record, for example a very significant conversation between her and the father, and with the mother later that day, she thought in around September 2017, when she was discussing the possibility of AS and BS going to stay with their grandparents in order to relieve some pressure on the parents.  She is not able to remember whether or not she mentioned the word section 20, although she fairly accepts she might have done.  The parents are clear that she did.  The mother is extremely upset that this was discussed with the father first, in circumstances where there were already known issues with his mental health well-being.  Although JF said that this plan was only something that came to her as she was at the house and she was wracking her brains trying to think of some way of helping, it is unfortunate that she did not take a break at that point and remind herself of the proper procedures around section 20 and return to discuss with both parents another time.  It is more unfortunate that there is no record of this in her notes.

 

48. She was in many ways an impressive witness because she did not need to go to notes, and appears to hold a lot of information about the family in her head, and can describe very well a particular conversation, not just what was said but the emotions with which it was said, the dynamics at play, who was where.  However, there are dangers in not being rigorous in note taking and relying on memory.  Firstly, your work and opinions are not transparent; JF said there had been a plan to initiate proceedings but following a positive core group meeting in early September she, with the approval of her manager, decided not to issue, but there does not appear to be any record of that decision nor it being communicated to the family. 

 

49. Secondly, there is a risk one can lose sight of the facts which don’t fit in with a narrative that is easy to hold in one’s mind.  The mind may also allow for the creation of facts which fit in with that narrative, but upon closer examination, there is no source for that information.  The human capacity for honestly believing something, which bears no relation to what actually happened, is unlimited. Therefore, contemporary documents are always of the utmost importance; A County Council v M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam) at paras 29 and 30.

 

50. In this case, JF described the mother as quite controlling of the father and said, well she was the one who did all the childcare, went to all the meetings.  She went further and put in her statement that during the years that the parents were separated, the mother had prevented the children from having contact with their father.  She accepted this was not true and she had no evidence to support this.  It does appear that the father did not see much of the children at this time, principally because he was in a new relationship and his partner was not keen on him spending time with his children, but certainly not because this mother put any difficulties in his way. 

 

51.  The mother is critical of JF’s failure to identify particular work which could be done with the family to help, although a referral was made to the Family Links course, and adjustments were made to enable the course to be delivered one to one rather than in a group so as to help the father, there does not appear to have been any particular training targeted at meeting the needs of children with a diagnosis of autism.  

 

52. There have been significant delays in sorting out BS’s education; not helped by his school being unable to provide him with the education in his plan because the building had to be closed for health and safety reasons.  BS was taking some lessons in an outdoors environment and more recently has returned to a portacabin on the school site, but the situation has been very unsatisfactory for him and the mother says JF could and should have done more.  Plainly BS has had a very difficult time over the past year, and it has not been helped by the situation at school.  I am not able to say however, on the evidence before me, that JF could or should personally have done more in this respect.

 

53. JF was criticised for not bringing more support to bear and for not recognising a need to be creative, but in her final analysis she said that there had been a huge level of support provided to the family and ultimately there had to be an expectation that the parents would be able to take some responsibility for the situation and to make changes.  Those changes had to come about not just at the direction of the local authority, but because the parents had understood for themselves a need to do things differently, otherwise there was no prospect of those changes being maintained.  She said, ‘I don’t think the local authority has sufficient resources to give the level of support require for the rest of the children’s minority, there has to be some level of progress, and there has not been.’ 

 

54. Despite the above criticism, JF has produced detailed and thorough written evidence, and I was satisfied that she does have a good understanding of the needs of each of the children and the dynamics of the family.  Her conclusions are reached after carrying out a full and in my judgment, a fair analysis, and are supported by the evidence she has obtained, and set out in support of her reasoning.

PM

 

55. The family have been complimentary about PM, who carried out the parenting assessment.

 

56. In the statement filed on his behalf by his solicitor, the father is noted as saying that he found PM to be not confrontational, to listen to his point of view, and offer suggestions to assist. 

 

57. PM’s parenting assessment was carried out after eight visits to the family, two with each of the parents on their own, two with them together and two more to see them when the children were there.

 

58. Her parenting assessment was informed by information obtained from historical notes in respect of the family, from her own observations and assessments, as well as a review of the evidence filed within these proceedings, including Dr van Rooyen’s report.

 

59. She fairly acknowledged a number of positives about the mother’s interactions with her children, for example she noted her responding warmly to both CS and DS, giving them cuddles and reassuring them and being warm and kind to AS. 

 

60. However, in her detailed and thorough report, which considers all aspects of parenting capacity, and shows a good understanding of the children’s particular needs, she sets out clearly the evidence upon which she relies to come to well-reasoned conclusions that the parents do not have the capacity to parent all the children in a safe and consistent way.  She writes, ‘any changes that have been made in the past have not been sustained and there is no evidence that the parents have learnt from their past mistakes or taken steps to remedy their difficulties, therefore the prognosis for change is very unlikely.’

 

61. PM was an impressive witness and it was clear to me that she has formed her view independently and was not unduly influenced by Dr van Rooyen’s assessment although she said that she found it helpful.

KF

 

62. KF has only been the social worker since April 2018, but the parents have been generous in acknowledging the value of her contribution, and they have been impressed by the help and support she has given to them.  For example, when the mother was struggling to get an appointment to sort out AS’s contraception, KF was able to make an appointment for her at the general practitioner that same day.

 

63. She has prepared one statement in the proceedings and an amended care plan which provides for BS to be placed separately from his siblings.  She adopts the original care plans in respect of the other children.  Her witness statement was requested to provide updating information about significant events, the chidlren’s education, and support available to the family should the children remain at home. 

 

64. Although she did not write the care plans, she told me she had made her own independent assessment of the situation and it is her own professional judgment that AS should remain at home, subject to a six-month supervision order and the three boys should be placed in foster care.

 

65. She told me in oral evidence that she was meeting with AS regularly and usually managed to have a conversation with her.  She said it had been much harder to spend time with BS; she was often told he was asleep or not well, and so had only seen him three times, the first time he was looking for his shoes and did not want to talk to her, the second he swore at her and told her to go away and the third time they had managed to have a bit more of a conversation. 

