England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD

CASE NO: OX20C00160

9^th august to 11^th august 2021

Before

Her Honour Judge Owens

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

OCC v B & V

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Ms Clelland, Counsel, for OCC

Ms Bush, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother, M

Mr Jeakings, Counsel, for the Second Respondent Father, F

Ms James, Counsel, for the Third & Fourth Respondents A & B acting through their Children’s Guardian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

This judgment is being handed down [in private] on 11^th August 2021. It consists of     24 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The Judge has given permission for the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties and the child will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.     

 

Introduction, Background and Evidential Summary

 

This is the final hearing of the Local Authority's applications for Care Orders in relation to A and B, and for a Placement Order in respect of B.  M and F are the parents of A and B.  Paternity in relation to B was initially questioned, but DNA testing in February of this year confirmed that F is his father (E6-E9).

 

Proceedings commenced on 30^th December 2021 when the care applications were issued.  The children were made subject to interim care orders on 7^th January 2021.  A is currently in the care of his paternal grandmother and paternal step-grandfather where he has been since proceedings began.  B is in foster care.  As set out in the initial social work statement (C1-24) concerns about the parents related to their volatile relationship, chaotic lifestyle, substance misuse and poor mental health.  Initially B was placed with M in a mother and baby foster care placement.  Sadly, this placement broke down on 4^th March 2021, at which point B joined his brother A in the care of his paternal grandparents.  However, this placement was not sustainable and on 17^th March 2021 B moved to foster care.

 

A psychological assessment of both parents was ordered.  On 22^nd April 2021 Dr Shenoy reported and the full report can be found at E10-47.  Dr Shenoy was asked further questions in clarification and his addendum report addressing those questions, dated 2^nd August 2021, can be found at E61-66.  M failed to co-operate with the psychological assessment, but F did co-operate.  Dr Shenoy’s conclusions about F were that he had difficulties in regulating his emotions, some features of emotionally unstable personality disorder (though he did not meet the criteria for a definite diagnosis), and that he continued to present with emotionally dysregulated responses including angry verbal outbursts and attacks when triggered and that he thus continued to pose a risk to his children.  Dr Shenoy recommended that F should engage in ADHD assessment, engage with Turning Point to achieve and maintain abstinence from cannabis use, engage with CBT to manage his anger and emotional dysregulation if these remained issues after the first two recommendations, and attend a domestic abuse course.  Dr Shenoy clarified in his addendum report that the work that F needed to do could not be undertaken whilst the children were in his care and any work would need to be completed and sustained for a period of a year to ensure that effective change had been achieved.

 

In respect of M, Dr Shenoy gave an opinion on the papers that she had a “history of depressive disorder and is currently being treated with antidepressant medication.  She also presents with an avoidant and compulsive personality type, paranoid and negative personality style, low self-esteem which will affect her interpersonal relations resulting in loneliness and maintain her difficulties” (E12).

 

Parenting assessments were also ordered, but again M did not engage with this.  The assessment of F is at C78-92 and concluded that it was not possible to return either A or B to his care.

 

The paternal grandmother and step-grandfather were positively assessed as Special Guardians for A on 17^th May 2021 (C41-77) but were sadly unable to care for B as noted earlier.

 

M put forward her mother as a possible alternative carer at the IRH on 21^st July 2021 before a District Judge.  As a result, the Local Authority carried out a viability assessment of the maternal grandmother, D.  The results of that assessment were negative (C157-C167), and the assessment served upon the maternal grandmother on 6^th August 2021.  At the commencement of this final hearing, M sought to advance a case that the maternal grandmother should be subject to a full assessment.  As a result, the start of the final hearing was delayed to permit her to file a statement from the maternal grandmother setting out why D disputed the conclusions in the viability assessment and why D had not sought to put herself forward earlier as an alternative carer.

 

In the course of this final hearing, I have read the Bundle and heard evidence from the allocated social worker and maternal grandmother.

 

Parties’ Positions

 

The Local Authority seeks a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) in respect of A in favour of his paternal grandparents.  They seek a final Care Order and Placement Order for B.  They amended their final care plans (D67-76 for A and D77-85 for B) to allow for the Guardian’s recommendations about contact and to reflect the fact that their carers will be encouraged to develop their sibling relationship by promoting face to face contact even if adoption is the outcome for B.

