P, Q, R and S (Children) [2014] EWFC B166 (5 December 2014)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: LJ13C00316

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LEEDS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

AND IN THE MATTER OF P, Q, R AND S (CHILDREN)

Date: 5.12.14

Before :

HHJ Lynch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

Leeds City Council

Applicant

- and -

X (a mother) (1)

Y (a father) (2)

The children (P, Q, R & S)

(through their Children’s Guardian) (3)

Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Carly Henley for the Applicant

The First Respondent in person

No appearance by the Second Respondent

Lisa Phillips for the Children

Hearing date: 28.9.14

Judgment date : 5.12.14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

Introduction

In these proceedings I am concerned for P, aged fourteen, Q, aged four, R, aged three, and S, aged eighteen months. They are the children of X and Y who share parental responsibility for the children. X has one older child, N, aged sixteen, who has certainly been brought up as Y's daughter although paternity does not seem entirely certain from the papers I have read. N was initially involved in these proceedings, the local authority having at the outset also sought a care order in respect of her. Indeed N had separate representation from her own solicitor but she was discharged as a party on 29 September at her request. N's proceedings ended on that date with no public law orders being made in respect of her. For completeness I should say Y also has an adult son by his first wife. X also has an adult daughter, brought up by that child’s paternal family.

In brief, the family has been known to three local authorities since 2006. Repeated themes from the papers I have read include issues of neglect; under stimulation, poor school attendance, inadequate promotion of children’s health; domestic violence and volatility in the parents’ relationship; emotional harm to the harm due to exposure to the parents’ volatile behaviour towards each other and others, most notably professionals; questions around each parent’s mental health and its potential impact on the children; and the parents’ unwillingness or inability to engage and co-operate with professionals across a range of disciplines. The local authority says the family has led a nomadic lifestyle, resulting in several changes of school for N and P and disruption and instability to primary care of the children. It argues that the parents have deliberately evaded local authority involvement by moving areas to prevent involvement by agencies.

All four children are currently in local authority foster care. P is in a specialist placement as he was diagnosed to be on the autistic spectrum with a mild learning difficulty as long ago as 2010 and he has a statement of education needs. Q and R are placed together in local authority foster care and S is in a separate local authority foster placement. The parents do not currently have any contact with the three younger children and had no contact with P until June when they began to engage in the court proceedings. The local authority say they tried to talk with the parents about contact when the children were removed but were unsuccessful and so could not arrange contact. The parents would not accept that version of events and I shall come back to the different perceptions of the parties later in this judgment.

When the parents instructed solicitors to represent them in these proceedings, around the middle of June, they asked about contact with the children. At that stage we were not far from the proposed final hearing and it was felt would be the wrong time to reintroduce contact between the three younger children and their parents, given that the children had not seen their parents for six months and the local authority's proposal by then was one of adoption for those children. The plan for P was long-term foster care and it was felt right to restart contact between him and his parents. Contact was reintroduced at the level of once a week and has continued since then. I should say throughout the proceedings there has been contact between the children twice a week, S just attending once a week. N comes less regularly since she went back to live with her parents but still comes to a number of the sessions. Y's adult son consistently goes to the sibling contact every other week.

The court proceedings

These court proceedings have had a long life. They were issued in December 2013, following the making of emergency protection orders by another court as a result which all five children were removed from the care of their parents. The case first came before me on 20 December but the parents did not attend, a situation which very unusually continued until June 2014. I made interim care orders in respect of all the children and those have remained in place since that time in respect of the four younger children although the interim care order in respect of N was not renewed by the court on 20 March, she having returned to the care of her parents. (My recollection is that due to an administrative error she was included in some orders which were drawn up after that date but clearly that should not have happened.) In the absence of the parents and with the assistance of the legal representatives for the local authority and the children I planned such investigations as I could in respect of the children. A consultant paediatrician, Dr Peter Morrell, was instructed to provide a paediatric overview in respect of the children. A child psychologist, Robert Parr, was instructed to assess the children as well. The case was timetabled around those assessments to a final hearing beginning on 9 June.

The first development was N coming to court on 21 May and instructing a solicitor at court. Also at this point I received an application by a family friend who had instructed solicitors and sought to become a party and be assessed as a potential carer for Q and S. I listed that application for the next hearing, by which point I had also received an application from Y's adult son and his mother who had instructed solicitors and wanted to be assessed together for R. I heard both of those applications at the hearing which should have been the issues resolution hearing on 3 June and refused both applications. Those refusals have never been appealed and no other potential family carers have been put forward.

