English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> C (Discharge of care order), Re [2017] EW Misc 6 (CC) (31 January 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2017/6.html
Cite as: [2017] EW Misc 6 (CC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


		Case No: MA16C00593

IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT

Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ

31 January 2017

B e f o r e :

District Judge Relph
____________________

Between:

	RSC	Applicant
	- and -
	SALFORD CITY COUNCIL -and- THE CHILDREN	Respondents

____________________

Hearing dates: 24th ,25th and 26th January 2017
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

District Judge Relph :

INTRODUCTION

In this matter I am concerned with the welfare of three children who for the purposes of anonymity I shall refer to throughout this judgment as either the children or A, B and C.

The children are 14, 12 and 10 respectively. They are all the children of Y I. and RSC. Tragically for these children their mother died at the beginning of January 2013 some four years ago when she was 43 years old.

At the time the mother's death the children were in foster care subject to care orders made by me on 19 March 2012. The children were actually placed in foster care in November 2011. They are all placed together within one foster home and have remained within the home since initial placement. I think it is important to note that this has given the children stability which had been sadly lacking in their lives. The placement is supported and approved of by the maternal family with whom the children continue to have a relationship and contact. The extended maternal family have played no part in these proceedings but they do play a part in the children's lives. These are not children who have no links to their wider family.

Their father is RSC [who again for the purposes of anonymity I shall refer to throughout this judgment as the Father] the Father holds parental responsibility for all the children.

This case comes before the court as a result of the father's application to discharge the existing care orders and in the alternative that the section 34 (4) order should be revoked. The respondent local authority is Salford City Council and the children are represented by the Guardian.

At the outset of this judgment I wish to make it plain to the father- although he may not accept it, that I fully acknowledge that he loves his children deeply and that he wishes to play a role in their lives. It is also clear from the evidence that the children far from being alienated from their father as he suggests, retain a curiosity about him and an affection for him. The fact that it has become necessary for the court to make decisions once again in relation to the children's future, is very concerning.

However, once again, whilst I may understand and appreciate the father's clear anger, frustration and distress in having to deal with social workers over a number of years and having to come to court and face these proceedings in relation to his children, as a litigant in person. I make it plain to the father that, the court has a clear duty under the Children Act to deal with the Child's/children's welfare as its paramount consideration and that in coming to my decision today it is their welfare interests which must take precedence on a proportionate basis within the delicate and holistic balancing exercise of competing needs, wishes and options before this court.

a) At this juncture I will deal with the father's earlier application that I should recuse myself from this case. That application was heard by me in October 2016 and opposed by both the children's Guardian and the local authority. I considered the father's application very carefully at the time and gave a short extempore judgement. On balance I felt that this was a case where there have been so many hearings and applications that in the children's best interests there should be judicial continuity and so it has proved as will become evident within this judgement.

b) I also have the benefit of access to the earlier case files which I dealt with and which I have reviewed with a view to compiling an accurate chronology of the proceedings. I have found this review to be necessary due to the father's assertions and contentions within all aspects of his evidence that certain issues and matters have been presented as fact within these proceedings but consideration of the earlier case papers and evidence demonstrates that this is in fact at best inaccurate and misremembered and at worst a misrepresentation of what was going on before. This is where judicial continuity has been essential in this case.

applications

The applications before me are;

a) An application by the father to discharge the care order

b) An application by the father to revoke the section 34(4) order confirmed by me on 12 March 2012 and again in 2014 following a three day contested hearing.

c) The Guardian makes an application under section 91[14]of the Act to restrict further applications to the court without the permission of the court for the balance of the children's minority.

I have considered the extensive case papers. I have heard oral evidence from;

i) The key social worker

ii) The father

iii) The Guardian

The positions of the parties are as follows:

i) The father- asks that the court either discharge the care orders so that the children may return to his care in a structured way or in the alternative that he be granted direct contact with his children and that he should be able to see his children individually and that the section 34(4) is discharged.

ii) The local authority - opposes the father's applications and contends that the care orders should remain in place to protect the children's welfare best interests and that the section 34(4) should be maintained. The local authority supports the making of a further section 91[14] order as applied for by the Guardian.

iii) The Guardian's position is that he also opposes the father's applications and recommends that they be dismissed. The Guardian has also issued an application under section 91[14] preventing further applications by the father during the remainder of the children's minority.

I approach matters before the court in this sequence

i) Chronology and narrative of the proceedings before the court

ii) The Law

iii) Evidence

iv) Welfare checklist

v) Analysis and conclusions

Chronology and background

– 2008 There is an issue between the parties as to when they separated on the mother's case they separated in 2007 and on the father's case 2008. In 2007, A the eldest child would have been about five, B the middle child would have been about three and C the youngest child would have been about two years of age. Save for a short period of four months around 2008 the children have not lived with their father. The children went on to live with their mother within the wider community until their removal in November 2011 for approximately another three years. The mother was of no religious persuasion and was white British.

to 2009. Following the separation of the parents there are private law proceedings where both parents made allegations and counter allegations against each other. There was an application for a non-molestation order where the allegations from the mother were that the father subjected her to controlling behaviour and was harassing her. The father did not accept the allegations made and undertakings were given. The orders included exclusion areas. In July 2009 a residence order was made in favour of the mother.

