[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) [2013] EWCA Civ 61 (17 January 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/61.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Civ 61

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM WORCESTER COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE RUNDELL)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		17th January 2013

Lord Justice Ward:

1. I find this a very depressing and therefore distressing case. This is a mother's application for permission to appeal the orders made by HHJ Rundell in the Worcester County Court on 11 October, when he made a care order in respect of the applicant's daughter, a baby who is just 15, 16 months old, made a placement order in respect of her, dispensing with consent to adoption, and the mother seeks permission to appeal. She is an articulate young woman, who addressed me with a great deal of passion and conviction and courtesy, and I have huge sympathy for her. Her problem is that the judge was equally sympathetic to her predicament, as was the guardian and Mr Eyles, the independent social worker who investigated her position. All expressed great sympathy for her. Great sympathy is deserved, because again it is common ground that mother's day-to-day care of her baby is not to be faulted. That was recognised, for example, in paragraph 23 of the judgment.
2. The difficulty is that the father of this particular child seems to be a particularly nasty specimen who abused this young mother. She set up for a while with a friend of his, who may not be much better. Therefore the gist of the anxiety about her capacity to look after her children is that she has a tendency to meet with unsatisfactory men who exploit her and abuse her, and therefore in the view of the judge, supported by the overwhelming evidence, she is a vulnerable and exploited young woman "who has suffered grievously at the hands of her family and her erstwhile partner ... Her vulnerability and low self-esteem are such that she believes she is open to exploitation".

So she is not in a position or was not then in a position, and I think they are important words to emphasise, was not then in a position, to safeguard a young child from risk caused by those with whom she associates.

3. So the judge found the threshold crossed. Inevitably that was the right decision, and equally inevitably a care order followed. Adoption is a drastic step, but the judge was entitled to find that in the welfare of this child that order should be made. As I have tried to explain to this young mother, my task is to examine whether there is a real prospect of success. That involves showing that the judge in some way misdirected himself. She complains that she was handicapped by the change of solicitors, of not having ready access to all of the papers in the case. I think the judge was aware of that, as he demonstrated in paragraph 28 of his judgment, and made all allowances for that disadvantage. In fact he did not feel that she had lost much by representing herself, and I can understand that point of view given the way she has so competently addressed me. In the result, therefore, I cannot see that the judge erred, and however sad the outcome was, a sadness which he recognised, the orders would follow.
4. What does trouble me, and I direct therefore please for it to be noted by the associate that a transcript of this judgment be sent to the Social Services Department -- the judge will get one in any event; I want this sent to the Social Services Department -- because this young mother finds herself pregnant again, with a baby due in May, she has some contact with social workers, and I am deeply troubled that no help is being offered to her to prepare herself for this child and to ensure, if at all possible, that she brings up this baby. I refer specifically to paragraph 22 of the judgment, where the judge recounts the guardian's sad reluctance and reports the guardian's view in this way:

"She expressed the hope that the local authority would support Ms [W] in accessing and funding the therapy which Mr Eyles recommended."

I am told that the local authority have done nothing to progress that therapy, but as a mark of this mother's, perhaps, change, and change for the better, but as a good mark in her favour she tells me that she has been to her own General Practitioner seeking help and is doing her own level best to get the help that must be afforded to her in order that she can overcome the terrible disadvantages that she has had to face in her young life, disadvantages summarised in paragraph 1 of the judgment under appeal. She is deserving of help, and I do ask the local authority to ensure that they do give her that help under Part 3 of the Children Act, lest any thought cross their minds of invoking the remedies under Part 4 of the Children Act. They will understand what I say; so will the judge.

5. Whilst I cannot assist her in this matter and must refuse her application, I do hope that help will be given to her to look after her new child soon to be born to her. A copy of this transcript is to be sent to Worcester County Council and to the mother as well.

Order: Application refused.