[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) >> C (A Child) [2015] EWFC B146 (14 September 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B146.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B146

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

IN THE PORTSMOUTH FAMILY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF RE C A CHILD

		14th September 2015

1. This is an application by the Local Authority for a care order and if granted a placement order in respect of a little boy who is now almost 6 months old.
2. He is the second child of these parents. The parents are not married but the father has Parental Responsibility by virtue of him being on the child's birth certificate.
3. The Local Authority applied for a without notice emergency protection order in respect of the child in March 2015. They then followed the making of that application with an application for a Care Order.
4. The child has been subject to an Interim Care Order throughout the course of these care proceedings. However until mid-July the baby had lived with the mother from birth in a Mother and Baby foster placement. The reports from the Mother and Baby foster placement and from the Social Workers was that the mother was doing well in that placement and they were encouraged by the care that she was able to give her baby. This was different from the care that she had been able to give to her first child which resulted in care and placement orders being made.

The mother however in mid-July informed them that she wished to leave the mother and baby foster placement and for her son to go up for adoption. At the hearing which took place on the 14^th August both the mother through her Barrister and the father who had insisted on representing himself, both agreed that their son should go for adoption and in fact signed the relevant documentation giving their unconditional and informed consent to that taking place.

5. The hearing today is for the making of those final care and placement orders.

It was not possible for those to be concluded on the 14^th August as the Local Authority had been taken by surprise by the parents decision and had not had time to deal with the formalities which needed to occur before they could make the application for a Placement Order and time was required for that to take place.

6. This was a surprising turn of events by the parents as up to that point the Local Authority had been working very hard to see whether it was possible for the mother to care for her son on a long-term basis and it was looking encouraging that that might be the outcome. I will return to this point in more detail later in my Judgment.
7. Before the Court can consider making a Care Order the Court needs to be satisfied that the Threshold Criteria as set out in S.31 Children Act 1989 has been passed. Both parents agree that it has been passed. The relevant date for considering Threshold is the 26^th March 2015 which is the date that the Local Authority applied for their without notice emergency protection order.
8. The Local Authority state that the child was likely to be at risk of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect and that the likelihood of harm is attributable to the care likely to be given to the child if the order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. The fact that the Local Authority relies upon in relation to that are as follows:

a. The parents' older child was removed from their care and made subject of a Care and Placement Order in June 2013. The Threshold Criteria was found to be met in that case on the basis of neglect, emotional and physical harm.

b. The Court in June 2013 found that the parents' care of their first child was not good enough.

c. In June 2013 both parents signed the requisite consent form to the making of a Placement Order.

d. Neither of the parents accept the Court's findings in respect of their older child.

e. The parents have frustrated attempts by the Local Authority to undertake a thorough Capacity to Care Assessment which was compliant with the Parenting Assessment Manual. In not consenting to the independent Social Worker having access to the papers filed in the previous care proceedings. As a result it has not been possible to assess the true measure of the parenting capacity of the parents and whether or not they have changed.

f. The parents were not open and honest during the course of the Parenting Assessment choosing to withhold information rendering it impossible to undertake a thorough assessment of any changes made by the parents or quantifying the risk and concerns to the baby.

g. The parents refused access to the family home by the Social Worker. At the time the unborn baby was subject to a Child Protection Plan.

h. The father failed to disclose his offending history and denied any domestic violence between the mother and him.

i. The mother historically reported the father to the Police for sexual assault and rape. The father accepts on 2 occasions he acted inappropriately.

j. An allegation of rape was made against the father in September 2013 which he denied.

k. The parents are isolated and heavily dependant upon the paternal grandparents, specifically the paternal grandfather who is controlling in his behaviour.

l. The parents cannot ensure the paternal grandfather controls his behaviour which results in the paternal grandfather:

i. being disruptive in the hospital which resulted in the Police and the hospital security staff being called;

ii. obstructing the Local Authority when they were trying to work with the parents;

ii. and putting on Facebook information about the Local authority workers which are involved in the Court case which concerns their son.

9. From my reading of the independent Social Work Assessment which was undertaken before the birth of the baby and from the first Social Work Statement which details the attempts that have been made prior to the commencement of the proceedings to re-engage these parents, I am satisfied that that was the parents position as at the relevant date, namely the 26^th March 2015 and accordingly the Threshold Criteria in this case is made out.
10. From the time that the Local Authority were informed that the mother was pregnant with this child the Local Authority attempts to engage with the parents and to undertake proper and full pre-birth assessments of the family were thwarted by the parents and more particularly by the paternal grandfather.
11. Given that the parents' earlier child had been removed from their care it was of course necessary for the Local Authority to undertake a full assessment of the parents, in particular to establish whether there had been any change that would mean that their new baby could be safely cared for by them.