The mother's circumstances had by this time deteriorated significantly the local authority initiated care proceedings in respect of all three children who were made subject to interim care orders although they remained at this time in the mother's care.

October 2010 - during the course of the care proceedings both parents were psychologically assessed as were the children. The father was assessed by Dr Brian Stanley within the original care proceedings. The report was not challenged and remains relevant and illustrative - within interview the father expressed the following views –

"Early on in the interview the father emphasised the discriminatory aspects of the proceedings. He said to me these are black children that had been removed from the black community for no other reason than the fact that the people who have done this are white xenophobic ignorant and racist and use the court system to get away with it" – there is no mention of the children being raised within the Muslim faith.

Dr Stanley opines; "Mr C's personality profile displays significant elevations in narcissistic personality traits, although any formal diagnosis would require further assessment. [my emphasis]

The cardinal features of this personality style include an air of conviction and self-assurance. They are able to express their thoughts easily and have a natural capacity to draw attention to themselves. They expect others to recognise their special qualities and some individuals display narcissistic traits can, come across well to others. This personality style has many positive attributes and is usually question of degree and context how their behaviour is viewed by others. Such individuals typically view themselves as being competent and effective. They appear self-assured confident and outspoken. They tend to describe themselves as being assertive energetic self-reliant strong and realistic. As I have indicated it is largely question of degree and context whether these characteristics come across as being positive or challenging. More negative perceptions of such individuals may include their superficiality flippancy and that they project a sense of entitlement. They are likely to emphasise how capable they are even perhaps belittling those who refuse to acknowledge the image that they are trying to protect. In Mr C's case his intellectual and verbal ability is clearly being driven by his personality style and I do not think that this is working to his advantage.

Although he is an articulate and logical his manner can quickly change into verbal hostility. Narcissistic individuals do have a tendency to view their social environment as a competitive place. They feel they have to fend for themselves to function. As a result they tend to be far more assertive than the average person. They tend to emphasise their rights more than others and this can easily develop into an entitlement mind-set. This can further escalate into repeated conflict and as a result they develop a general mistrust or suspicion of others. Although this basic personality style can alienate others, narcissistic individuals tend to respond to this with indifference. This personality style is often perceived by others as one of arrogance and egocentricity. I'm afraid that this is highly likely to occur in Mr C's case."

During the care proceedings the local authority sought to assess the father in terms of him being a potential carer for the children but the father withdrew his cooperation and so the assessment could not move forward. Two contact session were arranged by the local authority in March 2011 an incident took place between the father and contact officer. The allegation which has always been denied by the father is that he assaulted the contact officer. The incident was witnessed by all three children. It was at this point the local authority sought permission to refuse contact under section 34 (4). No direct contact took place between the father and any of the three children for a significant period of time following that incident.

A final care order was made in favour of Salford City Council on 19 March 2012. The interim section 34(4) was also confirmed on that date. There is no question but that the application and order were properly made and that the father had ample opportunity to challenge the making of the orders.

The recordings on the face of the order are relevant given all the arguments that the father puts forward within all his recent documents and evidence which are factually incorrect;-

paragraph a - recites the evidence upon which the court based its decision including the social work assessments, the psychological assessments and the psychiatric assessment in relation to the mother and the Guardian's report.

Paragraph b recites- that neither parent required the authors of any of the reports to attend court for the purposes of cross examination or to challenge the conclusions of those reports.

Paragraph C recites - that the mother expressed her wish to care for the children but recognised at present that she is unable to care for them. To that end she did not actively oppose the making of the final care order and has expressed strong wish that the children remain in their current placement which is meeting their needs.

Paragraph D recites- that the father does not actively oppose the making of the final care order. However he is keen to ensure that direct contact between himself and the children in the future is explored with the children and is kept under regular review. Furthermore, he is anxious to ensure that the children's cultural needs are met and he does not consider that their current placement is meeting their needs.

In terms of the father's contact with the children the local authority is not recommending any direct contact take place between the children and their father. It seeks that the section 34(4) remains in place continue to be of the view that they do not wish to see their father at present, although child B has said she would like to see her father in the future. The local authority will continue to facilitate letterbox contact once per month. The frequency of indirect contact will be reviewed and contact generally will be reviewed at each LAC review

Paragraph F- set out the fact that the children were engaging in therapeutic work with starlac and that the children's relationship with their father and their wishes and feelings regarding direct contact will form the basis of this work. Should the children decide that they wish to have direct contact with their father then given there will be an expectation that Mr C engages with the children social worker to assess the level of risk given Mr C's assault on a member of staff. If direct contact takes place this would need to take place in a contact centre with two members of staff supervising. Any direct contact will be dependent upon Mr C signing a written agreement and demonstrating a capacity to cooperate with the local authority.