 

66. She accepted that the care plans had no real details about the boys’ proposed education.  It was put to her that the proposed plans for contact were hopelessly unrealistic but she said it had been a fast moving situation because the proposed placements were only confirmed during the week of the final hearing.  She doubted that weekend contact would work because she felt it should be in a contact centre and she said the agency they used to facilitate contact did not work at weekends.  She accepted that adjustments were required in order to enable the father to have contact with his children as he very rarely is able to leave the home. 

The mother

 

67. The mother attended every day of the hearing on her own, and had to endure hearing the evidence of all the above witnesses about her and her children.  She was understandably tearful and emotional, and it can only have been very distressing for her to hear again and again that although nobody says she is cruel, or lacking in love or concern for her children, and that she has tried her best, they still wish to separate her from her children, all of whom she loves beyond measure. 

 

68. She did herself very great credit when she came to give her own evidence.  She listened to the questions, gave considered and clearly explained answers, asked for unclear questions to be clarified, did not easily agree when pressed, but was fair in making concessions when she felt it appropriate. 

 

69. She described the battles she has fought with the local education authority for her children’s needs to be acknowledged and for them to receive what they were entitled to in their ECHPs.  She articulated very clearly her fears about the local authority’s plans for the boys, in particular that there did not appear to her to be any consideration about how their special educational needs would be met in foster care, and that all the hard work she had put in to get them the provision they needed, would be at risk of being undone, at cost of hugely unsettling disruption for the boys. 

 

70. She expressed clearly her concerns for the impact on the children of being separated from their family and from one another, and to be removed from familiar surroundings.  She highlighted in particular AS’s vulnerability, and how she may feel responsible because the trigger for enhanced local authority involvement and ultimately the proceedings, was AS’s toxic relationship, the impact it had on her behaviour in the household, and how it diverted much of the mother’s energies away from looking after the needs of the other children in the house.  In these ways she clearly showed understanding and an ability to empathise with her children.

 

71. However, despite all these positive qualities, I did find, consistently with the professionals who have assessed her in this case, that she was defensive about many of the local authority’s concerns, and she did minimise them.  Of course, she is entitled to defend herself, but the impression given was that she did not seriously accept the level of concerns, and she does not really regard herself as responsible for the difficulties that her children have experienced in her care.  I agree with the weight of the professional evidence, that while she acknowledged practical changes that could have been made, she did not seem to be able to acknowledge the reasons such changes were needed, in terms of improving the children’s lived experiences.  In this way she did appear to lack empathy in the sense of not being alive to the consequences for the children of poor hygiene, lack of clean clothes, continuous headlice.  The impression I formed was that she was a reactive parent; she would respond to an immediate crisis, for example tidying up for a social work visit or in response to a request to do so, she described attending school sometimes more than once a day to deal with CS’s encopresis after an incident at school, but she did not seem to be able to anticipate her children’s needs in advance and make plans so that they could be met.  I would also accept the description of her as a ‘permissive’ parent, struggling to say no to her children or to set boundaries around their behaviour.

 

72. She has made some general statements which suggest she does take responsibility, she accepted in the past that she had found it difficult to ask for help from professionals, and this was because she felt that because she was responsible for the situation then it should be for her to deal with it.  She accepted she had not always met the needs of her children and said, ‘nobody could make me feel worse about it than I do’.

 

73. However, when the details were explored, it was clear that she did not feel that she had really fallen short in any very significant way, and she could not identify any changes she needed to make at the present in order to improve the situation for the children at home.  For example, when asked why she felt responsible she said simply well I’m the parent so it comes down to me, but apart from saying generally that she hadn’t taken care of their healthcare needs, and hadn’t ‘provided better care’, she was not able to explain why she felt she should bear some responsibility, and on further exploration of this, she pointed always to external factors, ‘it could be purely based on the situation at the time with respect to the children, to the way we were back then, the Courts, social services, feeling pressured and feeling judged, at that point it did get on top of us and we were going through things with AS, but I don’t dispute that then it wasn’t good enough’.

 

74. Because she seems to regard the difficulties as external, she has not been able to articulate what changes would be needed.  She and the father had been on the Family Links course and said she had learned how to deal with challenging behaviours and implementing suitable boundaries, but even when asked by her own counsel and again in cross-examination, she was unable to come up with a single example that suggested she had in fact absorbed a new technique to manage behaviour in the home, a difficulty she has been struggling with for all her children since 2009.  She was asked what she thought was needed, and said, making sure the house was in good form, tidy and neat, and going to health appointments as needed.  She did not think that she needed any counselling in respect of her own emotional health.  She did not feel at any risk of being overwhelmed in the future, and said now there were plans in place for the children, she did not feel any pressure. 

 

75. In my judgment she did minimise the local authority’s concerns about her children, or seek to blame external factors.  For example:

                    i.            She did not accept that DS’s current behaviours were similar to those exhibited by BS at his age.  She said DS’s behaviours arose from bullying at school, and therefore his situation was very different to BS’s.  But DS’s behaviours are continuing and are not only explained by incidents of bullying.  They are similar to BS’s.  CS now seems to be modelling some of his behaviours on DS;

                  ii.            With respect to BS’s deteriorating behaviours and poor attendance at school, she suggested it was the effect of social services’ involvement which led to the deterioration, and unfortunately he had then become involved with a group of lads who had encouraged him to miss school.  Again, this does not recognise that BS’s behavioural difficulties have been an issue long before the current social work involvement, and ignores the clear message from his school that even when he was attending, he was struggling with the consequences of neglectful care at home;

                iii.            She was asked why she did not stop BS spending time with friends she regarded as unsuitable and she looked rather taken aback and said, ‘what kind of parent would that make me if I didn’t give him the right to go out if he wished to.  He got involved with the wrong crowd. … I couldn’t put a stop to it’;

                iv.            She said CS’s encopresis was due to a traumatic toileting incident many years ago and she was doing all she could to support him.  But she did not acknowledge that she had not taken him to an appointment to help him address this in November 2017, she said she had arranged for a lift but was let down at the last minute.  She said he did have an appointment in May 2018 and she was attending school on a regular basis to assist when CS had accidents; 

                  v.            She acknowledged that BS had sometimes been extremely tired at school and that he regularly struggled to get to sleep before 2 a.m., but suggested this was likely to have a medical cause, she said she had recently arranged for blood tests to look into this;

                vi.            She did not dispute that the children’s school uniform had been very smelly but said this was because at the time they had eight puppies.  However, in evidence to me she said the time they had the puppies was at the end of 2016 and it would appear this problem has persisted for much longer, before and after the puppies were in the house;