 

Both parents have made the brave but no doubt difficult decisions to accept that they cannot care for either A or B themselves.  However, their cases about B are different.

M agrees with the making of an SGO for A and agrees with the contact that is proposed in the final care plan for him.  In respect of B, she wants placement with the maternal grandmother to be explored further with a full kinship assessment by the Local Authority.  She also wants a friend to be assessed as a potential carer for B.

 

F also agrees with an SGO for A.  He does not accept that the maternal grandmother should be assessed as a possible kinship carer for B.  He accepts the final care plan for B, a decision which is also very brave and no doubt very difficult for him, but for understandable reasons cannot consent to the making of a Placement Order.

 

The Guardian supports the making of an SGO for A, does not support any further assessment of D, or another alternative carer at this late stage, and also recommends that B should be subject to a Care Order and Placement Order.

 

Relevant legal considerations

 

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 regarding threshold, I have considered the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of that Act and had regard to the article 8 rights of the parents and the children.  I have also had regard to the article 6 rights of all concerned, not least in relation to the wholly remote hearing that I undertook by consent of all concerned to conclude this case.  I have also considered the options for the children applying the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.  As there is an application for a Placement Order in respect of B, I have also had regard to the welfare checklist set out in section 1(4) of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 in considering that application.

Findings

 

The threshold findings sought by the Local Authority dated 10^th August 2021 are set out at Appendix A to this judgment and are agreed between the parties.  I have considered the unchallenged evidence in the Bundle regarding threshold and agree that these findings are made out on that evidence and therefore adopt the threshold document as my threshold findings in this case.

 

All parties are also in agreement with the proposed Special Guardianship Order for A in favour of his paternal grandparents, and those paternal grandparents also agree with this and the proposed SGO support plan (C112-127).  Again, having reviewed the unchallenged evidence filed in the Bundle in relation to A, I also agree that an SGO meets his welfare needs and is necessary and proportionate so will grant that order.

 

The issue in dispute is one of welfare, and specifically whether adoption is the only realistic option remaining for B and whether his welfare demands that the consent of his parents to the making of a Placement Order be dispensed with.  The case advanced by M is that adoption is not the only remaining realistic option for B because her mother, the maternal grandmother, cannot be ruled out and should be subject to a full kinship assessment as I have noted earlier.  M is therefore asking me to adjourn this final hearing so that D can be subject to a full connected persons assessment.  At this final hearing, M also asks me to adjourn to allow a friend of hers to be assessed.  She has not put forward this person earlier in the proceedings, and the explanation she gave for this is that she has felt reticence about discussing her situation with anyone.

 

There are some initial factual disputes raised by D in relation to the viability assessment of her.  The first of these is how long the social worker spent with D undertaking the viability assessment, and therefore by implication whether the negative conclusion is as a result of not being thorough enough in this initial screening assessment.  D’s evidence, both in her written statement (C169 para 2) and in her oral evidence to me, was that the assessment took between 30-45 minutes.  She did not agree with the social worker’s oral evidence to me that she spent around an hour and 10 minutes with D for the assessment.  I found the social worker to be the more credible witness about this.  She gave me clear and compelling evidence about the time that she had intended to arrive for the appointment (namely 10am), that she got lost and was late arriving but didn’t message her manager to say she had finished until 11.30am.  She also told me that the amount of information recorded in the assessment itself was an indication of how long she took with D, something that is also clear to me.  Whilst I have no doubt that perhaps D felt as if the social worker could have spent longer with her, I am satisfied on balance of probability that the social worker did spend around an hour and 10 minutes conducting the viability assessment and that this in turn gave ample time for all of the issues that need to be covered in such an initial assessment to be covered.

