P (Sexual abuse), Re [2015] EWFC B120 (11 August 2015)

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR JUDGE PENNA:

1. These proceedings concern the welfare of four children:

SP, born on [a date in] 2003, now aged 12;

DP, born on [a date in] 2005, now aged 10;

AP, born on [a date in] 2009, now aged 6; and

BP, born on [a date in] 2011, now aged 4.

The parents of all four children are MP and WP, who are married to one another and share parental responsibility for the children. I dealt with the final hearing of this matter beginning on 13 ^th July for five days. The applicant is Salford City Council and they made two applications: the first for care orders for all the children and the second for a placement order for the youngest child, BP.

2. This family is from [a place name] and came from there in July of last year to Salford. The local authority first encountered them when they came to Salford children’s services asking for food and money. They had moved here a week before and had not, at that stage, received any benefits. The children had yet to be registered with the health service and with the education service and the father’s manner was confrontational. The family next came across official radar when AP was recorded missing from home on 10 ^th September 2014. He had returned home by the time the police came. At this stage the reasons for the family’s move were recorded as being for preferable medical treatment for the children and, in particular, SP, who was described as having Tic-Tourette’s syndrome and ADHD.

3. Critical in focusing the attention of the local authority upon this family was a referral made anonymously on 3 ^rd October. The report from this referral was that DP had been heard to say to her mother that her mother’s friend, a 19 year old male “does stuff” to her and that they had sex. The mother was overheard to urge her to be quiet and say, “This is the reason we left [a place name].” Social workers visited DP and she was taken for interview by the police when she repeated the allegation of sexual touching and “slobbery kisses” from Lewis J, a member of the father’s family.

4. Following the police interview, the local authority entered into a working agreement with the parents which provided, amongst other matters, for Lewis J to stay away from the family home. Mr P indicated that his son, SP, had told him that Lewis and DP were kissing but he had not pursued that issue further. The theme of sexual assault of children was not a novelty in the P family. The parents explained that the mother was sexually assaulted as a child by her father and grandfather. The father explained that his own father was a convicted sex offender.

5. Lewis J was arrested following DP’s allegations and he confirmed her account of events. He was bailed subject to conditions to stay away from the family home and that was also a point in the working agreement. However, the local authority received information suggesting that he did not stay away and was seen leaving the property. I accept that information was correct.

6. These events were followed by the reporting of AP having a sore penis on 13 ^th October. This soreness was reported by the school. AP was seen by his GP and then referred to Bolton Hospital. Whilst there, AP spoke to social workers and told them that he had hurt his penis by pulling it back too far (the foreskin) when he was in a room with two boys and two adults. The mother, who was at hospital with him, stated that he had had a sore penis for several days. She had been treating it with cream for thrush. The parents were not cooperative at hospital and the father was aggressive, threatening to smash the social worker’s skull in.

7. There were additional concerns about home conditions and about how the parents related to the children: for example the father called SP “twat”. The local authority had learned that social care bodies had been involved with the family in [a place name] and the children had been subject to child protection plans with concerns expressed about physical assault on the children and about risk of sexual abuse. Shortly after the local authority planning meeting, the father informed the social worker that his brother, Glynn P, had stayed with the family a few weeks before: Glynn had served a custodial sentence previously for rape of a 9-year-old girl. The Parents do not accept this but I prefer the evidence of the social worker.

8. Such was the level of concern that the local authority issued care proceedings. The local authority plan was to remove the children following the granting of an interim care order: however, this step was superseded by the action of the police who removed the children from their parents on 29 ^th October 2014 under a police protection order. As the local authority’s plans were in a preparatory state, the removal of the children was prompted by the health visitor who had received word that the parents were thinking of leaving the area to escape the attention of child and family services. They expressed themselves in strong terms when the care proceedings papers were served upon them and that prompted the action of the police. The police who attended the property commented upon the sexualised behaviour of BP.

9. The key social worker for the life of this case has been Lorraine Hayter who has been assisted by Hannah Taylor.

10. The parents’ position has shifted a little during the course of the court process. In the early stages they were opposed to everything the local authority was suggesting and reluctant to engage and cooperate. This in particular was the attitude of the father who acted as spokesperson. However, during the course of the hearing, the parents’ position softened a little and it was conceded that mistakes had been made.

