![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> W (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1828 (12 December 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1828.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Civ 1828 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM BOURNEMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOND)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
and
LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE
____________________
IN THE MATTER OF W (A CHILD) |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Leo Curran and Ms Carol Davies (instructed by Poole Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice McFarlane:
"A move to the care of Mr and Mrs W seems to me to be fraught with danger. Both parents have yet to embark upon their respective programmes of therapy."
He also, in the same paragraph, deals with the harm to the children, and again, although it is not the only time he describes it, and elsewhere he describes it in more detail, he says this:
"It is clear in my judgment that these children have suffered emotional harm and physical neglect. This has been of long duration and in the opinion of Mrs Beazley-Richards to such a degree that the children's needs are such as to require 'reparative' parenting."
On the information before the court it seems unlikely that either of the parents or the grandparents can provide such high quality care.
"Since my first report, Mrs [W] has shown some evidence of an ability to self-regulate her emotions under conditions of stress and there have been no further episodes of deliberate self-harm. However, there is persisting evidence of relatively frequent episodes of emotional disregulation, outbreaks of impulsive anger and associated inter personal disturbance. The frequency, intensity and social consequences of these behaviours, in my opinion, continue to justify the diagnosis of emotional, unstable personality disorder (rather than emotionally unstable personality traits)"
And later in the same quotation the judge extracts this from Dr Sheppard:
"As a result of a continued vulnerability to emotional disregulation and conditions of stress Mrs [W] presents a continued, albeit inadvertent, risk of harm to [S] through the automatic deployment of her attentional resources away from external concerns (including the needs of a dependent infant) to the self-management of emotional distress."
And so there was some measure of progress in the opinion of Dr Sheppard, but nevertheless still clear evidence of the bedrock of the emotional difficulties and personality disorder that the doctor diagnosed.
"It is my recommendation that [S] not be returned to the care of her parents for the reasons stated above. I do not feel they could offer her at this time a 'good enough' level of consistent parenting to ensure her safety and development."
"It is pointed out that the contact recording sheets all show very good performance since 2011. The parents have continued to work with the social worker and others although aware of the local authority's Plan for [S]. There has been no help at all from the local authority."
So again a positive, and when those factors were put against the closed mind of the local authority and its impact upon their running of the case, the judge, for the reasons that I have already summarised, adjourned the hearing.
"In summary Mr Lamprey thought that the parents were on what might be described as the right trajectory but have a substantial way to go.
I thought that Mr Lamprey's evidence was measured and careful. Clearly there has been progress but clearly he also retained concerns about the parents."
"There was…a tendency [during the mother's] evidence either not to answer a question directly or to attempt to challenge the questioner and ask her a question in return."
"The guardian is clearly troubled about this case. On the one hand she accepted that the local authority had not dealt as openly and fairly with the parents as they should have done. On the other hand looking at the history of the case and notwithstanding the benefits of the mother's DBT, the guardian retained real concerns about the safety of [S] if she were in the full-time care of her parents."
And that, the judge might well have thought, neatly summarised the great difficulty that there was in this case.
"He was plainly under considerable tension while in the witness box. It seemed to me that part of his difficulty was how to give evidence which did not then or later produce an intemperate reaction from the mother."
"…that the mother was unnecessarily evasive, combative and challenging during her evidence. I have already referred to this earlier in my judgment. Further I accept the submission that it is probable that the mother did understand the relevance and circumstances of the father's dismissal but held back and perpetuated the father's untruths about this."
At the next paragraph the judge says this:
"I fear that neither can in the future be trusted to be open and frank with the local authority should [S] be living with them."
Drawing that matter finally to a close at paragraph 126, the judge concluded that:
"The mother would have to deal with people who were difficult or might upset her in the future as [Ms R] had done and that this was to a degree a factor in the case"
"The mother's response was to the effect that she would be more inclined to do so if she had seen a shift in the local authority's position. She would discuss it with her therapist as to how to best manage and to work to prevent it. It is submitted, and I agree, that in the event of [S's] return such a conditional response is of no value."
The judge finally therefore concluded that it was not in the interests of S to be placed in the care of the parents.
Lord Justice Pill:
Order: Appeal dismissed