 

The second issue is around whether D could and should have come forward earlier to be assessed as a possible kinship carer for B, and this links to her understanding about whether she could do this.  Of course, this also links to the fact that M had an obligation to put forward any alternative carers that she wanted to be assessed, just as the Local Authority in care proceedings has a duty to explore alternative kinship carers as far as it is able.  In this case, it doesn’t seem to be in dispute that in December 2020 social services were refused access to D’s house during a visit by them to try to assess where A would be sleeping and how she would manage if A were to be placed in her care (C19 initial social work statement).  What D said about this in her oral evidence (her written statement doesn’t address this) is that it was due to Covid that she didn’t want people in her house.  In her written statement she said that she did put herself forward to be assessed at the beginning of these court proceedings but that she was told by the then allocated social worker that she couldn’t be assessed as she “had too much on my plate already looking after (her partner) who was terminally ill so I thought I couldn’t have an assessment then.  I always said that I wanted to be assessed” (C169 D statement).  D’s oral evidence about the visit in December 2020 was also slightly bizarre in that she told me that the local authority would want two social workers “and maybe the police to do an assessment on me”.  She then made reference to there being TAF (Team Around the Family) meetings taking place after that and that she put herself forward to care for B at those meetings.  I do understand that D was caring for her terminally ill partner and that her concerns about his risk from Covid may well have meant that she was very concerned about anyone coming into her property.  What is strange is that, despite this, she did not pursue any contact with B after 31^st March 2021 when she agrees that she last saw B.  I know that dealing with her partner’s illness and subsequent death on 3^rd May this year will have been incredibly difficult for her but, allowing for this, there is simply no credible evidence that she either pursued assessment between the visit in December 2020 and the IRH when M put her forward or pursued maintaining a relationship with B through contact with him.  On balance, I found the social work evidence about her having refused entry and refused assessment to be more credible in light of this.  It may well have been driven by the other competing demands on her time and emotions caused by her partner’s illness and caring for her other three children living with her but, in my view, this calls into question how committed D actually is to being a carer for B.  It also means that she has no relationship with B at present.

 

There is also the issue around whether D understood that the viability assessment of her was negative.  D’s evidence about this was that she didn’t understand that she had “failed” the assessment, though she accepted that the social worker had hand delivered the assessment and a letter explaining the outcome by hand to her on Friday 6^th August, as well as a list of solicitors and suggested that she consider seeing a solicitor.  I’m afraid that D lacked credibility in her evidence about this since it was clear that she had had several sources of information about the outcome of the assessment - the assessment itself, the accompanying letter, and the social worker herself - but still said she thought she was going to be fully assessed.  In addition, the social worker was credible when she told me that what D said on 6^th August to her was that she accepted the outcome and would not be going to see solicitors as a result.  As the social worker told me in her evidence, this does make one wonder if D was subject to some pressure from M about her decision over the weekend.

 

The next aspect I have considered is whether a full kinship assessment of her is justified to fill any gap in the evidence about realistic options for B and would therefore be the sort of purposeful delay that Ms Bush on behalf of M submitted would be required in B’s welfare interests.  The Local Authority and the Guardian point to the concerns about D identified in the viability assessment and her oral evidence to me as reasons to conclude that a full kinship assessment would be likely to have a negative outcome.  Those concerns are as follows: practical considerations about her housing including over-crowding and stability issues; health issues; minimisation of previous concerns about her adult children; failure to understand the risks posed by her older children towards children in her care including B if placed with her; lack of understanding of the impact on the children living with her of having B live with them; and on top of this her absence during the proceedings leading to questions about her commitment to caring for B.

 

The viability assessment of D is not wholly negative.  There are some clear strengths or positive aspects noted about D.  It is noted that D is close to all her grandchildren, expressed clear commitment to caring for B into adulthood (C158), was clearly aware of practical safety requirements in the home (C160), as well as the need to promote development and learning for children (C160).  It was also noted that D was in the process of rehoming her dog as this could pose a risk to small children due to it being very “bouncy”, and that her neighbourhood seems to be one that offers lots of shops and services nearby as well as being relatively quiet (C161).  It was also noted by the social worker that “D engaged well with me during this assessment.  She was open about her current involvement with children’s services and reflective on the impact of the children’s father passing away on her family’s current situation…Her responses remained very child-focused throughout our session.  D was mindful of the impact of M and F’s relationship on emotional well-being of the children, and keen for that to never take place again” (C164).  

 

The question for me is whether these positive aspects are outweighed by the concerns identified to the extent that it makes it unlikely that a full assessment would be positive.  If the answer to this question is that a full assessment is not likely to be positive, then there is no gap in the evidence and the delay in obtaining that full assessment would not be purposeful delay in this case.