There are additional recordings. It is important perhaps note that the mother was fully supportive of the children's placement at the time and this remains the children's placement. She believed that the placement did meet the children's needs including their cultural needs, the father did not and does not. It is also important to note that whilst there is reference to the children's cultural needs there is no mention or complaint in terms of the children's religious needs and this is significant.

The order goes on to recite the contact arrangements between the children and their mother and the maternal family. Threshold criteria were agreed and the matter proceeded before the court on an uncontested basis. Both parents were legally represented both during the hearing and during the course of the proceedings.

In June 2012 the case was allocated to the present social worker. She has now been the allocated social worker for the three children for almost 5 years.

On 6 January 2013 the mother died. Members of the maternal family have had monthly contact with the three children in the four years since the mother's death.

The father filed an application under section 34 of the children act for contact to the children. Within the application the father stated that he wished "in due course of them to be returned to my care" the application was treated as an application to discharge the care orders and as an application to discharge the section 34 four application.

In January 2014 a contested hearing took place over three days when the court heard from the local authority the father and the Guardian in respect of the father's application. The Guardian Mr Delahunty undertook an independent review and assessment of all the children's circumstances.

There is a full judgement in relation to that application. The following is however relevant;-

"from all the evidence I have heard and read, I cannot see that there really has been a significant change in the father's circumstances since the order was made in 2012 and I am satisfied in this case that the local authority does need to continue to share parental responsibility, and so for all the reasons that I have given I'm going to refuse the father's application to discharge the care order. In terms of the section 34 four application, I think the father must understand that this is a permissive order. It is not an order for no contact. The real key to progress in terms of contact lies very much in his hands. I do not believe and accept the Guardian's evidence that indirect contact is a waste of time. The letters from the children are a real cue to the father that he can take up from and build a relationship and there has been indeed a lost opportunity between July and today. We could have been very much further down this road but the father has chosen not to engage in the children's conversation. He almost seems determined to have a conversation with the children on his terms and I am satisfied that he has sufficient intelligence to know the difference between the two. The concern I have is that this is a reflection of the father's personality.…… All of this I'm afraid is very much in the father's own hands and I would hope that following this very difficult hearing and this lengthy judgement which is far longer than I intended he will have the opportunity to go away and reflect. It is very much in his own gift to progress this but it is very much up to him. He talks about drawing a line in the sand. Rather I would say that following this hearing the local authority and the father can embark upon matters and have a fresh start: that they will be able to cooperate and discuss matters respectfully with each other and that neither party can dictate to the other what should happen. There has to be one conversation between the children and the father and one conversation between the local authority and the father it is up to him. He must accept that he must moderate his behaviour notwithstanding his frustrations and feelings and he must not say inappropriate things to the children in contact."

At paragraph 72 the judgement reads "I accept what the Guardian says and I think the father needs to be very careful. I think we are still at a point where progress is possible …….and there is a window of opportunity but it may be the children will change their minds and I think the father needs to grasp what may be the last opportunity to improve and progress his relationship with the children but I am satisfied that the local authority is addressing this issue appropriately and that they will need the section 34(4) in place to continue to regulate the contact and to promote the children's best welfare"

An order was also made under section 91[14] of the children act 1989 for a period of two years. This meant that the father could not make any application in respect of the children during this period without the leave of the court.

30 May 2014 the father's appeal in respect of the January 14 order was heard by Her Honour Judge Eaglestone. The father did not seek to appeal the refusal to discharge the care order. He did seek leave to appeal the decision of the court to grant an order under section 91[14] and the refusal to discharge the section 34(4). The father's application permission for leave to appeal was refused.

Following the appeal the father presented a further application to the court and on 10 November 2014 the father's application for permission to issue a further application for contact was refused.

However, in the months following the contested hearing in January 2014 the father did take up the olive branch and wrote regularly to the three children. He wrote about once a fortnight. These letters were handwritten and included photographs but .ped in July 2014. Father contends that he continued sending letters but these were not delivered to the children that position is not accepted by the local authority. The reasons for ceasing to write to the children remain unclear.

In March 2015 meeting took place between the father and the local authority discuss the contact arrangements the meeting was attended by the team manager and the independent reviewing officer. The father was accompanied by a solicitor and an advocate and he signed a written agreement in respect of contact arrangements following that meeting.

Direct contact took place between the father and the street children under the supervision of the local authority. This was the first direct contact between the father and the children since March 2011 a period of approximately four years. Further meetings took place between the father and the local authority in September 2015 and March 2016.

On 4 December 2015 a further application from the father was heard. The father was represented at the hearing. The father had the opportunity to present written evidence to the court at that time which he did. Having considered matters the father's application for permission to present a further application was refused.

In January 2016 father wrote to further letters to the children. On 9 April 16 a further direct contact took place between the father and only two of the children. The eldest child a chose not to attend.