11. At this final hearing the parties positions were: the local authority maintained its plan to place all the children outside the birth family. Their view is that the older three children should be placed each in an individual long-term foster placement and they plan to place BP for adoption without ongoing contact. The contact planned for the older three children would be to see their parents on a two-monthly basis and to see one another every month. After a steep initial reduction in contact for BP with her family members, that contact is proposed to cease and indirect contact only to take place.

12. The opposition of the parents to these plans was centred upon the plan for BP to be placed for adoption. The parents are not happy to be without any of the children in their care but the main focus of their opposition is the plan for BP to which they cannot accede.

13. To assist me in reaching a decision, I have heard evidence from the social worker, Lorraine Hayter; the contact worker, Katherine Smith; the child psychologist, Carol Moore; the adult psychologist, Helen Hart: the mother, MP; the father, WP; and the guardian, Bernard Toland.

14. I have also been assisted by the court bundle of documents for this final hearing. I remind myself of the legal structure within which the court operates. The burden of proving this case is upon the local authority. The standard to which they must prove their case is the simple balance of probabilities. In relation to the care application, I must first ask myself whether the threshold criteria are met. In both applications the welfare of the children is my paramount consideration and I am assisted by the welfare checklist in the 1989 Act and in the 2002 Act. A critical difference between those welfare checklists is the additional requirement that in the case of the application for a placement order, I am to consider BP’s welfare throughout her life and the relationship which she has with relatives and any other person who may be relevant.

15. Having indicated the broad parameters within which the court is operating, I turn to the evidence available to me.

16. I begin with Dr Smurthwaites report found within the bundle at E20-21. The report is dated 28 ^th October 2014 but was refering to DP’s visit to the St Marys Sexual Assault Centre on the 23 ^rd October 2014. DP attended with her mother MP and the case worker Claire Whittingham. DP was on medication for ADHD and urinary incontinence. On this visit she was told that DP had been taken to hospital in [a place name] when she was 6 years old because a 9 year old had inserted a plastic thermometer into her vagina and there had been some bleeding.

17. Upon examination of DP Dr Smurthwaite was concerned about her presentation. She describes her as exhibiting frozen watchfulness she found her to weight below the 0.4 percentile which was not in line with her height: her height was just within the 0.4 percentile but her weight well below. Her hair had sign of head lice infestation and eggs were visible.

18. DP’s presentation clearly caused Dr Smurthwaite serious concerns (in her words she was “very concerned”) and she formed the view DP had been neglected. Dr Smurthwaite had been informed that DP had been sexually assaulted by Lewis (a 19 years old cousin on the paternal side). She noted Lewis had admitted to this. Lewis had told the police that when he was younger in [a place name] he was raped by his cousin. His account was he had gone onto rape a child of 7 when he was 14 years old.

19. Dr Smurthwaite noted additionally that DPresented with poor dental care (her teeth coated with plaque) and the overall picture was clearly worrying.

20. AP was seen by the Consultant Paediatrician Jon Mcviety on the 17 ^th October 2014. The Hospital had been contacted on AP’s behalf after the school contacted children’s Social care as he was expressing severe discomfort. AP’s mother who attended with him indicated that he had forcefully retracted his foreskin. He described this activity when he was in the company of 2 boys and 2 adults. The fact that the foreskin was torn and that he was in such discomfort was thought to be compatible with his explanation.

21. An additional medical report in the bundle at E 25 – E29 which gives relevant medical information is the report of the Senior Forensic Physician at St Mary’s Sexual Assault Centre Dr J Victoria Evans. She describes BP appearing relatively cheerful in the presence of her foster carer before an attempt at a medical examination. She was happy to take the Doctor’s hand and walk into the examination room. When asked to sit on the bed and be examined her demeanour changed and could be described as displaying frozen watchfulness: she was silent with tears running down her face. Ms Evans was able to make a preliminary examination of her genital area the appearance of which was suggestive of sexual abuse. However, BP was too distressed for her to conduct a full examination.

22. SP was seen by Dr Smurthwaite on 17 ^th Novmeber 2014 who reports at E30 of the bundle. SP had a normal genital examination some scars and athletes foot.

