England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD

Before Her Honour Judge Owens

CASE NO:OX20C00132

6^th to 7^th september 2021, 9^th to 13^th september 2021, and 16^th september 2021

OCC v K

Ms Bancroft, Counsel, for OCC

Mr Merrigan, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother, M

Ms Rai, Solicitor, for the Third Respondent B

Ms King, Legal Executive, for the Second & Fourth Respondents B & C acting through their Children’s Guardian

 

This judgment is being handed down [in private] on 16^th September 2021. It consists of 23 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The Judge has given permission for the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties and the child will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.     

Introduction, Background and Evidential Summary

 

This is the final hearing of the Local Authority's applications for Care Orders in relation to A, B and C.  A is aged 15 years old, B is 14 and C is 12. M is their mother.  Their apparent father (who does not have parental responsibility) has not been located despite extensive efforts to locate him.  B, whose views differ from those of the Guardian, became separately represented after the last pre-trial review in August this year.

 

Proceedings commenced on 6^th November 2020 when applications were made by the Local Authority for Emergency Protection Orders (EPOs) and Interim Care Orders (ICOs).  EPOs were granted by the Court at a short notice hearing before HHJ Moradifar on 6^th November 2020 until 4pm on 13^th November 2020 and the children placed in foster care.  A case management hearing and limited interim hearing (on submissions only) in relation to the application for ICOs was conducted by HHJ Lloyd-Jones on 13^th November 2020 and ICOs were granted in respect of all 3 children.  The interim care plans then endorsed by the Court meant that the children remained in foster care under those ICOs.  It is notable in this case that the children have remained together in the same foster care placement throughout these proceedings.

 

The case was timetabled to a contested interim hearing on 27^th November 2020 when it would be possible to fully consider the applications for interim orders and to hear evidence if required.  However, at that hearing M did not oppose the interim care plans for the children to remain in foster care and the interim care orders were confirmed as lasting for the duration of the proceedings or further order. A case management hearing was directed to take place before HHJ Lloyd-Jones on 4^th January 2021, with various alternative carer assessments and disclosure underway in the interim.  The hearing on 4^th January was adjourned to 11^th January 2021 (I do not know the reason from the Bundle), and a psychological assessment of the mother and children by Dr Gregory was directed by HHJ Lloyd-Jones.  Assessment of the maternal grandparents in Latvia was also directed, as well as a parenting assessment of M, and the case timetabled to an Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH) on 21^st June 2021.

 

On 20^th January 2021 the Local Authority applied to suspend contact under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, which resulted in a hearing taking place on 22^nd January 2021 and further case management directions were made, including a Together and Apart assessment in relation to the children.  Police disclosure, ordered previously, was still outstanding at this point and an FCMH was listed for 25^th February 2021 to consider (amongst other aspects) whether a separate fact-finding hearing was required, any consequential timetabling issues, progress of contact, and state of the evidence including any documentation received from Latvia.  It was noted on the face of the Case Management Order from that hearing that the respondent mother would be changing her legal representation.  On 4^th February 2021 the Local Authority again applied for an order under s 34(4), this time to extend the previous order.  That resulted in a further hearing on 10^th June 2021, though the application to suspend contact was not pursued at that stage.  HHJ Lloyd-Jones continued to hear the case up to this point and in fact conducted the IRH on 21^st June 2021.  

 

At the IRH the case was timetabled to a final hearing before me with a time estimate of 4 days commencing on 6^th September 2021, and with a pre-trial review listed on 13^th August 2021 again before me.  At the pre-trial review it was apparent that no final threshold document had been directed or filed, but a schedule of allegations which numbered 24 in total had been produced.  This schedule potentially relied heavily upon evidence from A, but a separate fact-finding hearing had been previously ruled out, the case had been timetabled on the basis of what appeared to be witnesses with regard to welfare primarily, and no consideration had been given to whether or not a Re W application may be required in relation to A.