The Local Authority's concerns were three-fold.

Firstly the well-documented concerns about the neglectful parenting that both parents had subjected their first child to. This is well documented in the previous proceedings and in the findings accepted by the parents in the previous proceedings.

Secondly the controlling behaviour of the father and his family. This again is documented in the previous proceedings and became increasingly apparent during the attempts to engage with the parents prior to the birth of this child.

Thirdly the fathers convictions of sexual assault and allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour .

12. So far as the third area was concerned on the 18^th September 2007 the father had been convicted of 2 offences relating to 2 different girls in that when he was under 18 he was found to be engaging in non-penetrative sexual activity with a girl of 13 to 15. Those offences having taken place on the 5^th October 2006 and 13^th December 2006. Those being offences which were contrary to Section 9(1)(a)(b)(c)(i) and Section 13 Sexual Offences Act 2003.
13. In addition there were the allegations that have been made by the mother that the father had raped her.
14. She told the psychologist appointed during these proceedings that shortly after the birth of her first child when she still had stitches in and was very sore the father wanted sex and she did not and he forced himself on her. She was restrained during the incident and was screaming for him to get off but he did not do so. She described the incident as being one of rape and of being very painful. She described another occasion of him having sex with her when she was asleep and that she did not consent to that.

There are further allegations made by her sister that he has acted inappropriately towards her.

The mother also alleges that the father has created a fake Facebook account and that she has seen that account and has 'seen a hundred of young like 13 or 14 year old girls dressed in skimpy outfits showing everything' and comments saying: "I'd like to take that off you" etc. She alleges that the father is the owner of that Facebook account.

15. The father accepted to the psychologist that there had been violence in their relationship with him strangling the mother and hitting her prior to the birth of their first child. He also accepts that he raped the mother shortly after the birth of his first child. And he, himself describes the incident as being a rape.

The father denies the allegations made by the mothers sister, and says that the Facebook account was created by a neighbour and is nothing to do with him.

16. It is unsurprising with that background that the Local Authority were particularly concerned about the father and about the ability of these parents to safely parent their new baby.
17. Accordingly a Child Protection Conference was first convened in January 2015 and the unborn baby was made the subject of Child Protection Planning under the categories of Emotional Abuse and Neglect.
18. As part of the pre-birth planning the parents agreed to undertake cognitive assessments and those were commissioned to be undertaken by a psychologist. The parents also agreed to an assessment to be undertaken by an independent Social Worker. That assessment would follow the Parenting Assessment Manual which is a specific parenting assessment undertaken with parents with learning difficulties. The Local Authority also agreed that the paternal grandparents would be assessed as carers by their fostering services.
19. As is set out in the Threshold Document the parents did not co-operate fully with those pre-birth assessments. They refused to allow certain documentation to be provided to the independent Social Worker so that the assessor did not have a full picture of the history of the case. The parents attended a demonstration outside the offices of the Local Authority on the 23^rd February 2015. The demonstration was to demonstrate against children being removed by the Local Authority and being forced into adoption. An odd position for these parents to take as they had agreed for their first child to go for adoption.
20. The assessments were being undertaken by the Local Authority against the backdrop of an abusive and cowardly campaign by the paternal grandfather on Facebook which has persisted throughout the course of these proceedings. He has made wild unproven claims against the particular Social Workers and the Local Authority generally and against this Court. It was clear from the hearing on the 14^th August that the father shares his fathers views.

The campaign has included continued allegations of perjury and that the perjury in the Secret Family Court is to traffic children for money.

All of the Social Workers who have been involved in either child's case have been named in Facebook pages and described as: "pathological paid liar", "lying entrapment scumbag", "paid liar assessor", "paid liar". All are described in this list as "baby/child traffickers who are operating in Southampton". Facebook entries state they were trying to steal his granddaughter and worked 'for a child trafficking organisation called the Local Authority'. The grandfather has also recommended that facebook users check out the social workers 'friends list and you will see the child trafficking social workers on there, talk about conspiracies, the evil baby stealing bastards'.