23. To complete the medical information available to me. I have the independently commissioned report of Dr Russell Austin Consultant Paediatrician dated May 2015 E139 – E154 of the bundle and email communication with Dr Austin dated 7 ^th July 2015 at E159 – E160 of the bundle. He conducted a review of the medical records of the children including a report of Lyndsay Briody the Health visitor who had conducted a review of Health visiting records from [a place name]. That report is in the bundle at C45 – C57 and indicates that 19 visits are recorded in addition to 6 visits to the Accident and Emergency Department. In the [a place name] records home conditions are described as chaotic and Ms Briody expresses concerns about the ability of the parents to prioritise the children’s needs should they return home.

24. Dr Austin describes SP’s growth as average and normal. SP has moderate learning difficulties meaning that he has special needs and Dr Austin describes him as needing a guardian angel. In relation to DP Dr Austin’s notes that she dropped through the centile’s from 9 ^th to 0.4. She had suffered from thread worms. He noted that her medication to assist with opening her bowels, enuresis and ADHD had been stopped. He noted that she gained 2kg of weight in foster care. In his view she suffered neglect that was compounded by the medication for ADHD that she had been given. In his view over medication on top of neglect means that DP will need long term follow up.

25. He describes AP as displaying low average growth. He comments that his penile injury is very unusual and worrying and express’s the view that it’s causation is likely to be non-accidental.

26. In relation to BP Dr Austin defers to others.

27. Lorraine Hayter has been the social worker for this family from the time of the first referral. She has prepared two statements that I have considered and conducted the parenting assessment. She gave evidence before me and was cross examined. To summarise the message she gave me: She is still concerned about the children who are very anxious. The risks faced by them from their parents are of neglect and abuse both sexual (centred on failure to protect) and emotional. Despite her extensive involvement she has not seen the parent’s attitude change.

28. The local authority has observed contact which has taken place at once a week for the girls, once for the boys, and once for all four children together (this reflects an adjustment to the contact arrangements which the local authority found difficult to mange initially as all four children undertook contact together which could be chaotic). Now contact is observed and before it begins the parents are given feedback from the previous session she commented that initially the parents did not have control of the contact but this has improved with feedback.

29. The Local Authority contends for long term foster placements for the older three children and in that context APs foster carers have indicated a wish to keep him long term. She would be very concerned if BP were to remain in foster care. She is four years old and there are realistic options out there for her in terms of adoptive placement. The advantage of adoption for BP are that it would offer her permanence, security and ongoing support.

30. The plan is for monthly sibling contact and for parental contact six times per years for all the children except BP. Ms Hayter commented contact can be distressing for the children: They display difficulties and regress in contact. Their loyalty for the parents is clear.

31. Ms Hayter described the parents as having a significant lack of insight. In her view they do not accept their shortcomings. The parents’ response to issues which are raised with them is to deny problems or allocate blame elsewhere. BP has settled since she was separated from DP. The decision as to the right plan for BP has been incredibly difficult to reach but adoption offers permanence which she greatly needs. Ms Hayter told me SP is not now on any medication and is settled in his foster placement.

32. Ms Hayter conceded that parents have made improvements which are visible in contact. However there is a long history of the father presenting aggressively.

33. Ms Hayter expressed the view that should the Local Authority application for a placement order be granted there will be a need for careful and intensive support work with the children. The separation would be difficult but manageable with positive intensive support.

34. Katherine Smith reported on contact in a way which was largely positive. In general the children are happy although sometimes it can be “a bit chaotic”. There are lots of cuddles with mother and father: father can sometimes get a bit rough with AP. Sometimes boundaries are missed: sometimes contact is good. It has improved since feedback was introduced. The parents have listened to advice and if there are no issues the contact is fine. The parents do accuse the contact staff of lying. The children have matured significantly.

35. I turn next to the evidence of the parents. The mother told me that she wants the children home and that she would accept a care order. There was an incident where DP had jumped onto Lewis’s lap wearing a onesey which had a hole in the crotch of which he took advantage to make sexual contact. Ms P told me she was not aware of that happening. Asked about the family trip they undertook to Blackpool with Michael and Wayne (a now known sexual risk) she conceded that she had failed to protect the children. She told me that she is more aware now about the danger around the children.

36. The mother sees the children’s improvements in foster care as attributable to the amount of 1 to 1 attention they have received: an example of this is SP who used to smack her bottom in contact and this has now stopped. She did not accept AP’s account that he was with 2 men when he hurt his penis. The home was cluttered not dirty.

