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.: OX17C00179

 

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT OXFORD

 

IN THE MATTER OF s34 CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF S

 

Date:  25^th July 2018

 

Before: HHJ Vincent

 

Between:

 

A

Applicant

and

 

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

1^st Respondent

and

 

B

2^nd Respondent

and

 

S

3^rd Respondent

and

 

KT

(children’s guardian)

4^th Respondent

 

Charles Hogan, instructed by Wilsons solicitors, for the Applicant father (previously Sarah Jennings, instructed by Royds Withy King solicitors, for the Applicant father)

Andrew Leong, instructed by Oxfordshire County Council for the First Respondent local authority

June Rodgers, instructed by Oxford Law Group, solicitors for the Second Respondent mother

Mark Calway, instructed by Truemans, solicitors for the Third Respondent child

KT, Cafcass children’s guardian, representing herself at final hearing (previously instructing Truemans on behalf of the Third Respondent child)

 

Hearing dates: 16^th, 17^th, 18^th and 19^th July 2018

 

JUDGMENT

 

Introduction and background

 

1.      The parents were married but are now separated, and have four children together; twins M and R, now eighteen, S, who is the subject of this application, aged fourteen, and T, ten, who was adopted in 2017.   

 

2.      The local authority brought care proceedings in 2012 when the parents were still living together and had care of all four children.  The concerns at that time centred on the parents’ wholesale neglect of the children’s needs, an inability to manage their children’s behaviour, and emotional abuse which included the parents’ exposing the children to shouting and verbal abuse on a daily basis.  On 19^th April 2013 His Honour Judge Corrie made care orders in respect of S and T, their care plans being that S be placed in long term foster care and T be placed for adoption. Residence orders were made in favour of the paternal grandparents in respect of M and R.  

 

3.      Eight months after the conclusion of the care proceedings, the father applied for the placement order in respect of T to be revoked.  His application was supported by the mother (although they had by this time separated). Following a contested hearing on 14^th April 2014, His Honour Judge Corrie dismissed this application.

 

4.      The mother had a baby girl, V, in 2013 who was subject to care and placement orders in January 2014.  I was the judge who dealt with the mother’s application for permission to oppose the adoption order in April 2015, which I refused, and V was subsequently adopted.

 

5.      R, who presents with behavioural problems, and is a cannabis user, returned to his father’s care in December 2014, his placement with the paternal grandparents having broken down and a subsequent foster placement which had lasted about a year also coming to an end. 

 

6.      T was placed for adoption but sadly his placement with prospective adopters broke down.  The father made a further application to revoke the placement order in 2015; again this was supported by the mother.  By the same proceedings the father made an application for S’s care order to be discharged, but withdrew the application before the final hearing.  On 4^th December 2015, after a contested hearing, District Judge Payne dismissed his second application for T’s placement order to be revoked. 

 

7.      T was subsequently placed with a second set of prospective adopters and they applied to adopt him.  The father applied for permission to oppose the application, in which he was supported by the mother.  I was the judge who heard this application on 22^nd September 2017.  The application for permission was dismissed and subsequently I made an adoption order in respect of T. 

 

8.      S was initially placed in foster care but since January 2015 she has been living at [place name redacted], a four-bed residential home for children aged between eleven and eighteen in Oxfordshire.  She attends the local secondary school and is due to start her two-year GCSE course in September as she enters year 10.

 

9.      She had been having family visits about four times a year.  In 2016 she had asked if she might be moved to a foster placement.  In early 2017, no foster family having been found for her, she asked if she could return home to her father.  A parenting assessment was carried out, but it concluded that S should not go back to her father’s care.  However, during this period of assessment, S had started to have unsupervised contact with her father and this continued throughout 2017, with overnight contact at Christmas. 

 

10.  M remains living with the paternal grandparents.  He has learning disabilities, and is described as having a learning age of around eight or nine.  The paternal grandparents live across the road from the father, so M sees his father and R often, staying every weekend.  The local authority has concerns about the Father’s parenting of R as he displays aggressive and violent behaviour, misuses cannabis regularly and is said to have no regard for any boundaries within the family home.

 

11.  On 10^th September 2017, the father and R had a physical fight in which S intervened in a bid to protect her father and was then assaulted herself by R pushing her.  The father reported to police that R had been extremely abusive to S, calling her a ‘fat c—t’ among other things, and when told to get out of the house, R punched him in the face five or six times.  The police record describes the father as extremely upset and sounding as though he was at the end of his tether.

 

12.  There was a further incident on 16^th November 2017 after which the father made a statement to the police that R had been verbally abusive, had thrown a number of objects at him and left to go to his grandparents.  The father said he followed him there and when he arrived R punched him repeatedly, the punches ‘raining down’ on him in a sustained attack.  The police record of interview with R notes that he admitted he had assaulted his father, ‘because he could no longer put up with living with someone like that, who shouts at him every day’. 

 

13.  The father’s application to discharge the care order in respect of S and for her to return home to live with him was made on 19^th December 2017.

 

14.  Following the incidents in September and November, it was agreed that when S was spending time with her father thereafter that R would not be at home at the same time, unless supervised by paternal aunt, but at Christmas, S reported that R had stayed the night, although she later retracted this.  The father denies R had been staying at home when S was there. 

 

15.  Contact was suspended for a short time, but following a meeting between the parents, [place name redacted] and the social worker, it was agreed that S’s contact with the father in the family home could be reinstated, although for visiting contact only, each Saturday from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and Sunday from 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.   S also had contact with her Father in her placement each Wednesday after school for a couple of hours, although this was stopped after a time at S’s request).  

 

16.  The father’s overnight contact was reinstated in May 2018 to take place each weekend from Saturday to Sunday, subject to safeguards in written agreements signed by the family.

 

17.  On 29^th May 2018, staff at [place name redacted] discovered an iPhone 6 in S’s room.  S already had an iPhone 5 which was monitored by staff.  S told staff that she had been given the second mobile telephone by her parents at the last LAC review.  When the father was spoken to about this, he blamed S for stealing the mobile telephone from him when they had contact on the 29^th May 2018.  In fact, it later became apparent that S had been given it for Christmas 2017 by both her parents.  The text messages on it suggested that:

 

a.       S was being allowed to have unsupervised time during her contact with her father (when the father was supposed to be responsible for her at all times);

 

b.      The father was facilitating S having an underage relationship with an unknown female, unsupervised;

 

c.       S was having a relationship with a 19-year old male who may be known to police;

 

d.      S was using the telephone to access an online dating app;

 

e.       S was using the telephone to source cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis.

 

18.  The local authority says the messages found on the telephone show the father was actively undermining S’s placement at [place name redacted] and instigating the difficulties in her placement upon which he now relies on in support his application.