 

It was acknowledged by Ms Clelland on behalf of the Local Authority and Ms James for the Guardian that the issues around housing were not insurmountable, similarly that the concerns around D’s health were also not themselves a barrier to considering her as a potential kinship carer for B.  However, as Ms James rightly pointed out, they are part of what seems to be a far from straight-forward picture about D and form part of the overall concerns about her.

 

More fundamentally, the issues around D’s understanding of the risks posed by her adult children and her acknowledgement and understanding of historic concerns about her parenting, are the real concerns, I find.  It was painfully clear from what D said in the viability assessment, as well as from her written statement and oral evidence, that she simply does not acknowledge or understand why her older children were subject to Child Protection Plans for about two years.  She told me that they were only on the Plans for as long as they were because of frequent changes of social workers and because of her former partner smacking them.  However, that completely ignores the fact that she also told me that the frequent complaints of physical abuse by their father that her children made, as well as complaints of domestic abuse, arose simply because the children were “fighting with their father” and “did it to get their own flat”.  Given the lengthy history of significant concerns about the family, many of which were also about the lack of ability on the part of D to protect the children from domestic abuse inflicted by their father, the social work and Guardian’s assessment of this as minimisation is an accurate one, I find.  

 

The complete absence of any acceptance by D of her own responsibility for any of the abuse that her children were subjected to as a result of her decisions as a parent is also striking.  Given the significant concern about domestic abuse in relation to M and F in this case, any potential carer for B should not be starting from such a lack of insight about this, I find, because they would be therefore less likely to be able to protect B from any domestic abuse as a result.  D also failed to disclose this history of domestic abuse to the social worker during the viability assessment (C162). D tried to say that she had not been asked about this and the history of social services involvement or not asked enough follow-up questions.  Yet the social worker provided clear and compelling evidence about attempting to explore this with D at the time, as well as noting D’s answers to the questions.  D also gave me very concerning evidence about her former partner only “smacking” the children in the past although also acknowledging in her written statement that he could be very controlling of her (C170). D told me that there were large files on her held by social services which the social worker should have looked at - a curious abdication of responsibility on D’s part in my view and one that also highlights how extensive her history is with social services. On balance, I am afraid I have to conclude that the reason D did not go into detail about previous concerns was not because she was not asked about them and given opportunity to disclose relevant information but because she thinks that her older children “exaggerated” (C16 and in oral evidence to me), does not accept that she was herself subjected to domestic abuse if her partner was controlling, and simply does not acknowledge the reality of what happened in her home whilst her children were in her care and that of her partner.

 

In addition, there is the very troubling aspect about D’s adult son C and any insight she has about risks that he may pose to any child in her care.  It is not in dispute that she told the social worker during the viability assessment that C was not allowed inside her house and had to ring her before coming over to the house (C159), nor that during the assessment he came into the house unannounced.  What was very striking about D’s evidence on this aspect was that she really could not see the apparent contradiction in saying on the one hand that C was not allowed into the house but clearly was able to simply turn up and go into the kitchen to help himself to a drink of water and then go back outside, but on the other that he was not allowed to go into the house at all.  What the social worker described was C being completely comfortable with going into the house, something that makes D's evidence about him never being allowed in less credible.

 

It was also striking that D accepted in her oral evidence to me that, despite knowing about C’s own mental health issues and that he “can get angry and shout” (C170 para 8), she is very clear both in her written statement and to me that it is social services who think he is a risk, but she really does not see him as a risk.  Combined with the finding that she is not really able to keep him from going into the property, this leads me to conclude that the social worker was right to record this as a legitimate concern about D’s ability to protect any child in her care from C.

 

As was submitted by both Ms Clelland and Ms James in closing, D would also have to be able to act to ensure that neither M nor F posed a risk of harm to B.  It was said by Ms Bush in closing that of course D does not fully understand the concerns about M and F because she has not been privy to all the documents in these proceedings.  It is true that she certainly will not have had this detailed information, but she of course knows both M and F well, has seen their behaviour with each other and with other people and had the opportunity to discuss these issues with the social worker during the viability assessment too.  I am satisfied that her failure to grasp the risks posed by M and F is not due to any lack of knowledge but rather due to lack of insight on her part about the risks that they pose.  In turn, this would make her ability to safely manage contact between B and M and F questionable to say the least.  On top of which, as Ms Clelland for the Local Authority explored in her cross examination, and the social worker pointed out in her evidence, there are likely to be concerns about her ability to promote contact between B and his parents due to her history of falling out with them (see also for example C18 in the initial social work statement noting the sometimes very fraught relations between M and her maternal family including D).