Since the contact in April 2016 all three children have consistently stated that they do not wish to have direct contact with their father.

July 2016 the father filed an application for a child arrangements order respect of the three children which effectively acts as an application to discharge the care order . throughout these proceedings it has been clear that the father seeks to discharge and in of the care orders and removal of the section 34 order.

The Law

The welfare of the children, individually and collectively, is the court's paramount consideration: s1 (1) Children Act 1989.

The standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities no more and no less.

Contact with a child in care – the general proposition is that subject to the duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare a local authority must allow reasonable contact between the child in care and his parents and certain others. This is the basic position which obtains in every case in default of a court order to the country. There is a duty to promote contact between children in care and their families save in exceptional particular circumstances.

Any application under section 34 of the children act is a substantive application in which the court is determining a question with respect to the bringing up of a child and consequently the court must decide the issue by making the child's welfare its paramount consideration.

Wherever a local authority seeks to refuse to allow contact between the child and in a parent or other interested individuals the local authority must make application to the court for permission to refuse contact to that named individual. It is imperative to note that an order made under section 34(4) of itself does not deny contact it simply authorises the local authority to do so it is permissive in nature it is not mandatory. Accordingly if the local authority changes its view in terms of contact an order under section 34(4) of itself does not prevent contact taking place. Such orders should only be made where matters are so exceptional and the risk so is severe that contact must be .ped.

In the context of article 8 ECHR severing ties between the child and parent can only be justified in very exceptional circumstances as it is a very drastic thing to interfere with contact between a parent and child and there must be compelling reasons demonstrated to justify an order under section 34 four. Any order must be proportionate in relation to the circumstances of the case.

Applications to discharge care order –

Section 39 of the children act 1989 deals with applications to discharge care orders. Any person with parental responsibility for the child may make the application and in deciding the application the court must apply the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare and have regard to the matters on the statutory checklist (section 1 (3) of the children act 1989). The burden of showing that the welfare of the child requires revocation of the order is on the person applying for the discharge.

In considering any harm which the children has suffered or is at risk of suffering the risk to be considered will normally focus on recent harm and an appraisal of current risk conclusions reached at an earlier hearing will be of marginal relevance and of historical interest only, but earlier conclusions may be examined afresh in the light of new evidence.

Applications pursuant to section 91 (14) of the children act 1989 – on disposing of any application for an order under the children act 1989 the court may make an order under section 91[14] of the children act that no application for an order under the children act 1989 of any specified kind may be made with respect to the children concerned by any person named in the order without the leave of the court.

Any application under section 91[14] must be considered alongside the principles set out in section 1 of the children act 1989, the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. The power to restrict applications is discretionary and in exercising its discretion the court must weigh in the balance all relevant circumstances and an important consideration is that to impose a restriction is a statutory intrusion into the right of a party to bring proceedings before the court and be heard and the power should therefore be used sparingly and should be the exception and not the rule.

It is only in suitable cases and on clear evidence where the welfare of the child requires it that such orders should be made, even though there was no past history of unreasonable applications. In cases where there was no past history of unreasonable applications the court would need to be satisfied that the facts went beyond the commonly encountered in terms of the need time to settle to a regime ordered by the court and the all too common situation where there was animosity between the parties adults and/or local authority and that there was a serious risk that without the imposition of the restriction the child or primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain. Although a court might impose restrictions in the absence of a specific request subject to the rules of natural justice allowing a party to be heard that should indeed be the exception.

Any restriction imposed may be imposed without limit of time - but the degree of restriction should be proportionate to the harm it was intended to avoid and a without notice order should not be made of than in exceptional cases and absolute prohibition on making an application could not be ordered under section 9114 but only an order made on the under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

An order under section 91[14] may be appropriate where there have been repeated applications but that is not the sole criterion. Any order must be supported by full and carefully set out reasons and orders of such duration should only be made in respect of cases at the egregious end which merit the strongest degree of protection for the child. The court should only make such orders after full consideration of the evidence and of all submissions. It is wrong in principle except in exceptional circumstances to place a litigant in person in the position of having to confront the making of a section 91[14] order at short notice. An application under section 9114 should be issued in advance and supported by evidence unless there are urgent or exceptional circumstances. It is not appropriate to make a section 91[14] order simply to achieve a breathing space where this may be achieved by simply allowing a settling period for the order to work itself out.

Evidence

I have considered the written evidence contained in the bundle of documents. At the start of the hearing I was also provided with further extensive documentation from the father which has been included within the bundle of documents before the court much of which is deeply revealing. I heard oral evidence from:-Local Authority, the father and the Guardian.

Local authority

The social worker Miss W was allocated this case in June 2012 and she has remained the allocated social worker for all three children for almost 5 years now and knows the children well. She filed two detailed witness statements in terms of these applications.