 

19.  Following discovery of this phone and its contents, the time that S spends with her father has remained supervised.

 

20.  S had been having contact six times a year with her mother but in December 2017 S’s wishes were sought prior to a LAC review meeting and she made very clear to the social worker that she did not wish to have any contact with her mother and did not wish any further pressure from anyone to re-establish contact, including the option of attending mediation.  Subsequently, S changed her mind and contact was arranged and has taken place on the 18^th April, 2^nd May and 6^th June 2018.

 

21.  The case was initially allocated to magistrates then reallocated to a District Judge.  In February he reallocated the case to me for final hearing on the basis that I had heard the parents’ respective applications for permission to oppose adoption.   Unfortunately, this meant that there was some delay in listing the final hearing as the soonest I was available to deal with the case was 16^th July 2018.

Parties’ positions at final hearing

 

22.  The father asks for the care order to be discharged and for S to return to his care.

 

23.  He is supported in his application by S’s mother, and by S herself.

 

24.  I had the pleasure of meeting S at Court a couple of weeks before the final hearing.  She was understandably a bit nervous at first but soon gained confidence and was very well able to express herself, clearly and with great strength of feeling.  She could not have made her wishes and feelings clearer to me.  As well as coming to visit, she had written me a long, handwritten letter, and produced a typed document in which she had inserted a number of photos of her with family members.  She told me that she is very unhappy in her current placement and longs to return home to live in a normal family environment, and to live with her father who she loves very much and in whom she has complete confidence that he loves her back with all his heart.

 

25.  The local authority opposes the father’s application, and says that the overwhelming weight of professional evidence in this case points to a conclusion that it would be against S’s welfare interests for S to live with her father.   

 

26.  The local authority has applied for a section 91(14) order restricting both parents’ ability to apply to the Court for further orders until August 2020 which is when S is due to have finished her GCSEs.

 

27.  S has been consistent in her views throughout the proceedings and for many months before then.  It was initially felt by her solicitor and the guardian that she did not have capacity to instruct a solicitor herself.  However, a different solicitor came with S to meet me at Court, and she formed the view that S did have capacity to conduct the proceedings.   A decision was then made for her to obtain separate representation from the guardian.

 

28.  As there is a divergence of opinion between S and her guardian, KT represented herself at the final hearing.  She was the guardian for all four children in the 2012/13 proceedings, for T in the father’s subsequent application in 2013/14, and for T and S in 2015.  She agrees with the position taken by the local authority so far as the father’s application is concerned, and supports the application for a section 91(14) order.

Final hearing

 

29.  On the first day of the final hearing the father was represented by Miss Jennings who had prepared a position statement on his behalf setting out his position.  He gave evidence on the first day.

 

30.  On the morning of the second day Miss Jennings and her solicitor withdrew from the case, informing the Court they were professionally embarrassed.  There had been some form of disagreement.

 

31.  With the support and assistance of all legal representatives, the father found new representation that same day.  Mrs Wilson came to Court to meet with her client, and was instructed to apply for an adjournment.  I refused that application.  The father had the benefit of the detailed position statement of Miss Jennings and a typed note of the evidence given on the first day.  Being supported in his application by the mother and S, a new barrister would have the benefit of assistance from Miss Rodgers, mother’s counsel, and Mr Calway, S’s counsel, to get up to speed with relevant issues.  Happily, Dr Bailham was able to attend Court the next day to give evidence.  Although there would inevitably be a pressure on new counsel, and on me to manage the hearing so that all the evidence could be heard within the time allotted and judgment delivered, with the co-operation of all parties I was confident that we would be able to continue the hearing in a fair way.

 

32.  Against that, there was in my judgment a real risk of unfairness and a risk of harm to S if the proceedings were to be adjourned.  It would be unlikely that the final hearing could be listed for at least another three months, continuity of legal representation may not be possible, and the father may have to give his evidence again, leaving the status of evidence already given uncertain.  S has become increasingly anxious as the hearing has got closer, and there was no question that she needed the proceedings to be resolved as soon as is possible.  It was most unfortunate that her anxiety levels had been raised on the Monday evening following a number of phone calls with her father, in which he had shared with her his views about what had happened at Court.  She then presented as angry and very distressed to her carers, and sent an email to her social worker accusing her of wanting to stop her contacts with her father and wanting to tear her family apart. 

 

33.  The hearing resumed on Wednesday afternoon with the father now represented by Mr Hogan.  I am extremely grateful to him for stepping in at the last minute.  He had evidently worked hard so as to assimilate the contents of two bundles and prepare cross-examination of the remaining witnesses.

 

34.  The local authority has been represented by Mr Leong. 

 

35.  I am most grateful to all counsel and solicitors for their efforts which have ensured that the hearing could be effective.  The solicitor for the local authority prepared new witness bundles in a very short time, having given the existing bundles to Mrs Wilson on Tuesday.  All counsel were efficient in their planning of cross-examination of the remaining witnesses, and we were able to conclude the witness evidence by the end of the morning on Thursday, which had been intended to be the last day of the final hearing.

 

36.   On Thursday afternoon, I told the parties of my decision to dismiss the father’s application to discharge the care order, by reading out a letter I had written to S.  The letter is annexed to this judgment.  Although I did not have time to prepare a full judgment, I felt it was important that S and her parents had a decision as soon as was practicable, and an understanding of my reasons for it. 

 

37.  This judgment, sent to the parties by email, sets out more fully the reasons for the decision I have made, and deals with the local authority’s application for section 91(14) orders.

The law

 

Section 39 Children Act 1989

 

38.  Section 39 provides that a care order may be discharged on the application of any person with parental responsibility for the child, the child or the local authority.  The person who is applying has the burden of showing that the child’s welfare requires the revocation of the order.  The Court must decide the application having regard to the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration (section 1(1) Children Act 1989), and the factors on the welfare checklist set out at section 1(3) of the Act.

 

Section 91(14) Children Act 1989

 

39.  Section 91(14) provides that the Court may order that no application for an order under this Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the Court.

 

40.  In determining such an application, the Court has to carry out a balancing exercise between the welfare of the child, which remains the Court’s paramount consideration, and the right of unrestricted access of her parents to Court.  Guidelines from previous cases, notably Re P (section 91(14) (Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage) [1999] 2 FLR 573, per Butler Sloss LJ, suggest that while the Court has a discretion whether or not to make such an order, having regard to all the circumstances, the power is to be used sparingly and with great care.

The evidence

 

41.  I have read the contents of the main bundle and a disclosure bundle, which includes previous judgments and some assessments from previous sets of proceedings.  I have read and considered a number of statements from father, mother, S and statements and parenting assessments from S’s social worker, CF.  I have read Dr Bailham’s assessment of the father and S, and the guardian’s report.  I have considered two long letters written to me by S and a note of her conversation with me has been circulated to all parties and appears in the bundle. 