              vii.            The children had significant problems with their dental health and during the course of proceedings they have had the treatment needed. The mother accepted she had let things get really bad but said they had been to all appointments made.  She said it had all now been dealt with but the impression I got was that she remained very reactive, in that she said she would deal with problems as they arose in the future, but I did not get the sense that she now feels she needs to address at a base level the need to teach the children to take care of their teeth, stop the consumption of fizzy drinks, or to make regular appointments for check-ups with their dentist;

            viii.            She accepted that headlice had been a problem but said it was from school but she had always done the treatment when it came around.  The evidence about headlice is that this has been a persistent and really distressing difficulty for the children who have been seen with headlice crawling about their hairline, well into the holidays as well as in term times, and it has just not been addressed;

                ix.            While accepting responsibility, she also tended to focus on other issues.  She said it is ‘not a clear case of neglect, there are underlying issues’.  She said it is unfair to judge her purely on the basis that they have neglected the children, because there are underlying problems which mean they have higher needs.  This is right, but does not mean that the neglect should not be addressed;

                  x.            In her interview with Dr van Rooyen she did not accept there had been any neglect or concerns as to their ability to provide for the children, as to her mind ‘they had always cared about the children and loved them.  She went on to say the children are always clean and tidy, however when this was discussed further, it was said they may be less tidy at the end of the week, but as a rule they are clean and tidy’;

                xi.            She suggested that BS was back under parental control, that in the last few months he had been in more than he had been out, and no longer pushed boundaries.  That does not accord with the professional evidence, nor her own evidence about their efforts to get him to school, she said, ‘we do as much as we can – we did – trying to get him into a taxi to go to school but en route he’ll jump out of the taxi and come home, or he’ll go to school and push buttons to be sent home … yes, I take some responsibility but if he’s on a bus and gets to school what happens there is out of our control’.  When put to her that BS had started smoking last September aged 12, she said, well not in the house, and then said, well it’s not something he does with our permission, suggesting to me that she didn’t condone it, but she had not really felt able to stop it.

 

76. These examples build up an impression that the mother does not fully understand or accept the changes that would be needed to her parenting, and although she has had some success in making changes to the household environment that have been asked of her, it does not give me confidence that she would be able to implement and sustain the changes in all areas required to give the children consistency of care.

 

77. Further, although the mother said she had made all the changes to the household environment as requested, there was some evidence that even very recently, there continue to be matters of concern.  It is not clear that even within the lifetime of these proceedings that improvements have been sustained.

 

78. At an unannounced child protection visit on 30^th May 2018 the home conditions were described as poor.  The cat’s litter tray was once again seen in DS and CS’s room, the front room smelt of smoke, thick enough to be seen in the air, and the kitchen was described as smelling of dirty animals and waste.  The mother denies this is the case, and the father’s solicitor wrote in her statement that she did not share the social worker’s view of the house when she attended on 31^st May.  However, this description is consistent with many that have appeared before.  Social workers have recorded when home conditions were good as well as when not so good, on a balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the description as to 30^th May can be regarded as reliable.

 

79. The guardian had visited the house on 21^st June 2018 and reported that there was usually an unpleasant odour throughout the home, but it was a lot worse than she had experienced it before.  From downstairs to upstairs, she said, it smelt strongly of urine, and both DS and CS had an unpleasant odour about them.  The mother said if there was a smell of urine it was likely to have come from a bucket of bleach she had used to clear up from the dogs, but the guardian was clear in her evidence about what she had smelt and said there was no smell of bleach.  I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the guardian’s account is reliable, confirmed by her oral evidence.

The father

 

80. The father did not give evidence, but his solicitor has filed a statement on his behalf and exhibited two attendance notes of meetings she has had with him, in which she has recorded his views. 

 

81. He does not accept that he has not addressed his mental health issues and says he sees his GP at least every twelve weeks. 

 

82. He does not want any of the children to go into care.  His solicitor records the following:

 

‘I am willing to accept help and guidance with the children.  I found the worker from the hub very helpful.  The social workers who talk and explain have helped us.  I have found Judie unhelpful and not willing to listen or help the situation.  I accept we need help.  Some of that help is because of the difficulties AS and CS have.  Some of its because ES was struggling to cope when they were young as she was all by herself with six children and I was not there to help.  Some of the schooling they have received has not been as helpful as it could be.  BS for example is not having a good education and I really don’t think this helps.  Some of its because I do struggle to be fully involved due to my mental health difficulties.  But we are both willing to accept help and there must be some way of putting the right level of help into place rather than making the children go into care.’

The guardian

 

83. The guardian prepared an initial analysis in November 2017 and her final analysis is dated 15^th May 2018.  She attended a core group meeting in January 2018, and has been in regular contact with the children’s social workers, first JF and then KF.  At the time of her final report she had met with AS and BS but not the younger boys, but had done so at the time of the final hearing, visiting them at home on 30^th May 2018.

 

84. Her conclusions are well-reasoned and explained and supported by evidence.  She fairly acknowledged that there are a great deal of uncertainties in the local authority’s plans and that placing the children out of county and separating BS from DS and CS is not ideal, and creates potential further difficulties for BS.  Nonetheless, she was very clear that she maintains her view that the risks to the children of remaining at home outweigh any risks of their removal. 

 

85. This guardian advised against removal of the children at the outset of proceedings, and has readily acknowledged the positive aspects of the mother’s affectionate relationship with her children and her devotion to them, as well as the strongly expressed wishes of the children to remain at home with their family.  She has been fair and open minded throughout.  Nevertheless, she has carried out a thorough review of all the evidence and her view remained the same having heard the evidence of Dr van Rooyen, the social workers, and the mother.

 

86. In her conclusions she writes as follows:

 

‘Both ES and FS are trying hard to meet all of their children’s needs.  However, the needs of the children are too complex for the parents to consistently meet at the same time.  Each of the children has their own high level of individual needs including behaviour difficulties, emotional difficulties and learning difficulties.  They are in constant competition for their parents’ attention.  ES herself reported that she has at times been so focused on AS’s needs that she did not meet BS, DS’s and CS’s needs.