 

Fortunately, the trial advocates (who had not hitherto all been involved in the earlier hearings) attended the pre-trial review and, by dint of extending the time available for the final hearing from 4 to 7 days and allowing some time for discussions on day 1, it became possible to preserve the final hearing.

 

In June and July this year, very unfortunately unauthorised contact took place between M and the children on more than one occasion.  During that unauthorised contact it is apparent that an unknown male was also present at times.  That unauthorised contact is not disputed by M, nor the fact that a male seems to have been with her.  M also does not dispute that her actions put the stability of the placement at risk and exposed all of the children to a very significant risk of harm from the presence of the unknown male, and also exposed them to emotional harm in particular due to the fact that M was verbally abusive to A.  It was this that led to A asking for her contact with M to be suspended.  D began to wet the bed after this contact too.  As a result of this failure to comply with contact arrangements the Local Authority had to urgently revisit restrictions on contact, particularly for B who was less able to see the risks posed by M and less likely to respond to ordinary supervision given her age.  As a result, separately to these care proceedings, there have also been proceedings regarding Deprivation of Liberty (DOL) in respect of B which have not been dealt with by me.  Those proceedings have been before the High Court and therefore dealt with by the appropriately ticketed judicial colleagues, with the current order authorising DOL due to expire on 20^th September 2021.  

 

I have read the Bundle and heard evidence from the social worker, Dr Gregory and the Guardian in the course of this final hearing.  The case had been set up to be hybrid to enable M and her advocate and interpreter to be present in a courtroom, with other participants connecting remotely.  However, prior to the start of the hearing M tested positive for Covid so, with her consent, the case moved to wholly remote. Given the final case being put by M it was agreed by all parties that they had no questions for M, and she also did not want to give evidence, so I agreed that she did not need to be called as a witness.

 

Parties’ Positions

 

The Local Authority seeks final Care Orders for each child, with care plans for all of them to remain in their current foster care placement, and for contact to take place between the children and M once every two months (6 times per year).  That contact would be supervised, in the community, for 2 hours each time.  The Local Authority is also keen to promote indirect contact between the children and their maternal grandparents but would need their contact details from M to set this up.

M does not challenge the Parenting Assessment of her, nor does she challenge the recommendation of Dr Gregory that she and the children need therapeutic input. M wants all 3 children to be returned to her care.  She agrees that threshold is crossed in respect of all 3 children and, in light of A’s views, that A remain in foster care for the time being.  In respect of B and C, she seeks their immediate return to her care, albeit under Supervision Orders.  If the children do all remain in foster care, she wants contact with them at least once a week or, if the court does not agree that this is in the welfare interests of the children, she asks me to consider the Guardian’s recommendation about contact instead. She also wants the Local Authority to agree to fund the therapy recommended for her and the children by Dr Gregory.

 

B wants to return to the care of her mother and to have as much contact as possible with either or both of her siblings if they remain in foster care. If she cannot return to live with her mother, she wans to stay with her siblings with their current foster carers and have as much contact as possible with her mother at least weekly if not more.  She also wants her mobile phone back, though understands that is part of the DOLs case which I am not dealing with.

 

The Guardian supports the making of care orders for all 3 children and agrees with the final care plans for them to remain in foster care together.  However, the Guardian does not agree with the Local Authority proposals for the frequency of contact and recommends that the children should have contact with their mother face to face once a month, with indirect contact (suggesting a short telephone call) taking place with her also once a month so that there would be contact between the children and their mother once a fortnight, alternating between face to face and indirect contact.

 

Relevant legal considerations

 

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 regarding threshold, I have considered the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of that Act and had regard to the article 8 rights of the parents and the children.  I have also had regard to the article 6 rights of all concerned, not least in relation to the wholly remote hearing that I undertook by consent of all concerned to conclude this case.  I have also considered the options for the children applying the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.  