37. The mother conceded the father can become “aggressive” – “fiery” but is not like that with the children. She has no recollection of DP telling her she was abused. Mother was ready to make concessions “I could have done more – it happened to me as a child” “it would have been better not to have gone to Blackpool with Michael and Wayne”.

38. The mother gave a clear description of each of her children and her affection for them was abundantly clear.

39. Mr P is Mrs P’s senior by 20 years. He has made two statements within these proceedings which I have considered and he gave evidence before me. When talking about conditions of the home in Salford he explained that the family had arrived in July and there was nowhere to put anything: they were living out of boxes. He now knows his relative Lewis was sexually abusing DP. At the time of the “onesey” incident he was not in the room but following a noise he made an enquiry and DP told him Lewis had touched her flower. He told me he felt terrible: he had trusted Lewis and Lewis had betrayed him. He wished he had seen the signs. He barred Lewis for a month but should have barred him for life.

40. Mr P was able to tell me he is undertaking counselling through his GP and feels a lot better. He could be a better father and wants to be. He readily conceded he has a problem with authority figures and he does not like social services. The prospect of BP being adopted is too much too bear: she will never see him and he will never see her. He thinks DP would never get over the loss. BP’s siblings would be devastated if she was adopted. DP was not neglected: the children never wanted for food and he does not take responsibility for her weight loss. He does take responsibility for Lewis: His mistake is trusting people too much.

41. Carol Moore, Chartered Psychologist, has provided the court with a report that appears at E76 – E130 of the bundle together with an addendum at E155 – E158. In her evidence she adhered to the views expressed in her report. All the children have shown improvements in foster care which for BP and SP is “dramatic”. SP is not displaying signs of Tic-Tourette’s nor ADHD and his medication for those have been stopped. He is very vulnerable and she would strongly urge that his current placement is maintained. If he moved to a new carer there is a significant risk of breakdown and this could to lead secure accommodation eventually. DP has behaviour that is difficult for her carers to manage and BP’s behaviour is disturbing. Ms Moore was consulted when the foster carer for the girls was struggling and DP moved. In an ideal world continuing direct contact between BP and her siblings would help. However on balance she would support the Local Authority plan for adoption although this is a finely balanced decision. The separation of siblings is a contributory factor to a breakdown in placement and there is a higher probability of breakdown with a child who has been sexually abused. Nonetheless an adoptive placement would give BP the best chance.

42. Helen Hart, Chartered Psychologist and Registered Forensic Psychologist, assessed both parents. Her report appears at E31 – 75 of the bundle and an addendum at E133 – E138. She gave evidence which was very much in line with her report. Mr P had explained to her all the family call each other “twats” as a joke. He had been clear that Lewis was family and you trust family. She formed a view that the mother was below average intelligence and her life had been blighted by serious abuse which she suffered as a child. The comment the mother made to Ms Hart was telling: “I was made to believe it was right, now I know it is not”. The view that she voiced about her current state of mind had been “I feel fine now it doesn’t affect me”. When asked about BP the comment was that BP has always fiddled with herself.

43. Mrs P’s first serious relationship had been with Mr P who I note is almost 20 years her senior. On the subject of Lewis and the onesey incident she said, “Lewis was family and we trusted him.”

44. In her evidence Ms Hart was clear that the parents are not ready to undertake the safe care work that they clearly need. They are not demonstrating sufficient acceptance of the abuse that has occurred for such work to be meaningful. The father had made a general acknowledgment but this is insufficient. He is slow too let down his guard and difficult to work with.

45. Bernard Toland has been the children’s guardian from the early stages of these proceedings. He provided an initial analysis for the court which can be found at E3 – E16 of the bundle and Final Analysis which is at the conclusion of the E section of the bundle. Additionally he filed a position statement which sets out his position in relation to SPs placement. He gave evidence at the conclusion of that which was called at the final hearing. He told me that the father needs determination to follow through on the commitments he has made. His oppositional style lets him down. He went onto say the father is at the beginning of the process. He focuses on disputes but needs to look at the bigger picture. He has given him the advice: “Lose a few but win the ones you need to win”. Work which the mother has undertaken with the NSPCC has helped her in addressing the abuse which she herself suffered but consolidation of that work needs time. She has the willingness to change but her ability to do so can only be judged overtime. The children have a relationship with their mother which is strong.