 

The third area of significant concern is about the impact on D’s household of B potentially being placed in her care, and what this may mean for B’s welfare as a result.  It is not in dispute that D is caring for 3 other children who range in age from 10 to 15 years old.  One of those 3, E, has an enhanced level of need and, as D told me in her oral evidence, “sometimes he will shout or slam a door.  We are working with Respectful Families and Safe about that.  E does get physical at times, sometimes he will hit, sometimes he will hit his little sister.  I do think that might pose a risk to a young baby.  The impact on (him) of having another baby in the house, I think that will be positive, every time he sees my other grandchildren it is always positive”.  It is not disputed that currently D is meeting the needs of the 3 children living with her.  However, as the social worker noted in the viability assessment this is with the help of Early Help Services (C164-C165).  The social worker’s oral evidence to me about this also pointed out that D is the single mother of 3 children and requires the support of the Local Authority to meet their needs.  Whilst this doesn’t in itself mean that she couldn’t potentially meet the needs of B too, the social worker pointed out that B is a very young baby which in itself brings additional pressures because that alone would mean that D would need to spend a lot more time attending to his needs.  She was also very clear that, in her view, D had not adequately considered the implications of B joining her household in terms of the additional pressures upon D and what this would mean for her other children and for B.  Having read the viability assessment, D’s statement and heard her oral evidence, I am afraid that I have also concluded that D has not really thought about the implications of B coming to live with her and her other children.  She very clearly wants to prevent B being placed outside of his family if possible, and it is very clear that family means a lot to her (she frequently talked about how supportive she was of her whole family, and this is not a disputed fact in this case).  However, the evidence about E’s behaviour at times, the level of support D requires at present from the Local Authority to meet the needs of the 3 children currently living with her, and the fact that she had earlier struggled with the understandable pressure of coping with her terminally ill partner on top, does lead me to conclude that there would be significant potential risks around B’s needs not being met if he were to be placed with her.  He is a very young baby who would be wholly dependent upon his care giver, as both the Local Authority and Guardian rightly point out.  He would be joining a household with at least one child with enhanced needs whose behaviours would need very careful monitoring to ensure that B was protected from physical harm, aside from the impact on B of what sounds to be E’s unpredictable and volatile shouting and door slamming.  On top of which, D has her own health needs which, whilst they alone would not prevent her from potentially caring for B, would mean that when she was periodically ill, she would be dependent on others to care for B.  The care that B would require from those others would also be a greater commitment than for her other children because they are older and more able to take care of themselves too, another potential vulnerability in this placement.  It is also significant that one of the 3 children living with D is her carer because of her health needs, another pressure in an already pressurised situation for the household, I find, and one that adds to the complex picture of concern about this as a placement option.

 

Taking all the above into account, I find that a full connected persons assessment of D would be very likely to be negative.  The viability assessment was a thorough and balanced screening assessment to determine whether there was merit in a full assessment and has shown that the concerns identified outweigh the positives and this is reinforced by the evidence of D herself.  Delaying the conclusion of these proceedings to carry out a full assessment is therefore not likely to be purposeful delay and would therefore not be acceptable delay for B whose welfare is my paramount concern.  

 

In addition, the application to adjourn to allow a viability assessment of her friend is one that cannot be in B’s welfare interests, I find.  M has had ample opportunity to provide details of possible alternative carers since these proceedings commenced in December last year.  Whilst I understand how difficult it would be to discuss things with friends and family for M (and I am mindful of the provisional assessment of her by Dr Shenoy (E12)), this alone is not sufficient justification for prolonging proceedings further for B.  Very little information has been provided about this friend even at this late stage, and it therefore also gives me very little assurance that this would be purposeful delay in B’s welfare interests either.  Of course, in saying this, I am very mindful of the fact that endorsing a care plan which proposes adoption for B is a very draconian step and would mean that B’s links with his birth family are severed.  I have therefore next considered the welfare checklists with regard to B in light of the evidence to date, and also as a result double-checked that there is no gap in the evidence about realistic options for B.