 

Findings

 

The threshold findings sought by the Local Authority are set out at Appendix A to this judgment and are agreed between the parties.  In respect of the agreed threshold criteria, having considered the unchallenged written evidence about these, I agree that these are made out on that evidence and adopt these as my threshold findings.  Threshold is therefore crossed on this basis.

 

The next aspect that I have considered is welfare, by reference to the relevant welfare checklist headings, but also weighing the two realistic options in this case which are for either or both of B and C to return to the care of M now, or for all 3 children to remain together in foster care.

All 3 children are of an age to be able to articulate their wishes and feelings clearly, and in particular for A and B as the older children their views are to be given more weight than their younger sibling, though this is not discounting the importance of C’s views at his age either.  A is very clear that she does not want to return home to the care of her M, wanting to remain with her current carers, and no party disputes this.  She also doesn’t want to be separated from her siblings, but if she does end up living separately to her sibling(s), would want as much contact as possible. She repeated this view when she met me.  A had also asked not to have contact with M for the time being but has said that she would want to see M around her birthday and then make a decision about further contact with M after that.  A also wants to have access to her mobile phone which is understandable given her age, but she does also understand the concerns about her safety which led to it being removed.  

 

I have already noted B’s wishes and feelings earlier under her position at this Final Hearing.  It was noteworthy in the evidence of both the social worker and the Guardian to me that they commented on how loyal B is to her mother (and see for example the Guardian’s Final Analysis and Recommendations at E82 too).  It seems more likely than not to me that B’s wishes and feelings are inevitably influenced by this loyalty to her mother, and therefore cannot be viewed as entirely independent though the same could be said of many older children.  What this loyalty does mean, in my view, is that B is less likely to be able to understand or judge any risks that flow from her mother, and therefore has not considered this in coming to the view that she wants to return to the care of her mother, I find.  C did not choose to meet me but has conveyed his wishes and feelings to both the social worker (eg C113) and the Guardian (E81-82).  He is also noted to be very loyal to his mother and has said that his first choice would be to go home, though he would not want to go home without his sisters.  If he could not go home, he would want to stay with his current carers and would want as much contact with his mother as possible.  Both B and C are clearly very happy and settled in their current foster care placement from the evidence before me, something that B also told me about when she met me.   The impact of the undoubted loyalty that B and C have to their mother is that their wishes and feelings carry less weight than they would otherwise do, I find.

 

As identified by Dr Gregory in her assessment and reiterated in her oral evidence to me, all 3 children need to be kept physically and emotionally safe and have some additional needs arising from the emotional harm that they have suffered as a result of the parenting they have received including that of their mother.  They also have identity needs arising from their Latvian heritage. This is not in dispute in this case.  What is in dispute is the risk of harm from M to the children now and her capacity to safely parent the children whilst undertaking therapy.

 

In relation to the risk of harm and parenting capacity, as noted earlier M does not dispute the conclusion of the parenting assessment nor the recommendation from Dr Gregory that she and the children require therapeutic input. Dr Gregory’s assessment of M and the children is dated 25^th May 2021 (E9-76).  As Dr Gregory repeated in her evidence to me, she concluded that M would need to engage in individual therapeutic work to address her history of abusive relationships, to address the family dynamics between herself and the children, as well as parenting work to develop her understanding of the children’s needs (E37).  Dr Gregory also explained in her evidence to me that once M has started to understand her own difficulties and undertaken therapeutic work on the impact of her parenting, there will then need to be family therapy with the children (which may include different sibling groups).  She was very clear that this work could not be undertaken whilst any of the children were living with M and gave an indication of around a six-month timeframe for the necessary therapy, though she also pointed out that giving a time estimate was difficult as much depended on the progress of therapy and M’s engagement with it.  Dr Gregory said the timeframe could be less or could be more than six months, therefore.  