 

42.  I heard oral evidence from the father, the mother, Dr Bailham, S’s social worker and the guardian.

Documents from previous proceedings

 

43.  The threshold document, judgment and psychological assessment from the 2012/13 proceedings make for distressing reading.  When the parents were caring for the children together they were found to have no control over any of them.  The children (with the exception of M who presented as withdrawn and isolated) were rude and aggressive to their parents and had been seen to physically attack them.  S had been physically hurt by her brothers in the course of fighting between the siblings.  The father was found to have said abusive things to the children, ‘S, you stink’, that R was ‘evil’ and should be locked up, and that S was ‘a devil child’.  There was a complete lack of respect from the children to their parents, with frequent records of one or the other of the children shouting and swearing at them, using extreme language.  There was little evidence of any affection between any of the children and they were abusive and sometimes cruel to one another.

 

44.  All the children’s basic needs were significantly neglected.  Their diets were poor and they had no table at which to eat.  S’s hair was almost always infested with headlice, she was drinking out of a baby’s bottle aged seven, was described as unkempt and unclean at school and often wearing ill-fitting or inappropriate clothing for weather conditions.  She struggled with enuresis.  Her mattress was described to be urine-soaked and consisting of ‘springs covered with a thin coating of material’.  She had said it was really uncomfortable and she couldn’t sleep on it.  Aged seven, S was sent to stay for three days with a fifty-four-year-old friend of her father’s.  It was alleged that they had shared a bed and he had watched pornography with her.  The local authority had already warned the father that this individual had been assessed as presenting a risk of sexual and physical harm to children, but the father still allowed this visit to take place.

 

45.  The father accepted that he had problems controlling his anger and that he could lash out at his children.  In June 2010 the father stated that he had ‘acted violently and used too much force’ and hurt S’s arm, leaving a mark as a result of S breaking the stair gate.  He was cautioned for the assault.  Both parents separately told Dr Murphy that for most of their relationship they had screamed and shouted at each other on a daily basis.  R, M and S all described to Dr Murphy a constant pattern of domestic conflict between the parents and S described trying to intervene to stop her parents shouting. 

 

46.  His Honour Judge Corrie was very impressed by the clinical psychologist who reported in the case, Dr Murphy; ‘Not only was he to a remarkable degree a master of all the evidence … but he was also extremely perceptive and thorough in the way he went about not only absorbing and interpreting with his expertise as a psychologist the material, much of it undisputed, but the careful analysis he made not only of the parents but of the children in coming to the necessarily bleak conclusion at which he arrived.’

 

47.  Dr Murphy was extremely worried about S’s presentation, and it is upsetting to read his conclusions about her.

 

48.  She described to Dr Murphy that she would become so distressed at home that she would make suicidal gestures in front of her parents, including placing a rolled blanket around her neck and trying to strangle herself, putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate herself and taking a knife which she placed on her wrist and then made several small cuts in her top with stabbing actions of the knife.  She said that all her parents did in response was to remove the knife, reprimand her and then ignore her.  She was nine years old at the time.

 

49.  He described her as suffering ‘considerable fear and anxiety when living at home with her parents’.  Some of this was because of the frequent domestic violence, but she was also afraid because of direct hostility towards her, both from the parents and from her siblings.  Dr Murphy says, ‘she experienced a lack of compensatory affection and nurturing from her parents, causing her to believe that it was all her fault, because she was a ‘bad girl’.  Indeed, she says that her parents have both informed her that the problems at home were her fault, and in observation she evidently worries that her siblings do not like her or miss her.’

 

50.  She was struggling at school, although trying hard to please others.  On one visit her social worker reported finding S standing in the garden and sobbing about school, saying that no-one would play with her and she was being called a ‘big fat smelly whale’.  She told Dr Murphy that the only way she could be happy was to be someone else.  At the time she was excessively overweight and often suffered from nits, and Dr Murphy said this would contribute to her poor sense of self-worth, but,‘the hostility, blame and lack of affection she experienced when living with her family will also have been significant causal factors.’  Dr Murphy found her emotional adjustment to be worrying, and her level of self-blame; she believed she was the cause of her parents’ domestic violence and that she was the reason the children had been removed from their parents.  This sense of guilt, Dr Murphy felt, was one of the primary motives for her wishing to return home; to give her an opportunity to put right the damage she felt she had caused.  He felt this guilt also caused her to feel ashamed and uncomfortable at any pleasure she found with being with her foster carer.  Dr Murphy wrote, ‘In addition to her feelings of fear, unhappiness, rejection and guilt, it is also evident that S is troubled by feelings of anger and resentment for her family.  However, she feels guilty about these feelings, and also believes that they will cause people to like her even less.  So she strives to suppress and deny her anger.’

 

51.  He continued, ‘S very much wants to go home.  However, home life was very unhappy for her, so her current desire to return to her parents is at least in part motivated by a wish to put right damage she believes she has caused to the family, and also because of a wish to leave foster care because she cannot permit herself to accept that she may enjoy life with her foster parents.  Additionally, her desire to return home is also likely to be motivated to some degree by a naïve hope that if she went home, all of the sources of distress that were present there will somehow have spontaneously remitted.’

 

52.  Dr Murphy was clear in his conclusions that the parents required a long period of complex therapy, for around two years. 

 

53.  Dr Murphy was instructed to report again when the father made his first application to the Court for discharge of T’s placement order.  He acknowledged that there had been some improvements so far as the father was concerned, in that he had separated from the mother and was motivated to change and was more confident.  However, Dr Murphy considered the father still required ‘a long period of complex therapy to encourage him to reflect on and overcome his social problems, his problems with emotional avoidance and denial, his problems with anger management, and his problems of poor emotional/stress coping, all of which if not resolved may give rise to further mood and anxiety problems in the future’.  Because he identified the father as exhibiting a marked tendency to deny painful emotions and experiences, to project responsibility for his behaviour onto others, and to adopt a naïve and idealised perspectives of his ability to cope with his emotions and with parenting in the future’, Dr Murphy was not confident about the prognosis for addressing and resolving the father’s psychosocial problems, he assessed it as poor.   

The father

 

54.  The father loves all his children and values his family as the most important thing in his life. 

 

55.  He has shown his commitment to his children by attending a number of parenting courses, and showed some ability to reflect upon the shortcomings of the past.  He recognised to a certain extent the harm that the children suffered when they were in their parents’ joint care, describing the household as ‘loveless’, and he has accepted that the children were exposed to the volatile relationship between him and their mother, and this would have caused them harm.

 

56.  However, the father still has in my judgment a number of significant challenges to meet in parenting his children and in a number of key respects, his evidence failed to convince me that he has the capacity to meet S’s needs. 

 

57.  He said in his evidence that he felt he was doing a ‘very good job’ with R, but it is plain that R presents with very troubled behaviour, that he has done so for many years and his father is completely unable to support him.  R wakes at around four in the afternoon, does not contribute in any way to the household, and there are a great many instances in the records of him taking drugs in the home, and being rude, aggressive and violent towards his grandparents and to the father.  The father has accused him of stealing from him and his grandparents.  By the father’s own admission, R is completely out of his control.  This situation would appear to have been longstanding.

