AT WEST LONDON
Gloucester House, 4 Dukes Gren Avenue Feltham, TW14 0LR |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
The London Borough of Hounslow |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
The Mother ("CO") The Father ("MT") The Child ("L") (by his Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
____________________
Ms Janine Sheff (instructed by Reena Ghai Solicitors) for the First Respondent
Mr Stuart Whitehouse (instructed by MK Law) for the Second Respondent
Mr Stephen Lue (instructed by Creighton and Partners) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 7, 18-20 December 2018
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
His Honour Judge Willans:
i) In section A I set out the material I have considered in reaching my decisionii) In section B I summarise the relevant legal principles
iii) In section C I note such relevant background information as is required to understand this judgment
iv) In section D I summarise the key evidence which assisted me in reaching my decision
v) In section E I provide my analysis and conclusions.
A. Introduction
B. Legal Principles
(2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—
(a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him
C. Background Information[1]
D. Outline of Evidence
E. Analysis and Conclusions
a) There are benefits to L of being in the primary care of his mother. This would be the option of least change and permit L to remain with his primary carer throughout his life. It would avoid the emotional trauma of separation and placement with his fatherb) Against this sits the significant concern as to CO's unresolved PD issues with the associated likelihood of future emotional harm. It is difficult to have confidence as to the prospect of success of any therapeutic process and the timescales for the same would leave L in his mother's care for a sustained period during which she would undoubtedly find herself emotionally challenged. On the available evidence she would likely respond negatively in such circumstances and this would likely have a significantly harmful impact on L. I doubt the availability of appropriate support to safeguard L during such times.
c) Placement with MT would likely permit a more settled parenting environment. It would enable L to retain a relationship with his mother whilst she progresses on her journey towards improved mood regulation. It is agreed MT can meet L basic needs and it is agreed he has a commitment to his son.
d) The negatives of this outcome are reflective of the points raised at 62(a) above – particularly the impact of separation from CO.
Note 1 I have been working from the digital bundle. This comprises two separate pdf documents. The second document relates to the previous (2015) proceedings. To avoid confusion when referring to this bundle I will add the preface ‘K’ so that for example ‘A39’ become ‘K A39’ [Back]