She outlined work with the children in the process of communicating the father which has been difficult since the inception of the care proceedings. It is clear from reading the evidence that the relationship between the local authority and the father remains extremely strained but in so far as they have been any improvements there is at least now a line of communication where the father is invited to a meeting following the looked after child meetings so that information may be communicated to the father and return to the letters sent by the local authority to the father in due course. Whilst not ideal that is at least an improvement in terms of where we were in 2014 where the local authorities lines of communication with the father failed. I put this down in no small measure to the intervention of the Guardian and his observations during the 2014 proceedings.

Critically there has been no further assessment of the father circumstances as the Father continues to refuse to work with the local authority either in terms of working towards indirect contact and thus a relationship with his children or indeed a further assessment of the father and his full circumstances which would be a prerequisite to any consideration of return of the children to his care.

The father asserts many things but given his non-cooperation it is well-nigh impossible for the local authority to consider or reassess his circumstances in any forensic manner. I do not hold the local authority responsible for the lack of further assessment in this regard as I accept father continues to refuse to work with the local authority.

Miss W gave her evidence in a clear and calm manner. She informed the court that she felt children were settled and secure within their foster placement and that their carers were sensitive and alive to all the children's needs particularly their cultural and racial needs. It is clear to me from her evidence that the local authority remain concerned in terms of the confidentiality of the placement and protecting the placement in terms of the children's sense of security and safety. It seemed to me from her evidence that much of her caution in dealing with the father stems from her anxiety to protect the children's placement. She is very concerned that should the father have knowledge of the children's placement that he would seek to disrupt it.

Both within her written and oral evidence the social worker was clear that the children were settled that they were content and happy and wanted to remain within the placement and they are anxious that they should be allowed to do so. She reported to the court that the children were doing well in school and they had many activities supported by their carers which they enjoyed. She acknowledged that A who is now a teenager was pushing the boundaries within his placement and that on occasions he has presented as angry it was felt that this potentially related to a number of issues not simply puberty and adolescence but issues at school his feelings regarding contact with his father and his unresolved bereavement issues relating to his mother's death. Although a referral has been made starlac, A at this point has chosen not to engage with any further therapeutic work

B is described as a young person who loves to learn she is interested in friends and clothes she has positive relationships with the foster carers and other family members and has many interests including drama Street dance and swimming. She is able to express wishes and feelings and is said to be a very enthusiastic and inquisitive young person.

C is described as thriving in this placement. He is described as happy responding well to the routines and boundaries within the home. He requires some support academically and has access to a tutor at home and has a personal educational plan.

All three children have been diagnosed with sickle cell anaemia trait which can be affected by high altitude activities.

Within her written evidence the social worker recites that - " in the past the father previously requested the children attend church and understand the Catholic faith. He has also stated more recently that is children were born into the religion of Islam and should be practising the Muslim faith and culture. The father has also indicated that he wants the children to be withdrawn from any religious studies within school."

The social worker also informs me that all three children have expressed an interest in their identity and were interested to know about the father's history and family and she acknowledges this is important for the children and will continue to be so as they grow older. The maternal family have provided the children with information allowing them to gain an understanding of their mother's history, cultural identity which has assisted them in promoting their individual cultural and racial identity. The children have requested the same information from the Father through their correspondence to him. The father provided some information about his family however this has been limited and has left all three children with many unanswered questions. During one correspondence B requested a family tree but that was not provided. It appears at this point the children have .ped requesting information about the father's history and family.

All three children were affected deeply when their mother died and have continued to receive appropriate support from their carers, the maternal family and the local authority.

Following the conclusion of the previous application in January 14 the father did to his credit actively engage in indirect contact as described above. These letters were read out to the children who have retained the letters within their memory boxes. The children raised a number of questions about the father and his family they wanted to know if he was a teacher and if so which school he worked at. The father frequently signed his letters in what appeared to be another written language and the children would often ask the social worker what that meant. Her evidence was that the children enjoyed receiving letters particularly when the father was sending them on a regular basis. The children it is said were reluctant to write letters however they were happy to send drawings occasionally postcards and photographs. During this period (2014) the children were reluctant to engage in direct contact however B maintained that she did want to see her father and by the end of 2014 – December 2014 all three children stated that they would like to see their father. This was no doubt as a result of the indirect contact.

By February 2015 arrangements were made by the local authority to request an advocate for the children (Barnardo's) their role was to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the children in relation to direct contact. There was a meeting between the independent reviewing officer and the father and his advocate in March 2015 where discussions took place with a move to moving towards direct contact.

Matters move forward and although the children expressed concerns about seeing their father one of which was that they were concerned that their father may assault the workers supervising their contact – as happened in March 2011, they also stated they did want to see him.