 

58.  The father says he has had no support with the local authority and R has always been the way he is, but it is clear that he has not himself ever had any success in imposing boundaries, and that R’s long-standing behavioural issues and unhappiness were caused by the very poor and destructive parenting he received when in his parents’ care.  The father said by the time R was thirteen he could not persuade him to go to school if he did not want to go, but it would appear that even further back than that, he has been wholly unable to manage R and there has been no improvement at any time since. 

 

59.  I am concerned that the father is unable to set any sort of boundaries around S’s behaviour.  He said a number of times in his witness evidence and oral evidence that if she refused to give him back her phone there was nothing he could do, more generally if she refused to do something then ‘there was no talking her round’, and sometimes it was easier to say ‘okay’ to S rather than straight away say no then deal with her becoming angry.   

 

60.  His evidence about the mobile phone that she was given by both her parents was unconvincing and I do not believe him when he said his intention was for her to have the phone only to use at weekends when she was seeing him.  She already had a phone and it is clear from some of the texts found on this additional phone, that the intention was for S to keep this phone secret from her carers:

 

S to her father: 28.4.18, 10.50 p.m.: ‘I had to do a missing person report because you reported me missing, so I had to say where I went and what I was doing’;

 

Father: ‘I did not know where to put my face when they said about the 4G’

 

S: ‘Oh yeah I know ha ha’

 

Father: ‘I hope they never find it, it will blow everything.  You’ll just have to withhold location when posting things.’

 

61.  This conversation reveals some form of joint intention to mislead about a missing person report; it would appear the father did know where S was when he reported her missing.  They then share a joke which appears to be about the phone and the fact that it this is a shared secret between them.  It is plain that when he told the social worker upon discovery of the phone that S had stolen it from him, he was lying.

 

62.  On 29^th April S texted her mother from the iPhone 6 asking if she had spoken to [staff at place name redacted], the mother replied, ‘no, I haven’t sent them nothing’.  S asked, ‘are you sure?  Are you going to tell them about this phone?’  The mother replied, ‘Yes, I haven’t said two words to them and no I’m not going to say anything about the phone.’  This confirms the shared plan between S and her parents to keep the existence of the phone secret.

 

63.  The contents of other text messages show S asking her father to drop her in various locations to see friends, when the agreement was he would be with her at all times during contact.  She asks him if friends can come over and he agrees, she arranges to meet friends.  On 14^th April she has a conversation with a friend and suggests that her dad will let her have some close friends round for a ‘piss up’.  There are a number of messages in which S arranges to buy cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.  In February 2018 there are a number of messages between her and a 19-year-old boy, including sexting messages, messages agreeing to meet up, a statement from the boy saying he has a criminal record and has spent time in prison, a statement from S that she had fallen pregnant and then had an abortion, and a voice message from the boy threatening the life of a boy at S’s school.

 

64.  There are a number of messages on the phone in which the father undermines the relationship between S and her carers.  He asks S if she has had an argument with her social worker and when S says yes, he says, ‘I don’t like her at all’.  In respect of X, a carer at [place name redacted], he tells S, ‘she needs a personality transplant’, and sends a text with the ‘middle finger up emoji’, saying ‘to X’.  He calls X, a ‘stupid cow’, he says he ‘can’t stand that woman’, ‘X Fanny Fart Face’.  This immature and disrespectful behaviour has also been demonstrated in person; he is unable to model appropriate behaviour to S.  For example, at a meeting on 12^th June 2018 after the phone had been discovered and the plan for supervised contact was discussed, CF reports, and her contemporaneous note records that the father raised his voice and called CF a liar, and disgusting, and eventually the meeting had to be stopped because both the father and S continued to call her vile and disgusting, and to be verbally abusive towards her. 

 

65.  The father’s emotional regulation would appear to continue to be poor.  Although he has attended a number of parenting courses over the years, there is no evidence that he has embarked on the kind of complex therapy identified by Dr Murphy as necessary to enable him to be able to parent any of his children.  The events of Monday evening and Tuesday morning would appear to show his inability to manage his own emotions, with negative consequences for him and S.  He felt the need to share information with S which was completely misleading and led to her becoming very angry and distressed.  He admitted that he had said things he should not have done to his legal representatives in the heat of the moment, but had not appreciated that might lead to their being unable to represent him.   He did not appear to me to have gained any insight or understanding about the need for consistency or clear boundaries as a parent but simply let events run their course; he said there was nothing that could be done to prevent R or S from doing what they wanted and the best thing was to have a discussion about things afterwards and then in effect simply hope that it would not happen the next time.  

 

66.  The father’s interactions with S are more like those of someone who wants to be her friend rather than a parent, but the father has not just sought to undermine S’s placement by encouraging negative comments towards social workers and her carers.  It is clear from the text messages that he has instructed her about what to say during the course of assessments.  On 4^th January 2018, the father said to S, ‘don’t say anything that we’ve been chatting about because it wouldn’t look good’.  On 25^th January he said, ‘please only say good stuff from now on, no stirring or repeat what’s said, it’s so important, and if the social worker says about seeing your mum tell her that I encourage you like I do.  Can you delete these messages?’  On 27^th January he said, ‘told [place name redacted] that all we had was a sandwich, so can you say that when you ask’.  On 21^st February 2018 he suggests that they should do some reading at contact, because ‘it’ll look good’. 

 

67.  Dr Bailham identified in her oral evidence that it was clear from the text messages that S had been coached with respect to what to say when she was assessed, and this undermined her conclusions.  Similarly, the information she gained from conversations with the father about the need to act protectively towards S and the actions he said he would take to ensure she was not exposed to risk through use of her phone, must now be regarded as wholly unreliable. 

The mother

 

68.  She loves S but accepts she cannot provide a home for her.  Their relationship remains fragile and volatile.  She supports S’s wish to go and live with her father and she has expressed concern about the ability of [place name redacted] to keep S safe.  In particular she emphasises that S has been seen to cut herself four or five times while at [place name redacted], and that she is very unhappy there.

 

69.  She did not deny that she would often send a number of texts to the father seeking information.  The father said he found her very difficult to deal with and that he regarded her behaviour as harassing.  Essentially she did not deny the behaviour of which she was accused, but said she was driven to asking for information because she feels out of the loop.

Dr Bailham

 

70.  I was most grateful that having attended on Tuesday and been sent away, Dr Bailham was able to make herself available at very short notice to return to Court the following day to give her evidence. 

 

71.  In her oral evidence she said that the conclusions she had come to when preparing her detailed written report had been based on her impression that the father was committed to working with the local authority, but it had become clear from updating material that he had not been open and honest with professionals and had coached S about what to say to her.  One text message from the father to S says, ‘did you tell her about our complaints and how I’ve been trying and what they’re being like?’