46. Mr Toland told me that SP has calmed down in care and no longer displays Tic-Tourette’s nor ADHD.

47. The challenging issue in this case is the application for a placement order in respect of BP. The children’s guardian told me that this is a finely balanced decision. He had evaluated the “pros and cons” for the children: there are more cons for DP but more pros for BP. He has infinite faith in the social worker and matching is a key consideration. Ongoing contact between the siblings would compromise and adoptive placement.

My view of the evidence

48. The mother’s evidence was an uncomfortable mixture of concession – “we made mistakes” – and denial or minimization: “DP did not look well because of her medication”, “the house was cluttered not dirty”, “I had no idea about Lewis and DP”. She attributes the improvements in the presentation in the children to the increase in 1 to 1 attention they receive rather than a fundamental change in the care they are being given in foster care.

49. I found Mr P an interesting mixture of a person willing to accept responsibility and to locate that responsibility elsewhere for example a willingness to concede that he should have seen the risk Lewis posed whilst at the same time stating “he betrayed me” thus handing the responsibility to Lewis rather than acknowledging his duty as a father too anticipate and prevent such events. The guardian’s conclusion, with which I agree, about the father’s memory does not inspire confidence about the prospects of him making lasting changes to his parenting style in early course.

50. Whilst it is abundantly clear to me that the parents love their children and truly meant what they said to the court when I was told they would do anything to have their children back, I regret the way in which they gave their evidence only served to illustrate the distance between their loving intention and their practical ability to fulfil it. Their path to a true acceptance of the problems which there have been in the care the children is only at its beginning and time will be required before their ability to pursue it is equal to the task. Through no fault of their own they are only just beginning to learn the significance of the task which confronts them. The shortfall between what the children need and what the parents are currently able to offer them is greater than can safely be bridged.

51. I accept the view expressed by Dr Smuthwaite who saw DP when she was taken to hospital that her presentation was of great concern and symptomatic of neglect.

52. I accept the view also expressed by Dr Austin that DP was showing signs of neglect, that SP needs a “guardian angel” and AP’s penile injury is suggestive of non-accidental causation. I do not make any finding in relation to the way in which that injury was caused, but I do find that alarm bells should have sounded in the parents mind and they should have sought medical attention as a matter of urgency. That finding falls in with the conclusions of Dr Hart that the parents have difficulty prioritising the children’s needs and I accept Dr Hart’s evidence and her views.

53. Lorriane Hayter struck me as a knowledgeable and well balanced social work practitioner whose involvement with this family can only have been to the children’s benefit. I accept her evidence. It is clear that she has got to know these children well and has maintained her perspective often in the face of hostility from the parents. Given all that I know about the parents from the history of this matter and in addition to hearing them give evidence, it seems likely to me that the children have not been protected from hearing the parents views of the social work staff. Mr P is a strong character and I do not doubt this is not something which would have made her task easy. She has remain focused upon the children and I commend her for it. I accept her evidence.

54. I accept the conclusion Ms Hart reached about the parents. She had clearly considered the matter carefully and was prepared to make concessions in their favour and her assessment that the parents are at a very early stage in the process of change is powerful and I cannot be confident that the parents could undertake such change within a timescale that in any way matches the children’s needs.

55. I found Ms Moore’s evidence of great assistance. She had formed a clear picture of each child, each one of whom amply displays the consequences of the upbringing they have had. The progress of each child in foster care speaks volumes. These children all need a great deal of assistance to repair the damage they have suffered. The parents are simply not equipped to undertake that task given their own life experiences.

56. I move on to Mr Toland, the Children’s Guardian. He was struck when he interviewed the parents that although on three distinct occasions he broke down the work they needed to undertake, at the conclusion of this session he asked the parents to repeat back to him the work needed. The mother could do so but the father could not. As a result the guardian would find it difficult to rely upon the father’s memory.

57. Asked about the benefits to BP of adoption and set against the considerable loss which would be involved the guardians response was “permanence”. He saw the benefit of the Local Authority for BP as being “claimed”. He considered that there may be a need for support over a long-time for the adoptive placement. Having agonised over the correct decision for BP his view was on balance that adoption is the best conclusion for her. He views it as the least worst outcome.