21. Notwithstanding the parents' lack of co-operation during the pre-birth assessment period and the difficulties that the Local Authority were being subjected to by the paternal family generally the Local Authority's plan on the birth of the baby was for the mother and baby to go into a Mother and Baby Foster Placement so as to keep the mother and baby together during the course of these proceedings and to provide the mother with an opportunity to show that she could learn parenting skills that would be sufficient for her to be able to care for her son safely during his childhood.
22. The parents following the issue of the proceedings took a far more moderate approach and agreed that they would fully co-operate with the assessments that the Local Authority wished for them to take and in fact blamed the paternal grandfather for his control over them and the unwise decisions that they had made during the pre-birth position. Both regretted their decisions and sought to distance themselves from the paternal family and particularly from the influence and control of the paternal grandfather

It is of particular significance to note that neither parent put forward the paternal grandfather or indeed any member of the maternal or paternal family as a long-term carer for their child. They did this with the full knowledge that the only options that they left the court with was a placement with both or one of the parents or adoption.

23. Both parents agreed that the care that they had provided to their first child had not been good enough
24. The parents particularly accepted that the care that they had provided to their first child was not adequate. They accepted that the home conditions were not appropriate and the mother specifically says that she was unable to meet her child's needs. Both parents say that they were both young and naive and thought that they had grown up a lot and were in a far better position to now bring up a child.

That seemed a sea change from what they had been saying before the birth of their baby, and so there did appear to be a prospect that this baby could be cared for by his mother.

25. It was therefore approved by the Court that the Local Authority would re-engage the independent Social Worker to undertake a full assessment of the parents.

In addition having regard to the sexual history of the father the court approved that there would be a full risk assessment undertaken of him. Whilst those assessments were taking place the mother remained in a Mother and Baby foster placement and the father was restricted in his contact with the baby and the mother.

26. The risk assessment of the father came to the following conclusions:

The father poses a direct sexual risk to his partner (the mother) and this risk is of sexual assault or rape.

The father may also pose a risk to adult females with whom he is in the stage of forming a relationship with and who deny a sexual advance from the father.

In those circumstances the father also poses a sexual risk.

There is no evidence that the father poses a risk to any pre-pubescent child including his own child or to males of any age.

The father poses no sexual risk to his own son.

As however the son grows older the father is likely to pose a risk of emotional harm to his son. Particularly if his son witnesses sexual violence within the family home and became aware of the father engaging in physical or sexual violence to the mother.

The risk of physical violence from the father to the mother is also in the medium range. The son could witness physical and sexual violence and experience direct emotional harm.

So far as the mother is concerned, she functions with very significant dependant personality traits and is highly dependant upon close inter-personal relationships for her personal happiness.

The mother's emotional vulnerability means that she is easily controlled and manipulated by others and will also have a very strong tendency to prioritise a close inter-personal relationship before her need to protect both herself and a child in her care from the risks that others pose.

She would be completely unable to protect herself and therefore a child in her care from the risk of sexual violence that the father poses to her.

There is a high risk that if the mother was living in the community she would be at risk of being manipulated and indeed controlled by the father and the paternal family.

27. The psychologist also said that the father had not been fully open and honest with him either during the cognitive assessment nor during the full risk assessment of him. For those reasons the conclusion was that he was not suitable for any therapeutic intervention at this time and would not recommend any therapy.

The report of the independent Social Worker however was far more encouraging so far as the mother was concerned. Her observations and comments concerning the mother was that she seemed to have a growing understanding of the risks that the father posed and therefore that unless he could make changes that she would have to consider bringing the child up alone.

Of significance the independent Social Worker concluded that all observations of the mother with her baby had been positive and that she had demonstrated that she is capable with the teaching programmes of providing good physical care to her son and was showing atunement to his emotional needs in a way that was not evident with the first child.

She has shown herself to be willing to work with professionals and to take advice and that again was a distinct change from the previous lack of engagement with her first child. The conclusion of the independent Social Work report received at the beginning of July was ' that in the right environment away from the external pressures and with good appropriate support that the mother may be able to provide good enough parenting for her child. However the caveats to this would require a lot of change to be observed and that this would need to happen within the child's timescale'.

She made a number of recommendations for further assessment and support that could be given to the mother. In the circumstances she was cautiously optimistic that this mother could, on her own care for her child.

28. The Local Authority were due to file their final evidence and care plan by the 22^nd July. However in the light of the report from the independent Social Worker and from their own observations from the good parenting that this mother could offer to her child the Local Authority came to the issues resolution hearing on the 31^st July with a plan of further work to be undertaken with the mother as recommended by the independent social worker.