 

72.  Dr Bailham’s firm conclusion was that the father does not have the ability to protect S in a way that a child with her complex presentations needs to be protected.

 

73.  Where before in her report Dr Bailham had identified that S’s strong need to return home was interfering with her ability to settle, she said in oral evidence that the new information shed new light, and she felt that S was probably quite split, it being difficult to form positive relationships with staff because of the messages she was getting from her father. 

 

74.  Dr Bailham’s evidence was clear, supported by the information she had obtained, and well-reasoned.  Her professional opinion chimed very strongly with the evidence of the other professional witnesses and that of assessments from previous proceedings.

CF

 

75.  I found the evidence of CF to be impressive and compelling.  As well as the two statements of evidence filed, she had prepared both an interim and final parenting assessment of the father, with a clear and comprehensive parenting assessment plan.  She had carried out a risk assessment of R, and her contemporaneous notes of meetings found throughout the bundle show her to be meticulous and fair in recording events.  All these documents were thorough, her sources of evidence made clear and her analysis was balanced and fair.

 

76.  When giving her evidence she did not need to refer to documents, but had a very good knowledge and recollection of the details of relevant matters. She has been diligent in investigating various incidents, checking reports made by S or her family, and recorded fairly in her evidence any different accounts, or if an incident was confirmed.  In her oral evidence she held her ground well under cross-examination and I found her to be someone who sympathetically understood the difficult position that S has found herself in, and showed a great deal of insight. 

 

77.  CF has been S’s social worker since the end of last year.  She is very clear that the proceedings have had an enormously detrimental effect on S.  Although she acknowledged that S has repeatedly said that she wants to go home, I found CF’s evidence to be compelling that she has identified much more ambivalence in S.  In her professional opinion, S is much more split in her loyalties.  CF’s supported her views by referring to the following matters:

 

(i)                 That there is a significant difference between S’s and her father’s reports of her unhappiness at [place name redacted] and at school and S’s actual day to day interactions with other girls in the house, staff members and at school, which are generally much more positive.  This can be seen in detailed logs from [place name redacted] and CF’s evidence;

 

(ii)               That S’s father has told her she suffers from depression and anxiety and S now repeats this frequently, but a CAMHS assessment has identified S’s current challenging behaviour as behavioural and not a mental health concern i.e. in CF’s view, more likely to be connected to the pressure she was feeling as a result of the issues brought up by the proceedings, including a sense of feeling conflicted and not knowing how to manage her feelings, than a diagnosed mental health condition;

 

(iii)             That S was well settled at [place name redacted] until the increased contact with her father started and the dream of coming home became an option for her.  This chimed with her own mother’s evidence that it was only when contact started increasing in the early part of 2017 and the parents started attending LAC reviews, that S started expressing a wish to return home;

 

(iv)             that S willingly gave up the password to the secret phone, that she has been open with staff about reporting concerns about visits home for example with R’s behaviour towards her at overnight contact.  Further, that although there have been challenges in managing her behaviour recently, S responds well to the boundaries set for her and engages with one to one discussions with staff members  CF considers this is evidence that S recognises her current carers as able to protect her and has a willingness to work with them that she does not think would exist if S really did only want to be at home;

 

(v)               that the split loyalty in S she has identified in S is strikingly consistent with the conclusions that Dr Murphy reached five years ago, and there is good reason to consider such feelings remain.

 

78.  CF found the father was not open and honest with her.  She was clear, and I accept, that he told her that S had stolen the phone, there was no room for misunderstanding as the father now suggests.  She was also clear that in a discussion with R about Christmas, R had clearly stated he had woken up at home but was then prompted by his father, who reminded him that he had not in fact stayed the night, following which, R said ‘oh’, and agreed that he hadn’t stayed the night. I accept CF’s evidence as a reliable account of the conversation.  S also reported that R had stayed the night but later changed her story.  I find that R did stay the night over Christmas, that the father has not told the truth about it and has deliberately sought to mislead social services and the Court about this.

 

79.  CF has in my judgment carried out a fair and balanced analysis of the realistic options for S, and she acknowledged that there would inevitably be a difficult period for S following these proceedings if told she could not return home.  However, CF was clear that S was receiving a high standard of care from staff at [place name redacted] who know her extremely well, and that there are staff members who she can and does confide in.  CF said that the staff were well able to anticipate S’s moods, and talk through any issues with her, and that S responded well and benefited from the consistency of care provided to her at [place name redacted].  CF’s view is that S would be protected and safeguarded were she to remain at [place name redacted]. 

 

80.  In contrast, her comprehensive parenting assessment of father has led her to conclude that he would not be able to protect her or meet all her needs if she were to return home.

KT

 

81.  Having been involved with S and her siblings from a young age, and three previous sets of proceedings, KT is in an exceptionally good position to advise the Court in this case. 

 

82.  Her report skilfully distils the huge amount of information that KT has amassed and demonstrates her thorough understanding of the issues in the case and the family dynamics.  Her analysis is supported by evidence, and her opinions well-reasoned and authoritative.  I pay close attention to her views which while arrived at independently, again are in line with the weight of professional evidence both in these proceedings and previous ones.

 

83.  She concludes that while she does not doubt the father’s wish to have S returned to his care, she considers that ‘he is not able to fully understand, prioritise or meet the complex needs of caring for S alongside those of R and given the evidence filed, I would not be convinced of his or [the mother’s] ability to work openly and honestly in future with professionals in order to ensure S’s overall needs are met such that she would be safe in his care.’

 

84.  While she notes that S’s expressed wish to return has not wavered, KT considers, ‘there is evidence in my view to suggest that S’s understandable feelings of loyalty towards her father and wider family, her own wish to return home to live with father, combined with feelings of ‘unfairness’ regarding living in care whilst her older brothers are family members, may have been used and manipulated to encourage S to say and behave in ways to support her father’s case.’  In my judgment the evidence does support such a conclusion.

 

85.  Like Dr Bailham, KT also considers that S has an idealistic and unrealistic view that all her problems will be solved if she returns home.  Again, this chimes with a view expressed by Dr Murphy some five years ago. 

Welfare checklist

 

86.  Dealing first with S’s wishes and feelings.  S has now identified all her unhappiness as associated with [place name redacted] and the only solution for her to go home and start a new school.  I am of course concerned that she will be distressed and upset if her wish is refused, and it appears to be a likelihood that there would be an escalation in her distressed and challenging behaviours in response to the father’s application being dismissed. 