 

I have found ES in particular, to be very concrete and practical in her thinking.  When they discuss their current difficulties and what they need to do to make the home environment and their parenting better they refer back to things such as keeping the house tidy, taking them to appointments rather than about their emotional needs. …. All of these examples are the practical things that need to happen, and whilst the level of neglect the children have experienced is a concern, the more pressing concern is about the emotional needs of the children being neglected.’

Conclusions and Analysis

Threshold

 

87. On behalf of the father, the official solicitor accepts that threshold is crossed.  The mother has accepted a great deal of what is alleged, but at the final hearing has rowed back slightly from concessions made earlier on, and in evidence, despite having accepted threshold was crossed, the mother said she did not regard any of the children as at risk of significant harm in her care. 

 

88. The local authority asserts that at the date protective measures were taken, 1^st  November 2017, AS, BS, DS and CS were suffering or were likely to suffer significant harm, such harm being attributable to the care given or likely to be given to them if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them.  The following matters are accepted, with disputed matters underlined:

 

(i)                 FS and ES have neglected the basic care needs of the children as follows:

 

a.       They have not ensured adequate hygiene practices for the children. Negative comments have been made by peers at School regard BS’s personal hygiene. CS, DS and AS’s personal hygiene has also been poor on occasion. CS has been sent home due to odour (due either to dried faeces on his clothes or soiling);

 

b.      The children were not attending full time in education. BS’s attendance at school was 52.1% and he left the school site on 7 occasions during the Autumn term. DS was at risk of being permanently excluded from his Primary School as a result of poor behaviour.  AS had been excluded on a number of occasions and CS was excluded for 2 days in September 2017;

 

c.       The children have poor oral hygiene this led to AS developing an abscess (September 2016) for which she had not yet had complete treatment and consequently has had flare ups since first diagnosis. For AS this risked her physical safety after she took an overdose of 8 paracetamol to try to help the way she felt.  BS had caries in 5 adult teeth and 3 baby teeth. CS had plaque induced gingivitis and 7 holes in his teeth;

 

d.      Professionals have seen the children look grubby and unkempt on multiple occasions.

 

e.       The parents have failed to implement clear and adequate boundaries or routines for the children, particularly around friendships or bedtime routines. AS does not to respect her parents’ authority and smokes whilst on school property. AS has also been having sex underage and contraception has not been a priority[VR1] . At times, BS also defies his Parents. ES reported BS to be sneaking out of the home and hanging around unsavoury places in the Community.  BS smokes within the home and has been see by the Social Worker to be given a cigarette by his Mother.[VR2] 

 

f.       The home conditions were at times are inadequate, smelly, and dirty. The children’s beds have often been sighted without beddings. The cat litter tray is housed in the children’s bedrooms and animal faeces has, on occasion, been seen in bedrooms. Positive changes have been short-lived and not sustained. [VR3] 

 

(ii)               Dr van Rooyen who assessed the family stated: “From assessment of AS, DS and CS and reviewing the documentation, which includes BS, there are clear indications to suggest they all present with developmental, emotional and/or behavioural concerns, in addition to displaying insecure attachment styles and patterns. Growing up in a neglectful, chaotic, disorganised and unstructured environment and where needs have not been consistently or adequately met, has led to impaired development.” [E20 para 4.1]

 

“In essence, the younger four children’s needs are such that they require better than average parenting care, which for the most part has been clearly beyond these parents.” [E22 para 4.6][VR4] 

 

(iii)             By reason of the above AS, BS, DS and CS have suffered and are at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect.

 

89. So far as the disputed matters are concerned:

 

(i)                 ‘contraception has not been a priority’.  The parents accept that AS has been having sex with her boyfriend L, who is BS’s friend, and regarded by both the parents and professionals as an unhealthy and disrupting influence on BS and AS.  I consider the parents have been passive about the development of this relationship between two underage children to a sexual one.  However, while I accept that the mother was grateful for help from KF to obtain an appointment, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that she did not regard this as a priority, just that she struggled to get an appointment.  I consider this phrase should be removed from the threshold document;

 

(ii)               ‘has been see by the Social Worker to be given a cigarette by his Mother’.  The parents both smoke in the house as does AS and now BS.  There is evidence of an occasion when AS was distressed at school and her behaviours causing difficulties, her mother called and AS asking repeatedly for a lighter from her mother, then taking it and lighting a cigarette on school grounds, the mother giving no reaction.  The mother’s own evidence about BS’s smoking was ambivalent and stopped well short of suggesting that any rules or consequences for breaking them were being imposed about smoking in the house.  On a balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the social worker’s recollection is correct and that the mother did give BS a cigarette in her presence;

 

(iii)             ‘Positive changes have been short-lived and not sustained’.  Having regard to all the evidence I have seen and heard I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there are a great number of examples over the past nine years of positive changes having been implemented but being short-lived; this allegation is made out;

 

(iv)             I am not sure that citing the evidence of a psychological expert in a threshold document is helpful, but having regard to the evidence I have seen and heard, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that ‘ the younger four children’s needs are such that they require better than average parenting care, which for the most part has been clearly beyond these parents’.  

 

90.  The final paragraph of threshold alleges, ‘by reason of the above AS, BS, DS and CS have suffered and are at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect.’

 

91. I remind myself of the well-known remarks of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050, in which he found that threshold was not crossed in the circumstances of that case.  He said, at para 50, that "society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent"; and, at para 51, that "significant harm is fact-specific and must retain the breadth of meaning that human fallibility may require of it" but that "it is clear that it must be something unusual; at least something more than the commonplace human failure or inadequacy".

 

92. There is no question at all that these parents love their children, and that their mother has been seen to be loving, kind and affectionate with all of them and them to her.  There are no issues in this case of domestic abuse or drug and alcohol misuse or any of the children suffering physical harm at the hands of their parents or each other.  Nonetheless, the matters which are accepted by the parents in respect of threshold in themselves are cause for grave concern about the experiences of these children in the household and the ability of the parents to provide for their basic physical, emotional and educational needs. 

 

93. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the threshold for making public law orders is crossed and that at the time proceedings were issued, the children had suffered and were at risk of suffering significant emotional harm and neglect, as a consequence of the care given to them by their parents, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them.

Welfare checklist

 

94. I turn now to consider the matters on the welfare checklist.

 

(a)    The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children

 

95. The children’s clearly expressed views are that they want to stay at home with their family.

 

96. That is to be expected, it is the only family they have ever known, and these parents are not cruel or unkind, but love them all dearly and want only the best for them.