Also, and very significantly, Y came to that hearing on 3 June, having finally instructed a solicitor, and said he wanted to be assessed to care for the children. This was the first engagement by either of the parents in a court hearing although prior to that X particularly had written extremely regularly to the court about the case. I suggested to his legal representatives he made an application to be assessed as it was clear to me the final hearing could not proceed given Y's late involvement.

When the case next came back to court on 10 June both parents came with legal representatives and asked to be assessed to care for their children. Despite the delay that meant in terms of plans for the children, it was extremely important to see if there was any way the children could be returned to the care of their parents. I therefore agreed to the application made by the parents for a psychiatric assessment of them and an assessment by an independent social worker. Normally assessments of parents would be carried out by the local authority involved in the proceedings but here given the parents’ distrust I felt it was important that they had the opportunity to be seen by someone independent. I therefore agreed to those two experts becoming involved and they were instructed jointly by the mother and father through their legal representatives. I listed a final hearing at the beginning of September after all the assessments had been carried out, with another final review on 27 August.

Unfortunately when the case came back to court on 27 August, the local authority had not got all its final evidence ready. The legal representatives for the parents said that the hearing due to take place the following week could not in all fairness go ahead as the parents needed proper time to consider the case against them. I agreed with that and cancelled the final hearing, bringing the case back instead just for review. Very surprisingly the parents were unhappy when I granted the adjournment and walked out of the hearing, even though the request had come from those representing them. When the matter came back before me the following week I released the case to another judge due to my non-availability to hear it promptly and listed it for final hearing to begin on 22 September after all the evidence was ready.

Matters then took an unexpected turn when both parents decided once again to represent themselves, the two firms of solicitors involved having notified the court. When I became aware the parents were representing themselves I decided it was not appropriate for a judge who had never had any involvement in the case to hear it and I listed it back for review before me. Neither parent came to that hearing and I was not certain whether they wanted a contested final hearing or not. I therefore listed the case for one day on 29 September, to either timetable the case to a final hearing or to make final orders if nobody attended.

X came to the hearing on 29 September, saying that Y was unable to come but she could say what both of them wanted, namely the children returned to their joint care. She was clear that she wanted the opportunity to have a final hearing when evidence would be heard by the court. I went through with her the list of possible witnesses who she would want to attend and most I agreed were appropriate to come to court, the only ones I did not being witnesses who related purely to N in relation to whom no orders were sought. X did not ask for any of the expert witnesses to come to court although I explained to her I would be relying on their evidence. Unfortunately my diary was extremely full and I could not list the case sooner than 28 November; even that required me to move to other work from my diary. I listed the case for a six-day final hearing, setting dates for the parents and guardian to file their final evidence. X told me she would not be willing to give sworn evidence to the court at the final hearing although the local authority said it would wish her to. I explained the local authority could ask me to compel her and Y to give evidence and if they did I would have to consider that further.

I should say that at the hearing on 29 September X made two other applications, for me to recuse myself (which means for me not to hear the case further) and also for the case to be transferred to the High Court. I refused both of those applications. The case was not of a nature that would have justified it being transferred to be heard in the High Court and I could see no reason at all why I should not hear the final hearing, given my involvement over very many months with this case. X made a formal complaint early on about my conduct of this case, as she has done in respect of many of the professionals in this case, but as far as I know that complaint has not been upheld. My view was that my ongoing involvement made sense in terms of the trial judge having a proper knowledge of the history of the case and I therefore did list the case for final hearing before me.

Turing then to this hearing, in preparing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter, including three lever arch files of paperwork from Y and X. I also heard evidence in court from just one witness, the first key social worker involved with the family (SW1). The final hearing was scheduled for six days to enable the parents to cross-examine a number of the local authority witnesses, largely social workers but also school and health staff. Y chose not to attend court and he did not send any explanation for his absence. X did come to court and at the outset of the hearing by way of introduction I explained how the hearing would take place, the order of evidence, how witnesses would be asked questions, and I set out the relevant issues which would be covered with the witnesses. I also covered in that introduction the provisions of s12 of the Administration of Justice Act covering the privacy of these proceedings and emphasised that any recording of the hearing other than by the court system would be a contempt of court, as I was conscious these parents have chosen to record the majority of their meetings with social care staff and it was important they understood how differently it would be viewed if they recorded a court hearing.