 

As submitted by the Guardian in closing, given that M has not yet begun any therapy and indeed an appropriate therapist and course of therapy has not yet been identified for her, it does seem more likely that therapy for M will be a longer rather than shorter piece of work.  Dr Gregory was also clear that the type of therapy which both M and the family need is not going to be available on the NHS.  The Local Authority in closing has agreed to fund this work, with the caveat that if M misses 3 sessions in total funding will be withdrawn.  M struggled to engage with Dr Gregory for her assessment, so this caveat is sensible to me.  

 

Dr Gregory also confirmed her assessment of the risks posed by M when giving me her evidence, though she had also set these out in her report at E37 as follows: “Areas of risk include;

·      Neglect of the children's physical and emotional needs

·      Emotional abuse

·      Scapegoating of individual children

·      Failure to put in place boundaries or supervision

·      Challenges in the family dynamics

·      Failure to prioritise the children's needs over her own

·      Poor emotional management

·      Subjecting the children to risky individuals

·      Lack of stimulation”.

 

It is very clear from Dr Gregory’s written assessment and her oral evidence to me that in her expert opinion the risks posed by M to the children will not be sufficiently mitigated to allow any of the children to return home until M has engaged with therapy.  Dr Gregory gave compelling evidence that M could not safely parent any of the children whilst undergoing therapy, emphasising that it would be necessary to see evidence of change before it would be possible to assess whether the risks posed by M had reduced.  She agreed that there were some signs of positive change in that M was no longer in a relationship with D, had gone to her GP about getting medication to stabilise her mood and was willing to engage with the required therapy.  However, Dr Gregory pointed out that this was not enough to enable the children to be rehabilitated to M now, and that M would need to complete the necessary therapy first and see signs of further positive change indicators are set out at E37 before that could be possible.  

 

Dr Gregory was asked if it would be possible to put in place levels of monitoring and intervention to protect the children if they lived with M whilst M undertook the necessary work. Sadly, Dr Gregory was absolutely clear that until M had completed the work required it would not be safe for the children to return to M’s care.  In particular, Dr Gregory gave compelling evidence about the lack of insight that M has about risks from individuals that she knows, as well as the impact of the difficult family dynamics and challenges upon M’s ability to parent to a good enough standard and whilst she herself would be tackling her own difficulties and vulnerabilities in therapy.  Dr Gregory also pointed out that M’s ability to engage with therapeutic work was also as yet untested and that this was different to simply going to her GP about medication.  She said that M came from a considerably disadvantaged background and in that context, any forward progress in terms of motivation etc is positive and indicates some acceptance of change on M’s part, but there was a long way to go for M in terms of the work to be done and the changes M needs to make.  Dr Gregory acknowledged that M had at times acted protectively in the past, for example taking A’s mobile from her, but that overall M lacked the tools to parent the children effectively and would need therapy to prepare her to develop those tools.

 

The parenting assessment, dated 17^th June 2021, can be found at C133-148.  The conclusion is that M “has shown some insight into parenting, it is identified that she has been able on many occasions to meet the children (sic) basic health needs. I do feel it is helpful to consider that M was a very young mother becoming pregnant with A at the age of 14 by a much older man, M appears to have never solely parented her children until 2019 when A was 13, B 12 and C 10. It is recognised taking on the sole parenting of 3 children who had already experienced trauma would have been challenging and due to M's own childhood she is likely to have lacked the practical and emotional skills to positively parent the children.

 

M remains unable to see risk in critical areas. M appears to be unable to safeguard her children when it comes to social media. It is also concerning that M does not appear to be stimulating the children and that majority of their stimulation came from spending significant time on electronic devices. M also appears to be unable to see the severity in sexual abuse disclosures, this could be due to her own personal experience around being in relationships with a significantly older male. M places blame on A and is unable to see what part she plays in the current situation. M also remains in a relationship with the male that allegedly raped A and appears unable to see the risk this poses to the children. M has also demonstrated little understanding of the children's emotional developmental needs and struggles to focus on the children's need above her own. She can at times respond in a childlike way to her children and treat them as adult peers. This places significant responsibility on the children. In addition, M's parenting style is chaotic and at times unresponsive which also leaves the children parented by someone who is unable to emotionally regulate herself. There is also added concern around the magnitude of debt that M is in and that she appears to still live above her means and the vulnerability this poses to the continued exploitation of the children for financial gain. It is therefore my assessment that should the children return to the care of M they would be at risk of significant harm” (C147-C148).