 

B is too young to be able to articulate his wishes and feelings.  As the social work evidence and that of the Guardian acknowledges, “it is reasonable to assume that he would want to be cared for in the manner he is used to, with love, nurture and consistency in a safe environment” (E56 Guardian’s Final Analysis).  There are no current concerns about his development, and his needs are being met in his current foster care placement.  He will need to move to a new placement at the conclusion of these proceedings and will need to transfer his attachments as a result.

 

Both parents accept that they cannot meet his needs, and the evidence of the viability assessment and the oral evidence during this hearing shows that it is unlikely that D would be able to meet B’s needs in relation to safety in particular, and also potentially in relation to his emotional needs if she is unable to promote his relationship with his father.  It is noted in the final social work statement that “In B's life story there are strong themes of rejection, which began following his conception and continue to this day, with birth mother not attending supervised contact, paternal grandparents not being able to look for B, and wider family putting themselves forward as A's carers. B and A have been separated in the permanency plans. B has already suffered a significant loss in his life of relationships with his immediate and wider family, including the loss of a potential relationship with his brother” (C132) and that “B will need a carer who can support him as grows and develops in order to understand and process his life story” (C138).  This evidence clearly addresses the likely effect on B throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of his birth family and become an adopted person, as well as noting that he may have particular needs arising from this.

 

Looking at the other relevant welfare checklist headings, the evidence shows that there is a clear risk of harm to B arising from the threshold factors, as well as the conclusions about potential placement with D.  B has no current relationship with D as I have noted, having last seen her on 31^st March 2021.  M’s attendance at contact has been sporadic at best and she has not seen him since April this year.  D told me that she and her children had seen B regularly on the doorstep during January this year whilst he was in placement with his mother, and that they therefore had a relationship. I’m afraid that since he was incredibly young at this point, and the fact that this would only have been for a relatively short period some time ago and most of his life has not involved D or her children, it is hard to see how he has any relationship with D’s children at this point.  The value of these relationships continuing is therefore academic at this point, and sadly the same also applies in terms of B’s relationship with his sibling A as he has also spent the majority of his life apart from A too.  However, the Local Authority do accept that it would be appropriate to encourage both A and B’s carers to support direct contact between the siblings and have amended the final care plans to reflect this. Given my findings above about the likelihood of a negative assessment of D, the fact that no paternal family members are able to care for him, and the evidence about parenting capacity in relation to D, M and F which is before me, I have to conclude that no relative or other carer has the ability to provide B with a secure environment in which he can develop and otherwise meet his needs.   There is thus also no gap in the evidence about this. F’s wishes and feelings are that, with great sadness, he accepts he cannot care for B and that B cannot safely be cared for by D either.  M and D clearly want B to be cared for by D, but as I have already detailed in this judgment, sadly this is not something that would be in B’s welfare interests.  The friend that M has put forward at this hearing is also identified so late with no real justification, and with so little information about them, that it is also not in B’s welfare interests to further delay concluding proceedings (which have already continued slightly beyond the statutory maximum at this point).

 

Overall, I am satisfied that the only remaining realistic placement option for B is adoption and that the final care plan is therefore in his welfare interests.  As a result, I also conclude that it is in his welfare interests for the consent of his parents to the making of a placement order for him to be dispensed with.

 

Conclusions

 

I have already acknowledged the very brave and no doubt difficult decisions taken by M and F to accept that they cannot care for A and B.  It is also impressive that the paternal grandparents have cared for A to such a high standard and are willing to become his special guardians.  They are going to need support with this, especially when dealing with the challenges around contact, but the special guardianship support plan addresses this.  Sadly, there is no realistic option for B apart from adoption.  I will therefore dispense with the consent of his parents to the making of a placement order for him, and grant both a final care order and a placement order for him.

 

 

11^th August 2021

FINAL AGREED THRESHOLD DOCUMENT

 

Oxfordshire County Council (the “Local Authority”) asserts that the relevant date for determining the Threshold criteria in respect of A and B is the 30^th December 2020, when the Local Authority issued proceedings in respect of these two children.

 

The Local Authority asserts that the children were at that date, suffering or likely to suffer significant harm pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. Such harm, and likelihood of harm, is attributable of the care given and/or likely to be given if an Order is not made, not being what would be reasonable to expect the parent to give to them.