As I introduced the case I covered with X the question of her giving evidence as the local authority had indicated it wished her to. She had indicated at the final review hearing that she was not intending to give evidence, although she would be representing herself at court. She handed up a Fit for Work note dated I think 29.10.14 which stated she was not fit to attend work due to PTSD. Her position was that she was able to conduct the whole six day hearing herself including cross-examining witnesses but was nonetheless not fit to give evidence in the witness box, meaning that she herself would not be cross-examined.

As it was, the question of my hearing from X never arose as the hearing did not last that long. Towards the end of SW1’s evidence X moved onto a topic relating to her eldest daughter. I reminded X I had been clear at the final review hearing that we would not cover evidence relevant to that child as she was no longer subject to proceedings and we needed to conclude the case in the timescale we had. X was not happy with my intervention, and then chose to return to the question of the name the social worker was using, the first matter she had tackled in her cross-examination. I again asked her to move on, saying we did not need to go over that aspect of evidence again. I was conscious of the need to keep to time as the next witness was coming to court after lunch, the only time she could give evidence, and we had just thirty minutes left with SW1.

At this point X began packing her papers away. I asked if she wished to ask any more questions to which I got no response so Ms Phillips began her cross-examination. Once X had packed her bag she went to leave the court. I explained to her the hearing would continue and if she chose to leave I would not continue the case the following week with witnesses attending given that the witnesses were only being called at her request. X was distressed and explained she felt the whole case was pointless as we had all made up our minds and after a few more words she left the court room. That afternoon everyone attended including the next witness due to give evidence but X did not, despite us waiting for a while. As a result the hearing ended, neither of the remaining advocates wishing to cross examine the other’s witnesses, and I reserved judgment until today. Without her oral evidence and without her testing the remaining witnesses, I have worked from the three lever arch files of evidence she filed to try to address her case as best I can.

In one final development, late on the afternoon of 2 December X delivered to the court an affidavit sworn by her husband but actually exhibiting a statement written out by her, running to maybe a centimetre and a half of double sided paper. There was no covering letter explaining the documentation which was not filed in compliance with directions for the filing of final evidence. Nothing had been said about this by X when she was at court. I was extremely clear with X when she left court the case would conclude if she did not return to court that afternoon which of course she did not. At the point the affidavit was delivered I was in the process of writing this judgment and the advocates had been released from court. The court scanned and e-mailed the documentation to the advocates asking for their views on whether I should read the documentation and if I did inviting any response to it.

Both the children’s solicitor and local authority took the view that the hearing had concluded last Friday, the parents having filed their final evidence in advance of that hearing. They make the point when X left court she had been given a clear warning the hearing would conclude if she did not return and she chose not to. Both parties therefore submitted the court should not permit the filing of evidence after the conclusion of the hearing. Were I minded to admit the evidence, the local authority said very little weight should be attached to it in any event but if I did then it would wish to have an opportunity to reply.

The decision I have made is that I am not going admit this further evidence. These parents knew the timescale for the filing of final evidence and indeed they both filed final statements prior to the final hearing. They could have presented all this further information at that time, giving the other parties the chance to read and respond to it. As it is, it was submitted after the hearing had concluded and the other advocates had been released, and at a time when it was clear to X that the hearing had ended. Y had an opportunity to come to the final hearing and chose not to do so. Given those circumstances I am not going to admit this late evidence and am deciding the case on the evidence available to me prior to X leaving court and the hearing concluded.

Looking back at the preceding paragraphs, I am conscious that I have set out the timeline of these proceedings in much more detail than I would normally do in a judgment because I am conscious the parents are unhappy with how these proceedings have taken place. It seemed to me important to record here as accurately as I can the timeline and the decisions that have been taken.

The Local Authority’s case

Turning then to the substance of this case, the local authority invites me to look back at the family's history when considering the harm it says the children have suffered and would be at risk of suffering, three different local authorities having had involvement with the family since 2006. I have already set out earlier in outline the extensive list of issues that have been raised over the years, in terms of the behaviour of the parents and the impact of this on the children’s well-being.

Matters have been complicated by the fact that at different times each of the parents, most particularly Y, have made a number of very serious allegations against the other. Y has at times alleged that his wife suffered from depression and anxiety, kept Q and R in a play pen all day and would not feed them due to fears they would choke, and had made sexual advances towards N, something at one point N confirmed although has later denied. X has alleged on occasions including as recently as this year domestic abuse by her husband, also that he insisted that the children were left in their cots for extended periods of time, and that Y refused to engage with any services as he followed a movement described as the illuminate or freemen on the land. X and Y have at times been separated but during the time I have been involved with this case I believe they have always been a couple and indeed married during the proceedings.