 

97. However, the children’s wishes must be balanced with all the other factors on the list and it is also important to note that as they have no experience of living in a different environment, they are somewhat limited in their expectations of what care they might receive.  I note that after their grandparents had helped to decorate their house and tidy it up DS was reported to have said that he hadn’t appreciated before there was a problem, but he was pleased with the improvements in the home condition; before the changes were made, he did not know he might expect anything different.

 

(b)   The physical emotional and educational needs of the children;

(c)    Age, sex, background and other relevant circumstances

 

98. All four children have complex needs, which makes it difficult to identify the particular nature of the support they need.  But all of them also have basic care needs and basic emotional needs which are not being met. 

 

AS

 

99. AS has just turned sixteen.  She is diagnosed with Aspergers’ which impacts on her ability to communicate clearly sometimes.  She has at times found it difficult to manage her temper and has had several exclusions from school.  She is vulnerable young person and has learnt to cope with stressful situations through self-harm.  She is in a sexual relationship with BS’s friend, L, a person identified as having a destructive influence on both her and BS.  A previous relationship was very damaging and abusive and she is at risk of being exploited in the relationships she has.  She has little self-belief and confidence.  She needs to be supported to cope with all these issues.  She needs help to develop independent and routine self-care skills, in particular to look after her oral hygiene and her own environment, having got used to expecting her mother to do everything for her.  Her bedroom has consistently been described to be in an appalling state, PM, wrote, ‘it was very difficult for me to imagine anyone living in a room of that state.  The bed was not made, there were piles of clothes on the floor which appeared dirty.  There was litter everywhere, even on the window sills.’

 

100. At the school AS has just left she had a very good relationship with a teacher [name redacted], who supported her in all aspects of her life.  She is moving to college in September and will need to be supported to make the transition to an educational setting which is less structured and supportive than a school environment. 

 

101. She is very anxious and worried about her brothers and her mother was in my judgment insightful when she noted fears that AS felt responsible for their fate because it was the parents’ difficulties in managing her behaviours that led to increased local authority involvement with the family.  That sense of responsibility seemed evident when I met with AS, when she described her worry that DS being bullied at school had stemmed from a dispute that she had with a relative of the people bullying him.  AS will need support to manage these anxieties.

 

BS

 

102. In November 2017, BS’s headteacher reported the ‘drastic change’ for the worse BS’s behaviour during the summer of 2017, ‘although before this point BS’s attendance was good and he was engaging in lessons and achieving good results, BS would sometimes appear distressed with his home life and often came into school extremely tired.  He would sometimes fall asleep at his desk, saying that he was struggling to sleep due to noise in the family home, no electricity or on some occasions having not eaten due to no shopping being in the family home.  BS often appears to be unclean with a dirty uniform which has resulted in the school buying BS new uniform and PE kit, including trainers and shoes.  His general appearance and well-being is questionable and had led to others bullying BS.’

 

103. The guardian assesses BS as beyond his parents’ control and notes that since the start of care proceedings they have struggled to get him to conform to rules and boundaries in place.  His attendance at school is 39.9% and his education has suffered greatly as a result.

 

104. It is acknowledged by all that BS is currently associating with young people in town who are involved with illegal substances and this friendship group has become very significant for him.  He is extremely vulnerable to adopting their behaviours, putting him at risk of drug misuse and criminality. 

 

105. BS has been described as ‘the loner’ of the family, very much his own person, and someone who keeps himself to himself within the family, often out with friends, and when at home, in his room.  He struggles to sleep and is often awake until 2 a.m. and will catch up during the day, when other family members are around.  Dr van Rooyen is concerned by this and regards these behaviours as evidence that BS’s emotional focus appears to be shifting  towards friends and away from the family.

 

106. He has only just turned thirteen and has had a very disrupted education.  He has special educational, emotional and behavioural needs, his ECHP is due for review next month.  He urgently needs to get back on track and to be in education and have the opportunity to have stable, positive friendships, and to have the benefit of consistency of care.  He needs support with all aspects of self-care and meeting his health needs.  As he grows older he needs support to live life within consistent rules and boundaries, so that he will in the future be able to participate in society; finish his education, develop shared interests and build health relationships with others, live by the rules of society, go out to work.

DS

 

107. DS is in school for two hours a day, three days a week and is also now attending a forest school setting on Mondays and Fridays.  He goes to [name redacted], a resource providing him with one to one support around his emotional needs, two afternoons a week. 

 

108. He has had a very disrupted education for the last years of primary school and will need a great deal of support to transition to secondary education, albeit he will have his ECHP. 

 

109. Like his siblings, he needs all his basic care needs to be met, consistently, and to have confidence that his needs will be met on a consistent basis.  He needs to experience consistency of emotional support and to feel more than just loved, but actively looked after and cared for, to build up his self-esteem.  Like his brothers, he needs to be supported to make healthy and positive friendships and to develop his own interests.  He needs help to manage his very high level of anxiety and for his particular needs to be understood and anticipated by his carer.

 

CS

 

110. CS was assessed by Dr van Rooyen to be ‘emotionally and developmentally delayed and presenting as being significantly younger than his chronological age’.  Dr van Rooyen was concerned when the mother said she might need to carry CS back home after the assessment and felt this might be a sign that he was being ‘babied’.  There is an urgent need for his encopresis to be addressed so that he no longer has frequent incidents of soiling at school.

 

111. CS has a diagnosis of autism and will also need an ECHP.  He finds it difficult to communicate verbally, which can manifest into aggressive or disruptive behaviour.  The guardian says ‘he is reported to deal with stress through avoidance and withdrawal and is described by his family to be disengaged emotionally from them.  CS’s best relationship within the family is with DS, although at times it is felt he is reliant on DS.’

 

112. His behaviours at school have recently been troubling and he appears to be copying DS in many ways.  As with his siblings, it is crucial that he is enabled to have an education, for his particular emotional and educational needs to be understood, anticipated and met.  Like his brothers he needs consistency of care, to know and have confidence that his needs are being thought about and met, and to be supported to build friendships and to develop his own interests.

 

(d)   Harm or risk of harm;

(e)    Likely effect of any change in circumstances

 

113.                      There is no question that this case is made more difficult because the local authority’s plan involves placement of the boys in two separate foster placements, a long way away from each other, and from the rest of their family.