 

The social worker’s evidence to me was also very clear that, although at times M had demonstrated some protective capacity (again accepting the example of taking A’s phone away but also agreeing that calling the police in July was protective), overall, these instances were minimal and in proceedings the concerns about M’s ability to act protectively increased rather than decreased due to the way M handled her relationship with D and A’s allegation of rape.  It is hard to disagree with this assessment, especially when one considers that M not only sought out unauthorised contact with B and C whilst they were in foster care but took D with her to that contact.  This is very stark evidence of a lack on insight on M’s part about the risks that males may pose to her children and also the emotional impact on her children of that lack of insight and overall lack of ability to act protectively, I find.   

 

The Guardian also considered the question of whether any of the children could return home to M’s care whilst she undertook the necessary therapy.  His oral evidence was clear and compelling that she would need to complete the therapy first and only then could the question of whether any of the children could go home be reviewed.  He acknowledged that it was positive that M wants to engage with therapy and that she has acquiesced to the significant restrictions of the separate Deprivation of Liberty proceedings in relation to B.  H also agreed that M had at times acted protectively in the past but said “until M embarks on the work required and recently may feel that she has learnt better strategies, but she is just scratching the surface and there is a lot more that she needs to do”.

 

The impact on B and C of not returning them home is also something that has to be weighed in the mix when assessing risk of harm to them.  Dr Gregory, the social worker and the Guardian all accepted in their evidence to me that not acceding to B and C’s wishes and feelings might cause them some emotional harm, especially B given the strength and consistency of her views and her age.  However, this must be balanced against the risk of harm to them if they were to return home, and the impact upon all 3 children of being separated.  The social worker gave me very credible and compelling evidence about the strength of the sibling bonds despite the difficulties experienced by them and their complex family dynamic.  She, and the Guardian, were also very clear about the risks of separating the children and how that might make any one of the children feel responsible for that separation.  This responsibility is something that the evidence shows A has already felt - see for example E0e School Health Nurse report; E38 Dr Gregory’s report; E6 Guardian’s Case Analysis.  Essentially, it seems to me that none of the children needs to feel responsible for the outcome of this case and the fact that the girls, especially A, feel responsibility for what has happened to the family is sadly a further consequence of the poor parenting that they have received, I find.  The risk of harm to B and C of not allowing them to return home as they have said they want is also ameliorated in my view by the fact that all 3 children are not only happy and settled in their current foster care placement but thriving there.  They have clearly bonded very closely with their foster carers, with A and B talking of them in loving terms, and are deriving great benefit from the placement as a result.  The plans for each child if care orders are made would envisage the children remaining in that placement so any harm to B and C by not being allowed to go home would be significantly mitigated by the fact that they will be remaining in this placement, I find.

 

Given the significant risks for these children if they were to return to the care of their mother before she has completed her own therapy and begun the work she needs to then do to improve her parenting skills, on balance I find that none of the children can safely return home to the care of M now.  This means that they will remain in foster care and the next issue that I have considered is what contact they should have with M.

 

All parties have agreed to abide by A’s wishes with regard to contact with her mother.  In relation to B and C, the social worker and Guardian agree that there should be reduction in the frequency of contact but there is a dispute between them as to what that frequency should be.  The social worker’s written and initial oral evidence was that contact between B and C and M should be once every 2 months, but in answer to a clarification question from me she did indicate that it could be every 6 weeks.  The Guardian recommends direct contact every month with indirect contact once a month as well so that every two weeks the children would have contact in one form with their mother.  As I have noted earlier, B also wants more frequent contact than the contact proposed by either the social worker or the Guardian.