By July 2015 dated been agreed the direct contact to take place during school holidays. The children were prepared for that meeting and eventually it took place on 30 July for an hour and a half. During the session B left the room to speak to the social worker. She was upset and tearful stating she wanted to live with the father but also wanted to remain living with her foster carers. She told the social worker that her father was saying things that were confusing to her such as preparing her bedroom for her return and that he had organised horse riding lessons and was purchasing a car large enough for them all to sit in. The social worker felt she had to explain to B that there were no plans for her to return to the father's care and that she would continue to remain living with the foster carers until she was now adult. The social worker told the court that she seemed to accept the social workers response and after five minutes returned to the contact and stayed for the remainder that session. A and C asked the social worker at the end of the session if they were going to see their father again as the Father had informed them that they would be seeing him on a weekly basis. The social worker explained that that was not the current plan.

Feedback from this initial meeting after many years was positive. All three children stated they had enjoyed the time spent with the father and had also like the venue. However, they also stated that there were times when they felt uncomfortable regarding some of the comments their father had said these appear to be in relation to comments referring to them returning to his care. The children stated that they would want to see their father again however they did not wish contact with the father to impact on the contact with their maternal family.

Further meetings took place between the local authority and the father on 16 March 2016 when the father was given feedback in terms of the direct contact which had taken place and informed that another direct contact session would be arranged during the April half term. At this stage B and C stated they wanted to have contact with their father and were quite excited about the prospect of seeing him again A however did not wish to see his father as he felt his father kept putting him in an uncomfortable position and he didn't want his father to talk about them going home

The second direct contact session took place on 9 April 2016 when only B and C attended. The father provided a bag of goodies for each child including A Unfortunately following this contact the two children who had attended reported that they were unhappy with the contact as their father had made statements that had made both of them feel uncomfortable C stated that he had not enjoyed the time as much as he thought he would. B stated that she felt even more uncomfortable than during the previous contact session in July 2015 and they both stated that they did not wish to see their father at present.

All three children continue to maintain that they did not wish to see their father they were informed that another session would be identified in August 2016 and it will be their choice if they wanted to attend however all three children made the decision not to attend this further direct contact session. The children also stated clearly that they were tired of constantly being asked about contact as they had stated several times that they did not wish to see their father at the present time.

At the LAC review meeting on 25 September 2016 it was felt that constantly asking the children about contact with the father was now having an emotional impact on them. Unusually it seems to me it is recorded that a recommendation was made for the social worker to talk to the children as to whether they would like to make a complaint about local authority regarding this issue and following discussions with the foster carer and social worker the children made a formal complaint to the local authority and they have since received a letter of apology from the local authority.

In terms of correspondence and communication the social worker acknowledged that it would appear that there have been some delays in passing on information to the father in the last two years but overall I accept the evidence that information is passed onto the father. I accept her evidence that these children are secure within the placement and wish to remain there. I also accept her evidence that this placement is supported by the maternal family and that although the placement may not be an identical racial match for these children it does meet their needs and that the foster carers encourage the children to discover more in relation to their racial identity in an age-appropriate way. The foster placement is however reflective of the children's placement within the community prior to the issue of the care proceedings as they were living with their mother who was white British within the wider community.

On the social workers evidence the indirect contact simply .ped. The father does not accept that is the case and argues vehemently that letters have been sent that money has been sent to the children and they have simply not been delivered.

The social workers evidence was that she has continued to talk to the children about seeing the father but that they were weary about having to continually discuss their wishes and feelings and that they are weary with all the questions about contact and indeed have made a complaint in relation to this issue.

It is clear that in the intervening 2 ½ years since the matter was last before the court there has been some progress but it feels as though there are has been one step forward and two steps back. In terms of communication the social workers evidence was that although there had been improvements it remained a difficult situation she did not believe that there had been hostility shown to the father within meetings and that the local authority has repeatedly tried to discuss the children's progress with the father there were occasions when she believed the father simply did not want to hear what he was being told. Much of the work that she would wish to undertake with the children in terms of their identity and ethnicity she felt was hampered by the refusal of the father to respond to the children's requests for information about his family and his background which he had consistently refused to provide. This she told the court had led to confusion for the children.

The evidence of the social worker was clear that the starting point for rebuilding a relationship between the children and the father would be a return to indirect contact which she hoped could be re-established on a consistent basis. At the present time the children have no realistic relationship with their father and therefore a return to his care was not a viable option for her at this time. The father's refusal or inability to work with the local authority in a meaningful way was also something which had prevented any further consideration of his circumstances which might in due course lead to return of the children to his care.

With regards to the discharge of the care order and a return to the care of the father within her written evidence the social worker reminds the court that whilst in the care of the parents all three children were exposed to a great degree of hostility domestic abuse manipulation and a constant barrage of allegations between the adults in terms of their respective behaviour towards the other. They were also witness to their mother's alcohol and drug abuse. They experienced real turmoil in their early childhood high degree of instability and chaos. The children lived within a number of different households either as a direct result of their parent's separation ongoing feuds with drugs and alcohol.

Prior to recent events, the children's last direct contact session with their father was in March 2011 when the children saw their father the father assault the local authority contact worker and this has had a great impact on the children who were at that time fearful. All three children have a very limited relationship with their father they have not lived with him since 2008 and have no understanding or knowledge of his daily life or circumstances.