 

87.  However, while her voice has been loud and clear, I do accept the evidence that her wishes and feelings are perhaps not so straightforwardly interpreted.  I accept the guardian’s analysis that concludes S has been manipulated and encouraged to express a wish to come home by her father.  I accept her opinion, shared by Dr Bailham and CF, that S is in fact significantly conflicted in her wishes, conflicted in her loyalties, and that this is consistent with a long-standing emotional response to the treatment she received when she lived with her parents, articulated so clearly by Dr Murphy.  It would appear that emotions and behaviours identified by him at that stage are continuing.  S wants to support her father in his wish to have her home and for the family to be mended, but in fact the placement is largely untested and on occasions where she has had overnight contact there have been situations, particularly with R, who has been cruel to her in the past, and which have made her feel nervous and worried.  She is evidently struggling to permit herself to settle in her current placement and feels that it would be disloyal to her family to say anything other than she is very unhappy where she is.

 

88.  As the guardian points out, and again, has been commented upon by Dr Bailham and CF (and noted by Dr Murphy in the earlier proceedings), S presents as idealistic and unrealistic about the notion that all her problems will vanish were she to return home.  This would appear to be a view she shares with or is in part derived from her father; he continued to say that if only the family were together again; R, M (who stays at the weekend but he says will return to his full-time care next year), S and him under one roof, then all R’s problems would resolve, and they could be a happy family again.  This is typical of the father’s stance that all the family’s problems stem from the decision of the local authority to seek to split the family up, rather than taking any responsibility for the reasons that the children were removed from their parents’ care in the first place. 

 

89.  In all the circumstances of this case, I am therefore cautious about the weight that I give to S’s expressed wish to return home.  Notwithstanding she could not have been clearer in what she has said she wants, the position is more nuanced.

 

90.  S will continue to need a great deal of support to ensure that her physical, emotional and educational needs are met.  She needs all her basic care needs met and to be supported in her education.  She needs consistency of care, in particular to be cared for by someone who can set boundaries for her behaviour and help her understand the consequences.  She needs help to identify and understand risk, in particular with respect to how she forms friendships and more intimate relationships, how to build up trust and how to protect herself physically and emotionally.  She needs help, as any teenager does, to earn greater independence and to use new-found freedoms responsibly; to experiment and have new experiences, but within safe limits. 

 

91.  Emotionally, she still has a great deal to process and to understand the experiences she has had in her childhood. 

 

92.  She needs to be afforded the opportunity to have safe and rewarding relationships with her family, but the time spent with them must not undermine her emotional well-being, nor prevent her from forming attachments to others, particularly professionals, who are there to support her and help her.

 

93.  The effect on her of any change in her circumstances has been considered carefully by the professionals in the case.  CF was very clear in her evidence, as was Dr Bailham, that S is likely to be very upset if told she cannot move to her father’s, that she may struggle to understand why and that her recent behaviour which has been challenging to manage, is likely to escalate.  However, CF was clear, and I accept her evidence, that the staff at [place name redacted] know S very well, are extremely experienced in supporting her and would be best placed to help her manage her undoubtedly strong emotions and any dysregulated behaviour that may follow the decision in this case.

 

94.  By contrast, if she were to go and live with her father, while there may be a brief honeymoon period, the overwhelming evidence is that S’s longstanding difficulties will inevitably surface and she will exhibit challenging behaviours in due course.  This can be predicted as in her father’s care during periods of unsupervised contact, she has already been found to form associations with risky individuals, to be exploring with drugs and alcohol in an uncontrolled way, and her father appears unable to offer any form of protection to her.

 

95.  I have taken S’s age, sex, background, and relevant characteristics into account throughout, and in particular in my assessment of her needs.

 

96.  Turning to the questions of any harm which she has suffered or is at risk of suffering, and how capable her parents or any other person to whom the court considers the question is relevant, are of meeting her needs. 

 

97.  I do not accept the position advanced by both parents but perhaps more forcefully by Miss Rodgers on behalf of the mother, that staff at [place name redacted] are not capable of keeping S safe.  Many of the worrying behaviours identified were in fact facilitated by the parents’ actions in giving S a phone and telling her to keep it a secret from her carers.  It was through this phone that she was able to have unsupervised meetings with young people, to obtain drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.  The constant undermining of her trust and sense of belonging at [place name redacted] by her father will also have affected their abilities to care for her.  In the circumstances, I agree with Mr Leong that it is unfair of the parents to criticise others for problems to which they themselves significantly contributed.  While I do not minimise the incidents of self-harm, I accept CF’s evidence that the cuts S has made to her arm with the blade of a pencil sharpener were superficial, and that on each occasion she has been able to discuss the feelings she had with a trained member of staff in a one to one setting, and on other occasions she has disclosed an intention to cut herself but talked through feelings with a staff member, so has been protected. 

 

98.  By contrast, for the reasons given, I do not have any confidence that her father is in a position to safeguard her welfare should she return to his care, and in my judgment it is likely that she would once again suffer significant harm in his care.  She has complex needs which he is unable to understand.  He does not have the parenting capacity to meet her needs.  Although he has made progress in terms of his commitment to S and his ability to show warmth and affection towards her, I have seen little evidence that he is able to protect her from harm, nor to provide her with a basic routine and structure to her life, feed her a healthy diet, manage boundaries, or support her in her education; if she said she did not want to go to school I do not consider he would be able to encourage or tell her to go, nor work with teachers or other professionals to support her.  He has not undergone the intensive therapeutic work identified by Dr Murphy as essential before he could regain the care of even one child.  He has little insight into the effect of his own contribution to the problematic situation in which he finds himself with R, and is unable to take any steps to improve it. 

 

99.  S has a need to process her experiences and understand the reasons she came to be in care.  She will need to reflect upon the parenting she has been given both as a young child and more recently.  She cannot do so if she continues to be in the care of her father, who in my judgment is unable to accept responsibility for the consequences of the care he has provided and has imposed a new narrative upon her, which is that the local authority was responsible for the separation of the family and continues to wish for S to be separated because social workers just don’t like them.  It is unrealistic and unhelpful for him to continue to suggest to S, as I have no doubt that he believes, that if the family were reunited, all her unhappiness would go away. 

 

100.                      I worry that like her father S idealises her return home, and believes that all her problems will be resolved, but I think she massively underestimates how difficult it would be to be raised in a household where there is effectively no parental guidance, and she would be responsible for guiding herself to adulthood.

 

101.                      The father is responsible for R full-time and M at weekends.  It is his intention for M to return to his care full-time next year.  M has special needs.  It is wholly unrealistic of the father to be able to give S the attention she needs if caring for R and M as well.  He said that R could move out if necessary, but R has nowhere else to go, and even on his own evidence, the father could not prevent him continuing to return to the house over Christmas.  In any event, the father’s wish is to have everyone together, and even after very difficult situations when he has said he wanted R to leave, he has not followed through.  S and R have spent little time together and he has said some exceptionally cruel things to her in the past and more recently, when he assaulted her.  His father is unable to manage his behaviour and it seems likely that S would be exposed to frequent arguments between R and his father.  She would in my judgment find it very difficult to live in such a household.