 

The social worker’s evidence to me about the “emotional roller-coaster” that the children find themselves on with the current contact regime was compelling.  She was clear that this would be likely to cause them emotional harm, whilst also accepting that B and C clearly also wanted to see as much of their mother as possible and that reducing contact would also have a negative impact upon them.  The social worker also acknowledged that contact would need to be kept under review and that the quality of contact was a significant concern for her.  It doesn’t appear to be in dispute that M has struggled to provide quality contact for her children, and this is directly linked to the issues about her parenting which Dr Gregory identified in her assessment and repeated in evidence to me.  

 

However, Dr Gregory also gave me evidence that in her view that monthly contact would be better for the children as recommended by the Guardian.  I was struck by Dr Gregory’s evidence that there was also a risk of the children by constantly thinking about having more contact in the future if they knew that contact were to be reviewed on this basis, and that in her view this might disrupt the placement.  Though Dr Gregory was talking primarily about the children needing to know what the contact arrangements were, rather than knowing that there might be too much fluctuation.  Dr Gregory also noted that contact would be important to the children in relation to their identity, and that contact with their maternal grandmother will also be important for them since they lived with her for a prolonged period.  Overall, Dr Gregory’s view in her oral evidence to me was that monthly contact was best for the two younger children in light of the work that M had to undertake, with A’s views about contact directing when she saw M.  Dr Gregory accepted, however, that there was a fine balance to be struck between the importance of contact to B in particular and the emotional impact on B of not having her views listened to, and the potential harms to the children in respect of M not being able to meet their needs during contact as a result of poor quality contact.

 

The Guardian’s evidence to me about contact was very clear that, in his view, the children needed at least monthly contact with M to meet their emotional needs.  He also added the recommendation that indirect contact, of about 10 minutes or so, should take place once a month alternating with the direct contact that he recommended.  This would mean that the children would have some form of contact with M once a fortnight.  He was clear that in his view there was a particular risk that B may ‘vote with her feet’ if contact were not at the pace that he was suggesting, something that is credible to me in view of what happened with the unauthorised contact earlier this summer.  He was equally clear that it was important that the children were not held responsible in any way for creating the situation that arose about contact, pointing out that responsibility was with M and that it was very important that M knew that and understood this if she wants contact to improve and that she must not attempt to arrange unauthorised contacts in future.  I have to say that this is a very valid point and one that touches upon my earlier comment that it is important, in my view, that none of the children feel responsible for the outcome in this case.  The Guardian’s evidence about contact being important to all 3 children, not just the younger two alone, was compelling.  He said that it will be important for the younger two to see as much of their mother as is safe at present, and that for B this will in fact help her to come to terms with being in a placement that was not her first choice since she wanted to go home to M.  He also told me that, as A will be in the same placement as B and C if final care orders are made, that the contact between B and C and their mother will also help to assist A with having indirect updates about M and thus lessen the concerns and sense of responsibility that A may feel.  The Guardian also suggested that if contact were to take place more frequently than the Local Authority proposed, it could be for a shorter duration at first to ensure quality and that hopefully as M completed the necessary work to improve her communication skills that it could be extended and in due course move to unsupervised contact in the community.  He accepted that there were valid concerns about the quality of contact but suggested that contact could start at a minimum of an hour but if it was strained it could be ended sooner.  