The children remain curious about their father but have stated clearly to the social worker time and again that at present they do not wish to see their father that they are settled where they are living and do not wish to move. The father's comments made to the children during the two direct contact sessions where unsettling. The social worker was clear that she wished to continue working with the children but would be guided by their wishes and views she accepted that the section 34(4) was simply permissive but felt it was still required in order to enable the local authority to continue to manage contact in line with the children's wishes and feelings and that they are all now of an age where their wishes should be given some weight.

The father does not and will not engage with the local authority in terms of further assessment of his circumstances to realistically advance a case where the children could be returned to his care and the starting point should be the building up of the direct relationship between the children and the father.

Following information obtained at the outset of the hearing that the father had been in touch with the school the day before the final hearing enquiries were made with the school in terms of the father's involvement and the social worker Miss S gave evidence to the court in relation to this, following a telephone conversation with the head teache:- her evidence was that the school had received an enquiry from the father but that no information had been passed on to the father by either the headmistress or any member of her staff. She indicated that the school had in fact that morning received the freedom of information act request from the father in relation to the schools ethnicity.

The father

The father loves his children that is not in doubt. He wishes to be involved in the children's lives, to be involved in decisions in relation to their upbringing and care and feels himself frustrated at every turn in terms of his dealings with the local authority. The father contends that he has been lied to by the local authority, that his views are not considered or listened to and that he has been harassed by the local authority. He is clear in his convictions in all these matters that he is not at fault and there is no reason why the children could not be returned to his care. He asserts the vehemently that he is a good parent.

The father has consistently made complaints in respect of all the professionals involved with his children via every avenue open to him. The complaints are simply too numerous to mention.

The father is an intelligent man who represents himself within these proceedings I intend to take the father's evidence both written and oral as a whole. His written evidence comprises two lengthy detailed statements at C 33 to 53 and C 54 to 72. There are additional documents filed by the father in terms of position statements and a document headed resisting children act 1989 section 91[14.] There are documents addressed to various individuals including the school, letters purportedly from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service but plainly from the father. There is a document described as court hearing synopsis of October 2016 - there are many other documents including copy letters received from the local authority which form the basis of the father's complaints in terms of antisocial behaviour and harassment from the local authority.

The position he takes within the written documentation and oral evidence is often ambiguous and contradictory - by way of example the father complains that he is not kept appraised of his children's development yet at the same time he accuses the local authority of harassing him and engaging in antisocial behaviour towards him by sending correspondence to his address. He has complained about this to the police. Even allowing for the fact that the father is representing himself he is an intelligent man he is a teaching assistant - but not a teacher as he often describes himself, his written representations are often difficult to fathom, they are impenetrable, repetitive and often it is difficult to discern and make sense of his actual meaning Frequently his arguments descend into what can only be described as repetitive and incoherent language the full sense of which is impenetrable.

However doing the best I can it seems to me that what emerges from the father's evidence are a number of themes and complaints;-

The father is an angry and frustrated man and he wants the professionals involved in the case to be brought to account for what he describes as the abduction of his children and makes a range of allegations and accusations against every professional (including perjury) involved in the case he expresses himself as outraged that proceedings have not been taken against the social worker by way of committal proceedings and/or arrest for perjury, defamation of character and theft. These are but some of the allegations he makes and has made over a significant period.

He loves his children and wishes to be involved in their lives. He wants to see his children and be a parent. He sees writing letters to the children as destructive. He is adamant that numerous letters have been sent (he says over 67 letters have been sent) which have simply not been delivered to the children including gifts of money, which he alleges has been stolen. The father is adamant that he continued writing letters up until December 15 and that these had simply not been passed on to the children.

The father was clear that he felt that direct contact is the only way to progress the case. He contended that he should be seeing the children and going out together. He wanted to see the children individually. He told the court that he had tried indirect contact and that this had been mismanaged by the social worker and that in the modern era contact could take place in a more imaginative way by way phone calls and Skype et cetera that is if the children were not to be returned home. He told the court that he was prepared to do anything to get his children out of this foster placement which he believed was destroying them. He was adamant that the end objective of the local authority was to end his relationship with his children and that the local authority in his view have not tried to promote his contact with the children. He alleges that the local authority's actions towards him have been vindictive and malicious. He denies being confrontational within any meeting. He complains bitterly that he has simply been ignored.

He believes that his children have been alienated by the actions of the local authority and that as a result of the local authority actions the children have started to in his words internalise that alienation. He believes that the children have reached a point where they think he does not care about them and that he has no intentions of ever walking away from his children.

He believes that he has been ignored and that is views are not taken into account - when it was suggested to him that repeated applications had an impact on the children the father's response was vehemently given "are you completely insane I will not abandon my children I can't do that"

The father accepts no personal responsibility for the children's circumstances when they were received into care or for his current predicament.

