If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
This decision is part of the Family Courts Information Pilot - please tell us how useful you found the information by participating in this brief survey.
The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 83 (FPC)
In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court
Before:
Mrs E
Mrs C
Mr F
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
X City Council |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
R |
First Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Child A, B and C by way of Guardian |
Second third and fourth Respondents |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms MS |
||
Mr F |
for the |
First Respondent |
|
|
|
Ms J |
for the |
Second third and fourth Respondents |
Written Facts and Reasons
This is an application brought by X Council for interim care orders in respect of the children A B and C.
The application has been opposed by the Respondent mother R who is present in court today and is legally represented. The father of the 2 older children is deceased and C’s father is H whose whereabouts are unknown.
The children are legally represented and their solicitor is instructed by the appointed Guardian.
The Local Authority asks us to make interim care orders in respect of the 3 children upon the basis that they are to remain in foster care. This is supported today by the Guardian. Mother asks us to make an order that will allow the children to immediately return to her care, possibly with the Local Authority having the benefit of an interim supervision order. If an interim care order is made mother asks us to consider making a contact order.
We have read the documentation as outlined in the bundle. We have also read the Initial Analysis and Recommendations of the Guardian and the letter from Dr K filed by mother.
We have heard sworn evidence from the Social Worker V, mother and the Guardian.
Mother is X years old and has 4 children. The eldest child D resides with the maternal grandparents and as far as we can ascertain has been there for most of her life. D is not the subject of these proceedings.
It appears that A and B have been in the care of their mother save for a period from January 2010 until June 2010 when they were cared for by their father (until his death) and thereafter by a paternal aunt. C remained with her mother until the three girls were accommodated upon a voluntary basis.
There has been a long history of social services involvement in mother’s life as outlined in the chronology at B71 to B74 in the bundle. Most of this information has been gleaned from social services files in E where the maternal extended family resides. Mother came to BC in January 2010, today in court she says to avoid domestic abuse from Mr L. She says she wanted to bring her 3 children but as a result of Mr L’s threats, she left A and B with him. She says he threatened to kill her and threatened her with a knife.
Mother acknowledges that this was a mistake as she believed that Mr L had sexually abused her older child D.
Upon Mr L’s death mother was eventually granted a residence order for A and B. She returned with them to BC and some 3 days later informed the health visitor that she had difficulties with B’s behaviour including smearing faeces, violence towards siblings, swearing and disruptive behaviour. Some 2 days later mother informed the health visitor she still needed help coping.
Social Services became involved and completed an initial assessment by 16th June. There were concerns regarding the children’s emotional and developmental needs as a result of which a recommendation was made that there be a core assessment. This work was not allocated until 13th July to the current social worker. The assessment was then duly completed and it was recommended that mother attend the Freedom Programme, receive assistance with behaviour management and that Social services continue to support the family.
On the 21st September the midwife visited mother in relation to her current pregnancy. The midwife made a referral to social services as B had bruising to her face. On the 22nd September the Social Worker visited mother and was not happy with the explanation for the injury. The children were voluntarily accommodated and seen by Dr W who could not say if the injury was non accidental. Dr W did say that the bruising to C was such that the level of supervision could be an issue.
Proceedings were instigated on the 18th October when mother, understandably dissatisfied with her level of contact with the children and the lack of progress in the case indicated that she wished to withdraw her consent to the children being voluntarily accommodated.
On the 20th October the proceedings were adjourned without an order and listed for a contested hearing on the 28th October. The case was again adjourned in order that the maternal grandparents could be assessed as possible carers for the children and so that they could attend any contested hearing.
The initial viability assessment of the grandparents is not positive and the grandparents have not attended today.
Mother has now married Mr C, the father of her unborn child. Mr C is not present and continues to reside in C. He has attended one meeting in respect of the unborn child but has not shown himself willing to undertake a pre birth assessment and a joint parenting assessment. Mother is unwilling to provide the Social Worker with his telephone number as Mr C wishes any communication to be in writing through solicitors. Social Services suggested that Mr C stay in X for a month in order to be assessed. Mr C declined on the basis he was seeking employment. Mother says that he is maintaining a presence in C so that they can obtain a property there.
Today mother asks for the children to be returned to her sole care. Mother is due to give birth by way of caesarean section in December. She says that maternal grandmother will care for the children whist she is convalescing.
Mother does not accept much of the Local Authority evidence about recent events or the concerns of the Guardian. We are not able to adjudicate on much of the contested evidence. It is clear that at the time of the core assessment Social Services for whatever reason had not had access to the E files. The injury to B in September was a catalyst for the removal of the children but is not now in itself the only or even main cause for current concern.
The Guardian in her oral evidence summed up the current concerns regarding mothers’ capacity to care for and protect the children. These concerns are as follows
- mother had a very difficult childhood
- mother was sexually abused over a significant period by a member of the extended family
- mother has suffered from depression, has spent time in a psychiatric unit and has twice taken an overdose
- mother has suffered post natal depression following the birth of 3 of her children
- mother has neglected her own health by not managing her type 1 diabetes
- mother has admitted to an eating disorder including induced vomiting whilst pregnant to control her weight
- mother failed to bond with her eldest child
- mother left A and B with Mr L despite having suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse from him and despite allegations that he sexual abuse her eldest child
- mother has a history of forming relationships with abusive men
- mother enters very quickly into relationships and quickly becomes pregnant
As a result the Guardian questions mother’s ability to put the children’s needs before her own.
The Guardian does not consider the Grandparent’s as appropriate carers for the children or that they would be able or willing to properly support mother as the children’s main carer.
The Guardian has read some of the E documentation and after considerable effort managed to speak to maternal Grandmother in November. Mother has said that her parents are unable to attend today due to transport problems but the Guardian gives evidence that grandmother indicated that she may not be able to attend due to work commitments.
In addition the Guardian gives evidence that Grandmother minimised the concerns expressed by social services during mother’s childhood, failed to attempt to protect A and B when placed with Mr L and refused on two occasions to allow mother to return home.
The current evidence supports the concerns expressed by the Guardian and upon this basis we consider that the threshold criteria has been met in that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children were at risk of suffering significant harm attributable to the of care by this parent immediately prior to the children’s voluntary accommodation.
In deciding whether to make an order and indeed which order we have considered the paramount principle and the welfare checklist.
Mother clearly cares for her children and is trying her best to turn her life around. Never the less mother has historically and more recently consistently failed to put her children’s needs before her own. We consider that this is exemplified by her recent marriage to Mr C, despite her knowing about social services concerns about him. We consider that if the children were returned to mother care today the concerns as expressed by the Guardian would still apply and that this is despite mother’s co-operation with the Local Authority.
There is a clear need for orders in this case. The children continue to need protection and it is our view that this can only be achieved by the Local Authority sharing parental responsibility for the children with mother.
We consider the making of interim care orders in these circumstances as propionate.
We are asked to consider making a contact order to ensure that the Local Authority allow mother and children to see each other regularly. Contact in this case has been problematic. We addressed this issue at a previous hearing but some problems have continued. Mother has committed fully to contact but has often been let down by the Local Authority. We have been assured today that arrangements are now in place to ensure that the contact progresses as agreed. We therefore do not feel it necessary to make an order today.
It is recognised by all parties that the children are not placed appropriately in foster care. We would hope that the Local Authority will take immediate steps to ensure that the children are placed together in a culturally appropriate placement.
We make the interim care order until the 1st December. Given the complexity of mother’s history and the possible involvement of another local authority we transfer the case to BC County Court for a further directions hearing on a date to be fixed within the next 7 days.