 

Contact between B and C and their mother is a very difficult balance in this case, as everyone accepts.  Given the weight of the professional evidence, especially around the poor quality of contact and the emotional disruption that it causes to B and C before and after, I find that contact more frequently than once a month is not in their current welfare interests.  This then leaves a decision about whether the Local Authority proposed frequency of contact or the Guardian’s proposed frequency meets the welfare needs of the children.  On balance, I find that the Guardian’s proposed frequency of once a month for face-to-face contact is more likely to meet their welfare needs.  This is because it was supported by Dr Gregory in her evidence to me, is more likely to mitigate the impact upon B and C of not being able to return to the care of their mother, and still represents a reduction from the current regime so should also address the emotional harm risks that the social worker was rightly concerned about.  I also find that it would be better for the initial contact duration to be shorter to ensure better quality as the Guardian suggested.  This is in no small part because of the concerns about the quality of contact which both the social worker and Guardian’s evidence highlighted.  Taking the social worker’s evidence about the potential for emotional harm to the children into account, I do not find that it would be in their welfare interests for their contact to be subject to the sort of fluctuations that longer contact may risk if it has to be ended prematurely as the Guardian suggested.  However, I do not find that there should also be indirect telephone contact once a month as the Guardian recommended.  In my view that risks tipping the balance towards the sort of emotional harm arising from the emotional upheaval that contact (especially poor-quality contact) entails for the children and that the social worker identified.  Obviously contact does need to be kept under review, and the Local Authority accept that this is the case and that such reviews should take place every 12-14 weeks (which is more frequently than the statutory regime requires).  The Local Authority also accepts that there can be indirect contact between M and the children by way of the children writing once a month to M and M responding, and I find that this is also something that strikes the tricky balance around contact for these children by mitigating the impact on B and C of not seeing as much of their M face to face as they have said that they want.

 

Conclusions

 

In light of my findings above, I will make final care orders for all three children and endorse the care plans for the children to remain in foster care (noting that it is also the Local Authority intention for them to remain together and also in their current placement).  Their current placement has clearly provided them with high quality parenting, and it is greatly to the credit of the foster carers that the children have settled as well as they have and that the foster carers have dealt admirably with ensuring that the children are kept safe.  In relation to contact, I invite the Local Authority to amend the final care plans to reflect my finding that contact should be at a minimum of once per month face to face contact, with indirect contact once a month by way of the children writing to M and M responding, and that the proposed reviews of contact every 12-14 weeks should also be incorporated into the final care plans.

 

Also as agreed by the Local Authority, there should be a recital on the face of the order recording funding arrangements for the therapy that M and the children need since this is not going to be available on the NHS.  It should also record the fact that this funding is subject to it being withdrawn if M misses 3 sessions in total without good reason such as a doctor’s note showing clear evidence of illness.

 

 

 

 16^th September 2021

FINAL THRESHOLD DOCUMENT

 

 

The mother, M, agrees that the threshold for the making of public law orders is met on the following basis:

 

That A was beyond her control which caused A significant sexual, physical and emotional harm, and put her at risk of the same, in that:

 

Aged 14, A was admitted to hospital with a severe sexually transmitted disease.

 

Aged 14, A said she needed the morning after pill, which the mother provided for her.

 

A has had sexual relationships with men over the age of 18.

 

The mother accepts that the other children would have suffered significant emotional harm due to A being admitted to hospital.

 

The mother has on more than one occasion in the past told A that she is partly to blame for breaking up the family, which has caused A significant emotional harm.

 

The mother has caused the children significant harm and put them at risk of significant harm in that:

 

A took an overdose and threatened to cut her wrists.

 

The children were caused significant emotional harm by the mother, who had a knife with her, telling the children she was going to use it to kill herself.

 

A and B have been caused emotional harm by arguments between the mother and A.

 

In 2013 and until September 2019, the mother left the children in the care of the maternal grandmother in order that she could move to the UK.

 

A had significant dental problems when she moved to the UK, necessitating painful treatment.

 

The mother was sometimes unaware of A’s whereabouts, putting A at risk of physical and emotional harm. For example on 1^st-2^nd November, mother left the house at 2am unaware that A was not at home.

 

The mother has found it difficult to work with children’s services, which puts the children at risk of significant harm. For example:

a)  she sought out clandestine contact with B. This has led to a s34(4) order being put in place, and B being made subject to DOLs provisions.

b)  She was not honest with the Police about her relationship with D.

 

 

9^th September 2021