 

114.                      The care plan is virtually silent as to education and although current arrangements are not ideal, some sort of stability has been achieved more recently, and if they stayed in [their home county], the boys would have a clear understanding of where they would be going to school in September.  CS is benefiting from one to one work with a teaching assistant in his primary school and this valuable relationship would be lost if he were to move away.  Dr van Rooyen was clear that she did not regard it as a good idea that the boys had too many changes visited on them at once and there is no doubt that for the children to be removed from their homes, their families, their schools, and in BS’s case, their friends, they will be disorientated, bereft and will grieve for all these losses. 

 

115.                      The current plans in respect of contact have not yet been thought through and as presented to the Court were to my mind hopelessly unrealistic.  The father’s mental health issues make it difficult for him to leave the house at all, let alone travel a great distance to an unfamiliar location to have contact.  Although the summer holidays loom, which means at least for the next couple of months or so contact is likely to be able to be arranged on a weekday in [their home county], it is likely that the boys would still be in their proposed placements once school starts in September. 

 

116.                      The proposal is that every fortnight BS could be collected from school in [county A name redacted], driven to some as yet unidentified ‘mid-point’ between [county A name redacted], [county B name redacted] and [their home county], for an evening contact session with his brothers and the rest of the family for an hour and a half, then returned back to his foster placement that evening.  Given this is a child who struggles to get to sleep and is in desperate need of routine, this proposal strikes me as deeply unsettling and unhelpful to him.  The same applies to DS and CS.  AS will be at college three days a week, their older sisters GS and HS also need to be factored in to arrangements.  But the need for very regular contact is there.

 

117.                      The proposal is that the initial placements are only a bridging placement; an opportunity to enable the boys to settle in a new environment and for their needs then to be fully assessed so that they can be matched with appropriate long-term foster carers.  So the plan brings with it a disruption of a change of carer within a relatively short time.  Ideally the permanent placement would be for all three boys together and should be in [their home county], but as I have said, the local authority does not appear to hold out much hope that this might happen.  The boys will then be faced with a further period of uncertainty while this process is underway and steps are taken to find long-term carers for them.  It is a concern of mine that once BS has spent time in [county A name redacted], there will be a sense that it is manageable for him to continue to be placed so far away from home.  While it is said that the current foster-carers could potentially be authorised as long-term carers, avoiding the potential for a further placement move, in some ways I find that dispiriting as it signals to me a risk of a potential lack of impetus to find a way of returning these children to [their home county] to be closer to their family.

 

118.                      The children have made it very clear that they do not want to be placed away from home, and there is a risk of emotional harm to them if they feel they have not been listened to.  AS will suffer harm if separated from her younger brothers, particularly BS to whom she is closest.

 

(f)    Capability of the parents and relevant others

 

119.                      For reasons I have given, I consider the assessment of PM is thorough, fully informed, fair and balanced, and can be relied upon in respect of her conclusions about both the mother and the father. 

 

120.                      I have had regard to the report of Dr Sargent concerning the father, who writes,

 

‘If there has been poor parenting and neglect of this children whilst under his care it is likely that this might be, at least in part, a consequence of the anxiety and depressive disorders.  With regard to the question of whether such a risk might persist, it is likely that this might be the case while he continues to suffer from significant problems as a consequence of these disorders.’

 

121.                      Dr Sargent noted that the father had some benefit in the past from antidepressant drug treatments and cognitive behavioural therapy.  He noted that the father had been referred to [name redacted], the [redacted] NHS psychological therapies service by his general practitioner in November 2017, but had not yet accessed support.  Should the father engage with this and other mental health services, for example to look at prescription treatments, Dr Sargent was unable to give a time estimate for a positive response, if any, but suggested there would need to be at least eighteen weeks of cognitive behavioural therapy, and positive effects of a change in drug therapy might take only weeks, but could be several months to occur, if any positive change were effected at all.  

 

122.                      I have not found the criticisms of Dr van Rooyen to be justified.  The conclusions of Dr van Rooyen and PM, together with with the views of the guardian and social workers JF and KF, are reinforced by my own assessment of the mother.  I conclude on the evidence before me, that these parents are not in a position to care for their children and there is no prospect of change either at all or within a reasonable timescale for the children.

 

123.                      If they remain in their parents’ care, the boys’ needs will continue to be unmet, or met inconsistently.  Because the mother is unable to see the need for change, she is only likely to make improvements if specifically directed, and the level of resource to ensure that she received the support needed to consistently meet all the children’s needs to a good enough level is not realistically manageable.  Dr van Rooyen said she needs a whole other person, at all times.  Although the father is willing to help and has on occasion taken the boys to school, he is at the moment very limited in his abilities to help, and his conditions are recognised as chronic.  I accept the local authority’s evidence that a great deal of support has been put in over the years but little or no progress has been made and there is little prospect in the future of changes being made that will be sustained. 

 

124.                      Although there have been some improvements over the past six months, there has not been the extent of change in terms of parental realisation and acceptance of the need for change.  The level of concern remains very high, but the mother does not accept the children are at risk.  I am not persuaded that there is evidence that any positive changes can be sustained. 

 

125.                      The maternal grandparents were able to support the family to bring about some of the positive changes seen at the beginning of proceedings, which led to the guardian’s recommendation that the children should not be removed.  They were also very supportive to the mother when she was caring for the children as a single carer.   However, it is reported that they were less willing to intervene once the father had returned to live in the house and they did not want to go into the house because of the dogs.  AS is very close to her grandparents. 

 

(g)   Range of orders available to the Court

 

126.                      In coming to a decision relating to a child a court must always consider the whole range of powers available to it and the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so.

Father’s application for further assessment

 

127.                      There is some lack of clarity in the father’s application.

 

128.                      In his application for a psychiatric assessment, made after Dr van Rooyen had been instructed, the father requested the assessment from Dr Sargent, specifically because it was said a psychiatric assessment was required to consider how the father’s mental health difficulties impacted upon his ability to parent the children and what treatment might be available.  It is said that the expertise required to provide the information was outside that of the professionals already involved in the case.   

 

129.                      However, I now understand the official solicitor, on behalf of the father, to be seeking further assessment by a psychologist. 

 

130.                      I am not satisfied that there is a gap in the evidence in respect of the father, and the support which might be afforded to him.  The assessment of PM is thorough and detailed and was prepared with the benefit of interviews with the father and her own observations, and detailed evidence gathering from other sources, including expert evidence of Dr van Rooyen and Dr Sargent. 