58. The Guardian took a strong position in relation to SPs’s placement. The final care plan originally proposed moving SP from the agency foster placement where he has been throughout to an alternative, in house placement. Such a placement would provide advantages for the Local Authority in terms of his management but clearly disadvantages for SP. This prospect was viewed by Carol Moore as setting SP upon a path which could lead ultimately to secure accommodation. At an early stage of this final hearing and having heard Ms Moore express her preference, the Local Authority changed its plan for SP to allow him to remain in his current placement in the long term.. Approval of the carers for this purpose will be required but there is consensus between the parties that such a formality should not present an obstacle. The court commends the children’s guardian for taking up this point on SPs’s behalf. It was clear that the social worker agreed his approach but had been subject to managerial pressure to promote the outcome canvassed in SP’s final care plan and I imagine it was a relief to her. When the change was agreed.

59. The prevalence of sexual abuse of children within this family is startling. There are numerous examples of members of the father’s family being convicted of sexual offences. The mother herself was sexually abused by not only her father but also her grandfather. Neither parent grew up in an environment where they were given reliable guidelines of appropriate behaviour in relation to sexual matters.

60. Considering this matter holistically, I accept DP’s original account that she had told the parents about Lewis’s behaviour towards her and they had not acted. I accept the account given in the anonymous call to the police: the mother’s response to DP illustrates an inappropriate focus upon avoiding the involvement of social care agencies rather than addressing the difficulty being presented. In my mind this connects the mother’s approach to difficult issues which appears to be based on denial. It is my view the mother did not have the equipment needed in her makeup to respond appropriately and protectively to the significance of what she was told. The parents failed to protect DP from Lewis J who abused her on several occasions in the family home when the parents were there.

61. In a similar vein the parents did not respond to news of AP’s penile injury as promptly as they should nor did they appear to contemplate the possibility that the injury may be of significance considering how it was caused. I consider that AP’s original assertion that the original injury occurred when he was in a room with two adults and two children does not have sufficient supporting evidence for me to find on the balance of probabilities that the precise scenario suggested by him is proved. However, I find that for a boy of AP’s age (5) to have been involved in an activity involving forcible retraction of the foreskin on his penis to the extent the injury was caused is troubling and suggests a normalisation of harmful sexual behaviour within the family. AP was clearly in pain and the parents should have acted immediately. The mother treated AP for thrush, making the assumption that he had the same complaint as his father who had the appropriate cream available for himself. It is an unhelpful assumption that father and son were suffering from the same complaint given the disparity in their ages and the distinction between what may be expected from an adult as opposed to a child.

62. Having read Dr Smurthwaite’s report concerning DP’s presentation when she attended hospital at the beginning of this process, I am heartened by her awareness of issues connected with neglect and the efficiency with which she sounded the alarm. I accept her perspective in preference to the account given by the parents that DP’s weight loss was attributable to the side effects of the medication she was using pursuant to medical advice received in [a place name].

63. This brings me to the subject of medication upon which I accept Dr Austin’s view that the children were over medicated. I do not accept the parents’ account that this medication was needed. In my view this explanation reflects the parents’ tendency to externalise responsibility. This tendency took them to medical authorities in [a place name] where they discussed what they saw as the children’s problems and the authorities responded to matters as presented by the parents. However in my view the parents were seeking external explanations for the children’s presentation which was in fact the result of the lives they led at home. I’m fortified in that view by the progress the children have made since their reception into foster care and that SP for example no longer receives medication for the Tic-Tourettes and ADHD from which the parents believed he suffered. SP still has his difficulties including learning difficulties but those do not need to be reduced to medical complaints and the attempts to treat his problems as medical misses the point. No doubt the fact the terms of abuse were used in the family contributed to the vocabulary available to him, which he appeared to use liberally when first accommodated.

64. I accept the Local Authority’s contention that the police on 8 ^th October 2014 together with the Social Worker saw BP naked below the way waist displaying sexualised behaviour. In this 3 year old child such an observation indicates that BP had been exposed to sexual matters at a level utterly inappropriate for a child her age. I hold the parents responsible for that because either they were involved in that behaviour or because they were aware of it and did nothing or should have been aware of it and did nothing.