 

Insofar as the Local Authority seeks to rely on factual matters transpiring, subsequent to the relevant date of the initiation of protective arrangements for each of the children, it will say, following Re G (Care Proceedings: Threshold Conditions) [2001] 3FLR1111, that it is entitled to do so as relevant to the situation then pertaining.

 

The Local Authority asserts that the Threshold criteria is satisfied as follows:

 

1.             The parents’ mental health and cannabis misuse:

 

i)             At times, both parents struggle to regulate their emotions and provide a calm and stable environment for the children. Both A and B are at risk to exposure to the couple’s volatility, as well as arguments with the wider family.

ii)           Due to the non-engagement of the mother, Dr Shenoy was unable to complete the Psychological Assessment ordered, but did indicate that the mother has a history of Depressive Disorder and also presents with an avoidant and compulsive personality type, paranoid and negativistic personality styles and low self-esteem, which affect her inter-personal relationships, resulting in loneliness and maintain her difficulties. These findings have not been corroborated by an exploration of the mother’s past and current life experiences, due to non-attendance.

iii)        The father presents with difficulties in emotional regulation and some features of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, although does not meet all the criteria to make a definitive diagnosis. (E12). The father also presents with a history of substance misuse (cannabis and cocaine). The father is attempting to reduce his cannabis use.

 

2.   The parents’ Volatility and Domestic Abuse:

 

A has been exposed to situational couple violence between the parents, with verbal altercations:

 

i)             On 22 April 2020, there was a referral to Housing about arguments between the parents (C7)

ii)           On 22^nd May 2020, there were two separate reports from neighbours that the mother was staying with the father. They reported that there were several adults, all in the garden smoking cannabis, and they were screaming and shouting. It was alleged that A was in the baby bouncer, and one man allegedly shouted in his face “Shut the fucking noise up.” (C7).

iii)        On 26 May 2021, there was a referral from a member of the public, reporting shouting and domestic violence at the property for at least 6 months (C8).

iv)         On 23^rd May 2020, there was a report to the Police at 01.31am that the parents were “fighting in the road and trying to snatch the baby off each other.” A was exposed to emotional abuse and was at risk of physical abuse as a result (C7).

v)           On 25^th May 2020, the Police were called, and A was reported to show no emotional response to the parents arguing, even when the mother was shouting, screaming, and crying. The Police were called to the father’s home, in response to a third-party report of a female (the mother) inside, shouting and screaming, and smashing things. The mother and A were inside the bathroom and she refused to engage (C7).

vi)         On 17^th July 2020, the father contacted the Police, due to the mother making threats to smash up his house and making threats to end her own life. The mother was upset and hysterical and shouting and screaming at the caller, and A was present throughout. A was exposed to emotional abuse as a result (C8).

 

vii)       A was exposed to emotional abuse as a result of domestic abuse and repeated serious arguments between the parents.

3.   Neglect:

 

i)                A lacked stimulation by being unable to play on the floor with toys, and as a result has suffered some developmental delay. Mother has also missed Health Visitor and Community Nurse appointments to support her understanding of A’s developmental needs. A has been neglected and suffered developmental delay as a result (C8,9,10).

ii)           In respect of B, the mother did not register with the midwife until twenty weeks’ pregnant, despite telling Children’s’ Services that she had registered and had a scan. The mother had previously had pre-eclampsia and should have been seeking ante natal care, and medical advice. As a result, B was born a few weeks prematurely, due to pre-eclampsia (C9).

iii)        Both A and B were at risk of homelessness, despite the mother having full support of her Supportive Housing Officer and Social Worker to complete the relevant paperwork but refused to engage (C8). This put the children’s basic care needs at risk.

 

4.   Violence:

 

i)             On 18^th October 2020, the father was “jumped” in the street outside of the mother’s house. The perpetrators later threatened to harm the mother and A, threatening them with knives. The cause of this attack is unknown. (C10). There is concern that A was at risk of actual physical harm as a result.

ii)           On 30^th November 2020, C (brother) refused to give the mother’s house keys back and threatened to smash her windows (C11).

 

A and B are at risk of emotional, and possible physical harm as a result of the above.

10^th August 2021