 

131.                      Even if I accepted that there was a gap in Dr van Rooyen’s report which should be filled by her now conducting an interview with him, I note that she did rearrange previous assessments so as to try and accommodate the father’s attendance but he was not able to come, and has now said that he would not wish her to be the psychologist who assessed him, given the views she has already expressed.  There can be no guarantee that he would in the event feel able to attend an assessment with a different psychologist.

 

132.                      It would in my judgment be wholly disruptive to the children of the family to delay the proceedings and for them to have to participate in a brand new global family assessment.  Such a course would be disproportionate and, in my judgment would not be required to resolve the proceedings justly, because there is a sufficiency of evidence already before the Court.

 

133.                      For these reasons, I dismiss the father’s application for an adjournment for further assessment.

Conclusions

AS

 

134.                      I approve the local authority’s plan that AS should remain at home under a supervision order.  I agree with the guardian’s recommendation that this should be for twelve months.

 

135.                       AS is very vulnerable and will continue to need a lot of support over the coming year.  I agree with the guardian that in order to feel confident of the local authority’s commitment to her, and the importance with which her needs are regarded, a twelve-month order sends a better signal than six months, which may be reviewed.  Although AS and her mother say they would accept all the support that is currently offered and would work with the local authority under a child in need plan, the local authority would be dependent upon that continuing agreement to provide the support.  I consider that it would be better for the local authority to have that responsibility in any event, which would be the case under a supervision plan. 

 

136.                      AS has said she thinks she might prefer this work to be carried out by a new social worker, but that is ultimately a matter for the local authority to decide.  I would only note that AS has in fact got on very well with KF, as does the mother, and it may be preferable for this positive relationship, marked by mutual respect, to continue, albeit there will no doubt be some tricky times initially. 

 

BS, DS and CS

 

137.                      Having regard to all the evidence I have heard, and considered the welfare checklist and the boys’ and their family’s article 8 rights to a family life, I have come to the conclusion that their welfare can only be secured by my making a care order, and I approve the local authority’s plan that they be placed into a foster care placement, initially as a bridging placement, with a view to carrying out a full assessment of their needs in order to find the best match for their permanent care.  In coming to my decision I have had regard to the overwhelming weight of professional evidence, and I also pay close attention to the views of the guardian, whose recommendations are independently formed, well-reasoned and supported by a substantial evidence base.  There is no good reason to depart from her recommendations.

 

138.                      Whilst it would be ideal for the boys all to be in one placement, I accept that efforts have been made and such a placement is not likely to be identified.

 

139.                      I remain disappointed and apprehensive about the current plan to place BS so far away from home and on his own (there is already a fifteen year old in the proposed foster placement, but I mean in the sense of not with any of his siblings).  Nonetheless, I accept that the social worker has gone to extensive efforts to find a suitable placement for BS, and I accept that this placement has been identified as one, with an experienced carer, which best meets his needs at this time.  I know that BS will be very disappointed to be separated from his current friendship group, but it is my strong view that it is in his best interests for that to happen, so that he has the opportunity to form friendships based on shared interests, and where he is not vulnerable to bad influences.   

 

140.                      In her final analysis the guardian asks the local authority to consider the option of a residential school for BS.  She says, ‘I think it will be difficult for BS to settle in a foster placement with a ‘new family’, due to his age, self-identity and his very established lifestyle and ways of doing things.  I also assess that BS is at risk of exploitation because of his own vulnerabilities, including not being emotionally connected to his family, his want to fit in with a social group which has been what we are seeing with his recent behaviour and friendship group .. going missing from his home despite the safety measures put in place, his experience of neglect and emotional harm and not having strong guidance.’

 

141.                      The local authority’s position was initially to agree to a recital that (I paraphrase) if foster placement did not work out for BS, they would look at other options including residential schooling.  In her evidence, KF spoke persuasively about the benefits, and the necessity, as she saw it, for BS to have the opportunity to live within a family environment, to prevent him becoming institutionalised at an early age and becoming susceptible to potential negative influences.  Nonetheless, the guardian’s concerns are valid and while the care plan is for the bridging placement to be foster care, I would hope there was nothing too controversial about the local authority indicating that it would consider the option of residential schooling together with the option of long-term foster care in their permanency planning.  The long-term plan will take into account information gathered from BS himself, including his wishes and feelings, from his bridging placement foster carers, from whatever educational setting he is in, and will also be informed by his ECHP, due to be updated next month.  In the circumstances it must be right that the local authority should keep this option of residential schooling on the table as it cannot be known at this time what might best meet his needs.  I do not think that stating an intention in a recital would be sufficient.

 

142.                      I agree with the guardian that it is very likely that BS may gravitate back to his family before he turns eighteen, and the same may apply to his younger brothers.  The guardian recommends adopting Dr van Rooyen’s advice that the parents engage in individual counselling, education around the emotional needs of their children and parenting work to support a shift from a permissive style of parenting to a more authoritative and boundaried style of parenting.  I appreciate that this cannot form part of any care plan at the present time, and that neither parent has at the moment identified a need for such work.  However, both have indicated their willingness to work with the local authority and I would hope that at the least, such support may be identified as part of the supervision order in respect of AS, as the same issues arise, and the parents signposted to relevant agencies.  As arrangements are continually reviewed under the care orders to ensure the relationship between the boys and their parents is encouraged and supported, I would also hope that thought is given to the sort of support that might be given to the parents to strengthen their parenting skill set in anticipation of the boys wishing to spend more and more time with them as they transition out of the care system.

 

143.                      I know that this decision will come as a devastating blow to the family and I am sorry for the pain that it will bring.  I am also acutely aware that the orders I propose to make are in direct conflict with the children’s expressed wishes, and I am concerned about the risk of emotional harm to them if they feel their wishes have been ignored.  However, in the particular circumstances of this case, although they may struggle in the first instance to understand the reasons for the decision, I consider that it likely that once they have been in an environment where all their physical, educational and emotional needs are consistently met, where they have stability of care, where they are not fighting to get the attention of their carer so as to get their needs attended to, they will come to have a better understanding of the reasons for the Court’s decision. 