There are inaccuracies within the father's evidence which he stridently asserts [incorrectly] as fact which I do need to deal with as it represents a distortion and misrepresentation of the proceedings as a whole and what has actually occurred and it is in this regard that judicial continuity has been important in this case. It is clear that certain allegations presented as fact have not simply been misrepresented but in certain circumstances have been fabricated and invented by the father.

There is evidence before the court that the father simply refuses to accept any information which does not accord with his strongly held views and wishes. An example of this is that during the directions hearing in October 2016 the father sought a report or some form of evidence from Barnardo's as to the work they were undertaking with his children. At that hearing I directed the local authority to provide information from Barnardo's and in default to explain why it was not possible to produce such information. The father was adamant that a report existed from Barnardo's that it had been withheld from him and that he wished to witness summons the workers from Barnardo's to come to court and give evidence. The social worker in her evidence indicated that there was no formal report – all she had have ever had was some informal feedback from Barnardo's.

However, from the papers supplied by the father at the outset of this three day hearing it is clear that Barnardo's have in fact communicated directly with the father setting out their position .On 9 September 2015 they wrote to him and indicated that "the children identify themselves as having no religion and describe themselves as mixed race British. Barnardo's accept that "this is a snapshot of how they perceive their identity at that point of time. They explain that "although the father may not share that view that Barnardo's would be always be guided by the voices of the children in terms of our advocacy work", a second letter again addressed to the father sets out their role and how they wish to protect their work with the children. They wanted the children to be able to be confident that they could speak clearly openly and honestly to their workers about their wishes. "There is a risk that if they become aware that the detail of their conversations are disclosed to others that they may be less inclined to speak to us as they will be concerned about causing upset to their current carers, their social worker or yourself" - they go on to provide the father with a summary of the information provided by the children indicating that the children had enjoyed the contact that they'd had with the father and would like a similar session to be arranged like the first one that they would prefer staff to be present not having seen their Father for a long time there was no complete agreement about future contact but there was consensus that all the children would like a similar contact to be arranged as before i.e. in the contact centre..

The final communication from Barnardo's was dated 13 January 2017. That document is clear on its face as to Barnardo's role and involvement - "as Barnardo's involvement with the children has been solely limited and related to the delivery of advocacy services for them we do not consider that it would be ethically appropriate for us to provide a statement and are therefore seeking the court's further consideration of this request. We have advised Mr C of our position and have previously advised him of the rationale for nondisclosure in relation to confidentiality and information sharing. Should you require any further details to inform your decision making on this matter please do contact me directly" it is perfectly clear from this information that Barnardo's role in the children's life has been a therapeutic one and as such they contend that it would be inappropriate for them to provide any report or statement for the court proceedings. Their response could not be clearer and has been made on more than one occasion over a period of time, nonetheless the father pursues his position regardless.

Having considered these documents and particularly the last communication dated 13 January 2017 I refused the father's request for a witness summons and rescinded the direction as to disclosure.

I have set this out in detail as it amply exemplifies father's habit of not accepting information which is given to him which he may not wish to acknowledge or accept and to continually pursue avenues of enquiry where the information is already available to him or as I described it in my previous judgement does not meet his agenda. He simply does not listen to information which he does not wish to hear. He consistently describes any responses to his queries as "facile".

There are specific matters which I need to deal with are as follows;-

The assertion that there are ongoing police and CPS investigations in relation to these matters and the documents presented to the court ostensibly from both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when clearly these are documents created by the father.

The issue in relation to the children's religion and religious upbringing.

The issue in relation to the father's involvement with the children's school and his recent actions in terms of contacting them and its impact upon the children.

Police investigation; As regards the father's evidence of a police investigation and enquiry being undertaken by the CPS, this is contained in two incoherent communications received by the court from the father, the first on 16 November 2016 and the second on 9 December 2016. These documents have been disclosed to all the parties. The first communication which comprises five pages opens "I am a serving police officer outside of Manchester with the rank of detective inspector I have been asked to provide clarification upon any criminal allegations…." the communication continues by way of a tirade of complaints and allegations against all professionals past and present in terms of violations of the right to fair and impartial hearing, incriminating and false evidence being provided by the social worker, allegations of misappropriation of funds by the father's previous solicitors. There are allegations of defamation and theft. Within the body of the text the father goes on "as an experienced police officer I have investigated rape murder manslaughter fraud and armed robbery and establishing the facts regards allegations of the applicant being a victim together with his children of an offence motivated by hatred is transparent… The father complains that there has been a three-day hearing arranged when he feels it is contempt proceedings which should have occurred in November 2014 and December 2015. It continues "I have discussed this with the Crown Prosecution Service the clarification and given an ex parte hearing was applied for and not given to the applicant I would state solicitors have like pigs at a trough been taking legal aid with no regard to making representation effectively a gagging order was effectively in place against applicants who were acting on the idea of good faith…" It goes on "the Crown Prosecution Service state…"