65. Mr P has accepted that when DP was taken to hospital he threatened to smash the social worker’s skull in. He has not accepted he had to be restrained by security staff and told me that in fact he sat in a side room with them where they were laughing and sharing jokes. I am afraid that such a formulation of events shows a lack of imagination on Mr Ps part. The fact he was in the presence of security guards makes it clear to me the hospital authorities were sufficiently worried about the prospect of violence that it was felt necessary to deploy security staff. As a matter of good management of the situation I do not doubt the hospital security staff engage with those service users whose behaviour they are expected to monitor and if necessary restrain. It may well be the case Mr P was laughing and joking with the security officers. Nonetheless they were present to restrain him should the need have arisen.

66. I accept that home conditions were as contended by the local authority and I adopt their formulation:

(a) On 8 ^th October 2014 the social worker noted that there was dirty bedding and the children were grubby.

(b) On 20 ^th October 2014 the health visitor observed BP’s clothes were dirty, she was pale, her hair was unwashed and she had a sticky substance through it and there was dirt under her nails.

(c) DP was examined by Dr Denise Smurthwaite at St Mary’s sexual referral centre on 23 ^rd October 2014. Dr.Smurthwaite indicated that DP was suffering from a high level of neglect – she was very small in stature, had bruising, evidence of a recent head lice infestation and was suffering from poor dental care.

67. I turn to the welfare check list in relation to the care order application.

(a) All of the children old enough to express a view have indicated they would like to go home. In my view this genuinely expressed wish reflects well on the parents in that the children know that their parents love them and the children have a loyalty to them. However, I note that all the children have flourished in care and in particular DP has put on weight to considerable degree. The children are not of an age or understanding which enables them to evaluate the impact of the change.

(b) The needs of the children are considerable as a result of the deficits in the parenting they received. They need a level of parenting which assists in repairing the damage they have suffered.

(c) I am well aware that the children have been waiting for the outcome of this final hearing. The finalisation of the matter will mark a significant change for them and the court is reassured to know that the social worker has planned input into assisting with the outcome of proceedings.

(d) It is my view that the parenting deficits which the children have suffered in all four cases will require work tailored to their individual needs as planned by the Local Authority.

(e) The harm which the children have suffered is in part physical, in part emotional, and in part developmental. They have all suffered as a result of attitudes within the family to sexual matters. There is a need for restorative parenting.

(f) I have found that sadly there is a shortfall between the parents undoubted love for their children and their ability to understand and go on to meet the children’s needs.

68. The range of powers available to the court: In all the circumstances it is clear to me that the children’s individual placements, with the focus upon an understanding of their considerable needs, and that the local authority’s application for care orders is the best way to see that those needs are met. With the children’s welfare as my paramount consideration I intend to make care orders for each of them.

69. In relation to the second application I turn to the 2002 Act. I considered particularly the likely effect on BP if an order is made of having ceased to be a member of her original family and becoming an adopted person. I also consider the effect that adoption would have upon BP’s relationship not only with her parents but also with her siblings. BP knows who she is and who her parents and siblings are. In this context I need to consider the ability and willingness of BP’s relatives to provide her a secure environment in which she can develop and otherwise meet her needs. Sadly, given the damage which both the parents and BP’s siblings have suffered, I do not have confidence in their ability to make a positive contribution to a secure environment in which she is to grow. I know that their wishes and feelings are otherwise. I do not doubt that if BP were old enough to express a coherent view she would want to remain in contact with her birth family. However, all of her birth family needs reparative work as does BP herself. That work will demand energy which needs not to be diluted by the effort involved in combating the repercussions of the original damage.

70. I note that both the social worker and the children’s guardian have agonised over this decision and the court has also spent time considering this issue. The plan is a draconian one but in the court’s view, which is assisted by the guardian’s expression of his view, an adoptive placement offers BP the best prospect of healing the damage which has been suffered. In such circumstances the making of a placement order is both necessary and proportionate. BP’s welfare requires this solution and therefore the dispensation with parents consent.

71. The orders which the court intends to make are:

1) Care orders for all four children.

2) Dispense with parents consent to a placement order for BP.

3) A placement order for BP.

4) The usual costs order.

5) Any disclosure agreed by the parties.

[Judgment ends]

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> P (Sexual abuse), Re [2015] EWFC B120 (11 August 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B120.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B120

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)