Gloucester House, 4 Duke Green Avenue, Feltham, TW14 0LR |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) The Father (2) The MGM (3) A (through his Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
____________________
The First Respondent was a litigant in person
Fiona Munro (instructed by Vickers & Co Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Pamela Warner (instructed by Creighton & Partners Solicitors) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 30 April & 1-2 May 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ WILLANS:
Introduction
Conclusions
Background
Legal Principles
Threshold
i) The father has a number of concerning convictions, he is a violent and threatening individual and this has put A at risk of significant harm
ii) On an occasion between 13-14 April 2024 during contact the father strangled A
iii) On 17 April 2024, the father scratched A
iv) On 26th December 2022 whilst drunk the father threw a chair in the presence of the MGM and A
v) The father committed acts of domestic abuse in relation to maternal grandmother and A's mother, for example:
a) On 18th January 2019 he pushed A's mother and poked her to the head. A was at home during this incident
b) On 10th February 2020, the father threw a cup of warm coffee in the mother's direction, causing a minor injury to her eye. A was in the room at this time
i) The father has threatened to remove A from the care of his MGM despite A being settled in her care. On 28 and 30 March 2025 he removed A from the care of his MGM without her permission.
ii) On 23 May 2024, the father collected A from school contrary an existing safety plan. A stayed overnight with the father on the evening of 28 May 2024 against professional advice and in breach of the CP plan
iii) The father has experienced an extremely challenging childhood and suffered traumatic experiences. He has a diagnosis of Asperger's, ADHD, and dissocial Personality Disorder. He also has a history of alcohol misuse and has informed the social worker that he has schizophrenia. Despite this he is non-compliant with his medication and is unwilling to accept community mental health support.
iv) A has suffered emotional harm as a result of his mother's death in 2021 and resulting conflict between his father and MGM.
Welfare Assessment
Discussion
i) First, but for the actions of the father and the concerns associated with his behaviour I would be making a SGO alone. This is not a case in which there is a scintilla of concern as to the care offered by the MGM and whilst her care could be fortified under a care order only, I consider it is important to recognise the reality of her otherwise unquestioned good care by making and then maintaining a SGO alongside the making of a care order. This would bring the additional benefit of granting PR to the MGM which has some benefit notwithstanding that point alone could be manged via a care order.
ii) Secondly, in this case there is fundamental support for the ongoing care offered by the MGM. She is the identified and favoured candidate of all professionals. The care order is not required to assess that care or to provide a residual safeguard against future deficits or issues with that care. The care order is for entirely extraneous reasons which are wholly outside the control of the MGM. The absolute reality is that the MGM will be the effective carer for the child with the support of the LA. There is nothing in the LA's plan which requires them to do other than offer support. Yet support less than a care order will not adequately address the risks arising from the father. Risks which outside a care order have the real potential to destabilise the placement to the point of breakdown. A supervision order or alternatively child in need or other support would simply not be enough at this time. There is good evidence for this conclusion in the recent history of the case. My conclusions tell me the order which actually reflects my assessment is the one proposed by the LA and supported by the CG. A care order alone would be a second best outcome for A.
iii) Thirdly, as I raised with the CG there must be at least a level of concern as to the circumstances were I not to make a SGO now and were there to be a later SGO assessment at a time when the MGM would be several years older. A contemporaneous medical report would be required and I can at least foresee the potential for such an assessment associated with a care discharge application to be impacted by a level of deterioration in the MGM's health. It might be questioned as to what the material difference is between making an order now and there being the same deterioration later. It may be there is no difference but on balance I consider there is a material difference or the potential for a material distinction to be drawn between a party resuming care under a SGO only and a party seeking to obtain a SGO on fresh evidence. I simply would not want this potential to impact planning for A when it need not do so.
Contact
i) Make a special guardianship order;
ii) I then make a care order and do not discharge the SGO
iii) I extend the non-molestation order as set out above
iv) I extend the section 34(4)
v) I approve the care planning around contact.
His Honour Judge Willans