They asked for an adjournment for several further months ( into 2016) to enable that work to be successfully undertaken. The Guardian was against that work being undertaken at all as she considered it to be outside the timescales for the baby and her own assessment was that the mother would not be able to parent this child.

However the Court considered, having regard to the positive changes that the mother appeared to have made which included that she had separated from the father and now wished to be a sole carer for her son that it was appropriate for there to be a further period of time given to enable the mother to evidence change and a real understanding of the risks that not only the father posed but that would protect her from manipulation or control from other like minded men in the future.

29. Accordingly the Court approved a package of work to be provided to the mother. This included a requirement for the mother not to communicate with the father and to obviously undertake the work recommended and to attend all of the appointments.

In order for the Local Authority to be satisfied that the mother was not contacting or had not contacted the father and that she was truely separated from him she readily agreed for her telephone records from her mobile number and her Facebook pages to be made available to the Local Authority.

30. It was also positive that despite the conclusions of the psychological report on the father that he had taken the report to his GP who had recommended that he should first undertake a course with BARST and that once he had concluded that work then there would be a referral back to his GP to consider work to address his issues.
31. It therefore seemed to the Court on that occasion that the father was for the first time taking a real step to understand that his sexual behaviour was inappropriate and that it needed to be addressed and that coupled with the separation of the parents and the mother's positive parenting that it did in the Court's view mean that there could be a really positive outcome to this case and the child could remain being successfully brought up by the mother in the long-term.

The court did not approve the timescale proposed by the authority , and required them to come to a final decision as to their care plan for this child ( informed by the engagement and progress the mother made in the intervening period) by the 2 nd October.

32. However within days of that Court hearing the mother sent an email to the Local Authority as follows:

"Hi ( legal assistant ) I know I shouldn't be emailing you but I need to tell the truth. The Local Authority want me to do a course with (therapist) but I will never admit that (father) is a risk so saying that I'd wish to be taken home and (son )to go up for adoption. As much as I love my little boy I don't want to waste the LA's time I want (son) to be settled I don't want this to be delayed any longer. They all want me to be honest and I am being honest, I have spoken to (foster carer) and have spoken to a lot of people who think I'm stupid but this is my decision and I wish to go."

33. Following receipt of that email the mother left the Mother and Baby foster placement and her son.
34. The Local Authority applied for the matter to be brought back to Court and the hearing took place on the 14th August.

At that hearing both parents confirmed their wish for their child to go for adoption and wanted that day to be the final hearing. As that was not possible the hearing today was fixed.

35. The Court in determining the welfare matters in this case must consider that the welfare of the child is the Court's paramount consideration (Section 1 Children Act 1989) and must also consider as the courts paramount consideration the welfare of the child throughout his life (Section 1 Adoption and Children Act 2002) and the Court must also take into account the Welfare Checklist set out in both of those statutes.
36. In this case both parents not only do not oppose the making of the Care and Placement Orders, they positively consent to them. That in itself is a highly unusual state of affairs. It is highly unusual for parents to actively consent to the making of such orders rather than simply not opposing them.
37. There therefore is a concluded position between the Local Authority, the Guardian, and both parents that this child should be made subject to a Care Order and should be placed for adoption.
38. It is a sad outcome for this child. The social workers in this case have gone the extra mile to support this mother in caring for her child. They have done that against the backdrop of persistent allegations and abuse from the paternal family, They have however remained professional throughout and have remained focused on trying to support this mother in caring for her child. It is important that is recorded. It was not their decision to separate this child from her baby, it was the mothers choice, supported by the father.
39. This was an outcome that was predicted by the risk assessment that was undertaken by the psychologist. But it is still in my judgment right that that opportunity was given to this mother to care for her child. Sadly in this case the mother has chosen her relationship with the father above her relationship with her child.
40. She has chosen to disregard everything that has been written about the father and the sexual risk that he poses to her and has chosen to remain in that relationship. This case could have had a very different outcome had the mother been able to understand that.

Neither parent, nor any member of either the paternal or maternal family have given to this court any other options as to who could care for this child, realistic or otherwise to consider.

No one from either family has applied during these proceedings to be assessed as a carer or to be joined as a party. Given the campaign being pursued by the paternal family that is surprising to say the least.

41. In the circumstances for the reasons given there are no other orders that this Court can make other than the orders that all parties invite the Court to make and that is the making of the Care and Placement Orders and therefore with the consent of all parties those are the orders that I make. There is nothing else that I can do.

HHJ Black

14 th September 2015