 

102.                      Considering the range of orders available to the Court and bearing in mind that the Court should not make any order unless doing so would be better for S’s welfare than not.  I have considered whether a supervision order would provide the father with adequate support to enable him to care for S at home.   In my judgment the risks of harm to her and the deficits in his basic parenting skills are too great.  A supervision order could not provide S with the necessary level of protection.  In any event, because the father has not been open and honest with the local authority there are serious doubts as to whether the father would be able to work openly and co-operatively with the local authority in S’s interests. 

 

103.                      If the care order were to be discharged, S’s parents would share parental responsibility for her.  While her mother has said that she would leave the main decisions to the father she also made clear in her witness statement that she would expect to be consulted, and she has accepted that when she feels out of the loop she can be persistent in seeking information.  The father has described her behaviour in this respect as harassing and difficult for him to manage.  I would be very concerned that S would be at risk of being exposed to conflict between the two of them if she were to return home.  I do not consider the father would be able to supervise contact between S and her mother without creating a risk of S being exposed to conflict between the parents.

Conclusions

 

104.                      I have regard to all the evidence I have read and heard and all the factors on the welfare checklist.  I acknowledge the distress and disappointment that S will feel at not having her wishes acceded to, my clear conclusion is that her welfare requires that I do not discharge the care order, and that S remains in the care of the local authority throughout her minority. 

 

105.                       I do not doubt the father’s love for S but unfortunately the application he has made appears to have caused a great deal more harm than good, unnecessarily raising S’s hopes of the possibility of living in a family environment, and turning her against those who are caring for her, so that she has become less settled in her present home.

 

106.                      Balancing the harm that she will suffer as a result of the application being refused, and acknowledging that there is likely to be a deterioration in her behaviour and presentation as a result, against the harm that she will suffer if she were to return home, in my judgment it is clear that she is at much greater risk of harm were she to go and live with her father.  There is a good prospect of challenging behaviours being managed in an environment run by professional carers, who know S very well, in whom she does confide and who she trusts to share her fears and concerns.  The job of the professional carers will be easier in circumstances where the proceedings have come to an end and she no longer has in her possession a secret phone, as their work will not be undermined by different messages coming to her from her father, and she will not be able to contact risky individuals or arrange to engage in risky behaviour in the way she did when she had the phone. 

 

107.                      By contrast, for the reasons given, if she returns home she will also continue to present with challenging behaviours, but her father would not be able to protect her from harm in his care.   Were she to return to him she would in my judgment suffer much greater harm than if she remained in the care of the local authority.

 

108.                      I have had regard to the views of the professionals in this case.  The evidence is overwhelming and does not support the father’s case. 

Contact

 

109.                      No party is seeking a contact order or advocating a change to the existing contact arrangements, which will continue to be overseen by S’s independent reviewing officer and at regular LAC review meetings.  However, I note and endorse the guardian’s comments:

 

‘Given the current difficulties between the parents and professionals in relation to S, there will be challenges ahead in how mutual trust might be rebuilt in order for a co-operative approach to be possible in S’s best interests.’

 

110.                      KT considers that careful consideration will need to be given to the appropriate level of contact for S so as not to further disrupt her relationship with her carers.  S must be permitted and encouraged by her family to settle in her placement.  If the father uses the contact that he has with S in a way that seeks to undermine the stability and security of her placement, then it is highly likely that the contact would be reduced.  

Section 91(14)

 

111.                      In his first report, Dr Murphy was clear that it would not be in S’s best interests to return to her parents’ care until and unless they had completed the extensive therapy he recommended.  He considered it was a likelihood that if S were to return to live with her parents her already fragile social and emotional well-being would be further eroded.  He then said,

 

‘Unfortunately, even if the parents are to complete therapy, the duration of over 24 months is outside S’s timescale.  This is because in view of S’s considerable social and emotional fragility, she will struggle to attach adequately to her new carer if she believes this is short term.  In this regard, we cannot leave this child in limbo for over two years.  Instead, it is important that she is provided with a sense of permanence, from which she can begin to build a secure relationship with her new carers.  So we need to place this child in the very near future, in a home setting which she believes to be permanent.  It would subsequently be very damaging, having permitted the child to establish a close social and emotional bond with her new carer (and one which she will have believed is permanent) to then tear her away from this in the future to be returned to her parents (i.e. if the parents successfully complete therapy).’

 

112.                      In the subsequent set of proceedings, Dr Murphy remained of the view that even having separated from the mother and having made some progress, the father still needed to undergo around two years of complex therapy, and without it, even a single child placed in his care remained at risk of social and emotional harm. 

 

113.                      In her report, KT concludes that this second application brought by the father in respect of S, and the actions of the father in undermining S’s placement and stability ‘has had a seriously detrimental impact on her’:-

 

‘I consider the evidence filed to date along with my own observations/interactions with S confirm the detrimental emotional impact this application and process overall has had on her, particularly on her emotional wellbeing.  Further S has been exposed to negative comments from her family about professionals which has undermined her confidence in them and impacted negatively on her overall stability and ability to engage positively with professionals wanting to support her.  In my view these matters have adversely affected S’s general health and wellbeing, her behaviours, her stability in placement and her ability to focus on her education at such a crucial time. …

 

Any future applications are likely to place S under considerable emotional strain again and have a seriously detrimental impact on her generally, her ability to settle into placement and to engage with her education.  S needs protection from the prospect of being the subject of and embroiled in further proceedings.’

 

114.                      A similar view is set out clearly by CF in her parenting assessment and final evidence, which I found to be well-reasoned and persuasively argued.

 

115.                      I have read and considered the guidance provided in Re P (section 91(14) (Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage) [1999] 2 FLR 573.

 

116.                      I note that this power should be used sparingly and is generally to be seen as a tool of last resort in cases of repeated and unreasonable applications.  I note however that a court may impose the restriction in cases where the welfare of the child requires it, although there is no past history of making unreasonable applications. 

 

117.                      The facts in this case do in my judgment go well beyond a simple need for S to settle into a regime ordered by the Court; S’s welfare has been significantly and adversely impacted by the application and her father’s manipulation of her, and I am satisfied that if another application were made to the Court she would once again suffer to a considerable degree.

 

118.                      While an order does impose a restriction on a party’s ability to bring proceedings it does not create an outright bar; it simply imposes the requirement of obtaining the Court’s permission before a whole new set of proceedings is launched.

 

119.                      In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that S’s welfare requires me to make a section 91(14) order stating that no further application in respect of S may be made without leave of the court.  Although the mother has not independently applied to the Court, she has supported the father in his applications and I am satisfied in all the circumstances that the restriction should apply to her as well as to him. 