 

144.                      In the final analysis, my assessment of the risk of harm to the children should they remain in the care of their family is more likely to have a devastating and life-long adverse effect on the children, than the harm that might arise as a consequence of their wishes being refused and having to make what will inevitably be a very difficult transition in the short-term to new carers.  The strongest wish expressed by the children is that they can continue to see family members and this wish should in my judgment be heeded and acted upon, as the guardian suggests. 

Contact

 

145.                      It would seem that there will need to be further discussions around contact, although it may be easier to arrange the first tranche of family visits for the summer holidays and then look to sorting out arrangements from September onwards within the LAC review process.  By the first meeting there should be information available about where the children will be at school, conversations will have been had with the father about how best he can be supported to have contact, and there will be information about how previous contacts have gone over the summer.

 

146.                      In those circumstances, the following comments are indications only in respect of some of the issues around contact as I see them at this time.

 

147.                      I would hope given the local authority’s plan for fortnightly family visits to continue that in the long-term every reasonable effort is made to try and ensure that the children are eventually placed in a location that means they are not having to travel long distances for contact.

 

148.                      I would not want to say anything to discourage the local authority from providing for fortnightly contact, save to note the following:

 

(i)                 the children’s parents have got other children, other commitments and their own difficulties in life.  While of course they want to have frequent contact with their children, they should not be placed in a position where they are asked to do too much and then feel criticised or that they have let the children down if they cannot make it to a family visit;

 

(ii)               the children will also need to settle with their new carers and have time to build their own lives and friendships and not to be under pressure to keep up a contact regime if it is not working for them;  

 

(iii)             I would be concerned if an otherwise ideal carer was found but then the placement not viable because the demands of facilitating contact are just too great. 

 

149.                      I cannot be prescriptive about indirect contact.  I would imagine it would be very helpful to BS to be in touch with his parents and his siblings in particular AS by phone, but ultimately it will be for his carers, in consultation with the local authority to decide on a policy around him having a phone and when he can use it. 

 

150.                      I would accept that initially family visits would need to be supported, all these children have difficulty managing their behaviours when emotions and anxiety levels are running high, and it may well prove overwhelming for the parents to cope with their competing demands as well as managing their own anxieties and distress.  However, Dr Sargent, Dr van Rooyen, and the guardian are clear that these parents do not pose any risk of physical harm to their children, and they have always worked with the local authority and not sought to undermine any social work professional. 

 

151.                      I agree with the guardian that a contact centre is unlikely to be the best environment for such a meeting and would hope that some creativity could be shown, to accommodate in particular the father’s anxieties, and the needs of a large group of children and their older siblings who are unlikely to feel comfortable in a confined space typically set up for much younger children. 

 

152.                      I know that much of this judgment will have been hard to read, particularly for the parents.  Although I have come to the view that they are not best placed to provide a home for their children, I certainly have no doubt that they love their children very much and that they have done all that they can to fight for them. 

 

153.                      I have not taken the decision to place the boys away from their family lightly, particularly in the light of theirs and AS’s expressed wishes.  However, I am satisfied, having weighed all the evidence and considered the statutory checklist, that the order I make is one which is necessary to enable them to have the stability and security I and the professionals in this case consider they deserve and need.  At the same time, I sincerely hope that the children will be able to maintain their relationship with their family.  I hope that they continue to feel pride at being a part of this family throughout their lives and that they grow up knowing that although they are going to be living apart from them, they will always be loved by their family and will always be a part of it.

 

 

Joanna Vincent

 

1^st July 2018

 

Her Honour Judge Vincent

Family Court, Oxford

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT

 

 

AS

 

AS will stay at home with her parents.

 

There will be a supervision order to help the parents care for AS.  The supervision will be in place for 12 months.

 

The judge thinks that AS deserves to have as much support as possible.  She has had a very difficult time and it is right that she gets the help she needs. 

 

The best way to be sure the local authority will help her is to make a supervision order.

 

The judge understands AS would like a fresh start with a new social worker.  However, AS has got on well with KF before.  KF understands AS really well. 

 

KF also gets on well with AS’s mum.  If KF left that might be unhelpful to AS’s mum.  She also needs a lot of help and support.

 

The local authority will think about this and will decide who the social worker will be.

 

 

BS

 

BS is going to live with foster carers.

 

His placement is [in County A name redacted].  The judge is not happy that it is so far away from his family, and far away from DS and CS. 

 

The local authority tried very hard to find something closer, or a placement for the three boys together.  The judge thinks the local authority has done its best.

 

In the future, the local authority will keep looking for a placement for BS with his brothers, or a separate placement which is closer to [their home county].

 

 

DS and CS

 

DS and CS are going to live with the same foster carer. 

 

In the future, the local authority will keep looking for a placement where BS can live with DS and CS. 

 

 

Contact

 

The local authority will arrange for the boys to see each other, their mum and dad, their older sisters and grandparents as much as possible.  The plan at the start is for family visits every two weeks. 

 

The local authority will have regular meetings about contact arrangements.  The local authority will listen to what the family wants and try to help them.

 

Reasons

 

ES and FS love their children.  They are the world to them.  They want them to stay together as a family.

 

They have tried very hard to care for them all together.

 

They only want the best for their children.

 

However, it is not easy to look after six children and for a long time there have been problems in the house.  The sort of problems there have been are:

-          The house has not been clean and tidy;

-          There have been too many pets;

-          Children don’t have clean clothes;

-          Children are not clean and washed;

-          Children are not taking care of their teeth.  They are having toothache and having to go to the dentist for treatment;

-          The children are not in school as much as they should be;

-          The children have been disruptive in school;

-          Headlice;

-          Not enough healthy food;

-          Children not making friends at school;

-          BS at risk of making friends who are not a good influence on him;

-          No routines – children not getting enough sleep;

-          AS’s room is untidy;

-          All the children need a lot of help and support but the parents cannot give the all the attention they need.

 

It will be very hard for the boys to leave their home and their mum and dad will be very sad without them. 

 

But the judge thinks if the boys stay in the house, all the problems that are there will carry on and they will not get better.  This would make life really difficult for all the children.

 

If the children go to foster care they will be well looked after.  This will be better for the children.

 

The children will see each other and their parents regularly.

 

None of the children have done anything wrong. 

ES and FS will always love all their children and even though the boys are going to foster care, they will always be a family.

 

ES and FS have done everything they could to fight for their family.

 

It is the judge who has decided that there needs to be a change.  Even though it will be really difficult, the judge thinks that the change is needed so that the children can be properly cared for.