 

120.                      The period of time suggested is just over two years, to August 2020, in order to allow S to complete her GCSE course without further disruption and emotional upheaval, and I also note this was the period of time that Dr Murphy felt was needed for therapy, although his clear view was that even once the therapy had been undergone it would not be appropriate for S then to be returned to the care of either parent.  I do have some concern that it was suggested on behalf of the mother that once S was sixteen she would be allowed home or would not be able to be prevented from coming home, whereas I am clear on the evidence before me that her need to remain separated from her family and in the care of the local authority is likely to persist well beyond her sixteenth birthday, to adulthood.  I worry that the parents may regard the imposition of a two-year time limit as an invitation to apply to the Court once it has expired.  I do not consider that this would be in S’s interests as she needs a sense of permanence and be given permission to settle.  However, I balance against that the need for the parents to have access to the Courts during the few remaining years of S’s minority.

 

121.                      In all the circumstances I consider there should be a section 91(14) order providing that neither parent may apply to the Court for an order in respect of S without leave of the Court until 30^th August 2020.

 

 

Joanna Vincent

 

Decision given: 19^th July 2018

Draft judgment sent by email: 21^st July 2018

Judgment handed down: 25^th July 2018

 

 

HHJ Vincent

Family Court, Oxford

 

 

 

ANNEX 1: Letter to S

The Family Court sitting at Oxford 

St Aldates 

Oxford 

OX1 1TL 

19th July 2018 

Dear S, 

Thank you very much for coming to see me in Court, it was a pleasure to meet you. I was very impressed by the way you were able to tell me your wishes and feelings and all the reasons for them. I thought both your typed letter and your handwritten letter to me were well written, and set out your views very clearly. I was pleased to know that a decision was made that you could have your own lawyer at the hearing, and I can tell you that the barrister who came to Court to represent you was very good at arguing your case for you. 

Since I met you, I have been thinking about you a lot. It made me feel very sad to see you so unhappy, and I have been worrying a great deal about what would be the best way to help and support you. 

I know that you, your dad and your mum are sure that the only thing that will make life better for you is being allowed to go home to your dad. 

All this week at the Court hearing I have listened carefully to all the people who came to tell me what they thought would be best for you. I heard from your dad and your mum, and also from Dr Bailham, CF and KT. I have also read a lot of information about you and your family going back many years to when you were very young. 

I have learned that you have had a really difficult childhood. I think that you should feel very proud of yourself that after all you have been through, you have grown into a strong young woman who wants to do well in your GCSEs, and who had the courage to come to Court and tell me what you wanted to happen. 

I can see also that your dad loves you with all his heart. He wants you to be happy and he wants you to come home. 

However, I am sorry to tell you I do not think your dad would be able to look after you in the way I think you need and deserve to be cared for. I have therefore decided that you should not go home, but should remain in the care of the local authority. 

I know that right now the only thing you want is to go home, and I am sorry that I was not able to make that happen for you. I know that it will be very hard for you, as well as for your dad and your mum. However, I have thought carefully about this and I am sure that it is the right decision for you. 

I hope it may help you a little bit if I can explain the reasons for my decision. 

Your dad has worked really hard to make changes in his life. It is because he loves you so much that he has worked so hard. But even though he has made some positive changes, I do not think he has been able to show that he would be able to look after you. 

His relationship with R is difficult. R has a lot of problems in his life and I think many of them are because of the way he was looked after by your dad and your mum when he was younger. Your dad has tried hard with him but his behaviour is still a big worry. I think it would be very hard for you to live in a house with your dad and with R. 

Your dad really loves you and wants the best for you, but that means that he finds it difficult to say no to you. I am sure you think you are old enough to make your own decisions, like what you can do with your time, or how late you can stay out, who to be friends with, or whether you can drink alcohol at parties. Although you are very mature in many ways, I do not think that you are old enough to decide about all those things for yourself. I think it is very important that you live with a carer who is very clear about rules or boundaries and the consequences for breaking them. 

This is not because I want you to have a hard time or no fun in your life, but if there are clear rules then you can be kept safe, and you also feel safe, because you always know what to expect from your carer.  As you become an adult, you may find you want to live a ‘normal’ life - finishing your education, having a job and socialising with friends.  To do this, you need to have had good practice at following rules and routines in your childhood. If you have not been used to that, life can be quite confusing and difficult. 

People can get cross with you if you are unable to live by the same rules as them, and they like you more if you can.  It can be very lonely if you choose to live by your own rules, because you cannot always join in with the things other people are doing, like having a job, or making lasting friendships and having successful relationships. I do not think your dad is able to help you with this, because he doesn’t always know what rules or boundaries to set, and he does not like to upset you by saying no. I think part of R’s difficulties are because your dad has not been able to help him with this, and I think it would be the same for you if you were at home. 

I do not think your dad is able to keep you safe. In the past, when you were a little girl, there were times when you were put in real danger by your mum and your dad. Your dad is really sorry for how he treated you in the past.  He has said he wants to do better and I believe him when he says he wants to.  However, I do not think he would actually be able to.  Giving you the iPhone 6 and keeping it a secret with you was a sign that he does not understand the dangers that teenagers like you face.  It is clear from what was on the phone that you were in danger and because the phone was not known about by those who were caring for you, you could not be protected.  I am of course very glad that you have not come to any serious harm, but I am afraid that I do not think your dad would have been able to protect you if you did. 

The other problem with the phone is it shows your dad has been saying mean things about social workers and the people looking after you, and telling you how to be with them.  This was really unhelpful.  I think it has made it much harder for you to settle at [place name redacted].  I understand that your dad only wants to show you that he is on your side and that he is fighting for you, but I think he would have been much better to try and encourage you to see the positives and help you to settle.  If you went home, I worry that he would not be able to encourage you, say if you were finding it difficult at school.  Although you say you will do better in your GCSEs if you were living at home, I honestly do not think that you and your dad are being realistic about the challenges you would face.  If things got difficult, I do not think your dad would be able to work with teachers, social workers or other professionals to help. 

I think your dad has created a dream for you that everything will be perfect at home.  I agree there would be some good things for you if you did go home.  Most of all, you would see your dad every day, you would be living in a family home, and could see your brothers, your mum and your grandparents.  However, I do not agree that going home will be the thing that solves all the difficulties you feel you have in your life right now. 

I have listened very carefully to what you, your dad and your mum have said, but after considering the views of the professional witnesses and looking at all the evidence in the case, I am sorry to say that, even though I know it is not what you wanted, for these reasons I have decided you should stay at [place name redacted]. 

I would like to make it clear that I do not think you have done anything wrong and that it is not your fault that you are living in the care of the local authority. 

Even though you will be living apart from your dad, your mum and your brothers, you will always be part of the same family, and you will always love each other.  The local authority understands this and will be arranging for you to continue to spend time regular time with your dad, mum and other family members, as you do at the moment. 

I would like to wish you the very best for the future. 

With my best wishes, 

Joanna Vincent 

 

Her Honour Judge Vincent, 

The Family Court, Oxford