For some of 2013 the parents were separated and living in different areas. X had two significant mental health crises during this year, each requiring specialist intervention through a mental health hospital. It is recorded that on three occasions she requested that S be removed from her care as she wanted to shake her and she also expressed thoughts that she wanted to harm professionals. X moved to Leeds in October 2013 and reconciled with her husband, initially leaving S in the care of her sister before then placing her with a family friend for two weeks.

The local authority says that since the couple have both been in Leeds they have been unwilling to cooperate with professionals. It says neither gave the local authority a frank and comprehensive account of their lives or of the lives of the children, initially refusing even to provide the correct dates of birth for the children. Prior to the children’s removal into foster care, the parents refused to allow professionals to speak to N or P alone. They also refused to allow paediatric assessment of the children and withdrew them from nursery provision to avoid developmental checks. The parents have refused to supply their medical records to the local authority or within these proceedings, as of course they are entitled to do, but the local authority says it has hindered workers’ ability to have a proper understanding of the parents’ situation.

The history of concerns and the response they were getting from the parents led to the local authority deciding to organise an initial case conference which was scheduled for 16 December 2013. The parents indicated they would not attend, nor would they cooperate with any child protection plan. The local authority's concerns increased and ultimately an application was made for emergency protection orders in respect of all five children on 13 December. The application was made without notice being given to the parents, the local authority's reasoning being that the parents had withdrawn the children from all forms of professional support and monitoring and there was a real risk given the history they would remove the children from the area, particularly as the father had said to SW1 several times they had two cars and were in a position to leave. The local authority said it made the application as a consequence of the parents’ confrontational and aggressive behaviour towards professionals, the background of concerns that the children were being neglected and exposed to emotionally abusive parenting and the volatile nature of the parents’ relationship.

I have no doubt that local authority's decision to proceed in this way made matters worse between themselves and the parents. Certainly since then the local authority says it has had no cooperation whatsoever from the parents and it was unable to carry out the normal kind of parenting assessment one would expect in any case of this nature.

Social Work Evidence

Much of the factual evidence in this case has had to be drawn from historic records as well as the more limited dealings the local authority has had with the parents. The parents as I have said declined to cooperate with any social work assessment and the local authority therefore had to pull together the information it had from the other authorities which had been involved with the family as well as agencies in this area who had had some contact with the family. I am going to look at this evidence under headings which focus on the key issues in the case.

The parents’ relationship

The local authority says that the information it has on the relationship between the parents shows it fluctuating and information regarding the relationship is often contradictory. Looking at the chronology there seemed to be disputes between the parents as far back as 2004 when the police had some involvement at a time when the parents were separated. Looking through the chronology there are references from then until now to X telling people she was in an abusive relationship, that she was suicidal and needed to get away from Y, and that he was abusive to the children. Similarly on many occasions it is Y who makes allegations against X, of poor parenting, of sexual assault on their oldest daughter, of her lying about his mental health problems for her own advantage. We know the parents have separated and reconciled on various occasions. As recently as June of this year Y was saying he had separated from X due to her mental health difficulties, only a few months after they married, but they then presented as a couple again. They now say they would separate if that was necessary to keep the children with Y.

Looking at what the local authority knows of the relationship between the parents over this year, the social worker who took over responsibility for the case in April 2014 (SW2) said on 13 May she spoke with X who was upset. X told her the parents had argued after Y received the local authority's final evidence in the care plans. X had then received a phone call from the police in relation to allegations she had made of sexual abuse against her two brothers and after that call Y ‘kicked off’, threatening to harm her and get other people to harm her, as a result of which she did not feel safe. At the time X was at the home of a friend. The social worker reported this to the police and spoke to the mother again to reassure her. Apparently though by the next day when the police had been in touch with her the parents had reconciled.

From the evidence I have read there is a clear picture of a chaotic and unstable relationship which will inevitably have affected the children. The children have experienced home moves and changes of care arrangements. There has been disruption to their education from all of this and the eldest daughter in particular seems to have been caught up in the allegations and counter allegations between the parents, which cannot have been in her best interests.

Mental health issues

Again, I only have a limited understanding of the parents’ mental health as they declined the local authority or court having access to their health records. They did in the latter part of these proceedings agree to an expert assessment by a psychiatrist and I shall return to this in due course. Looking though at what information the local authority was able to gain from police, social care and health records, concerns can be drawn out in respect of both parents. The previous local authority’s files show back in 2009 records that Y was suffering from a “mental psychotic disorder” and had not been taking his medication. That year a local mental health organisation expressed concerns about the mental health of both parents to the local authority. We know there was involvement by the mental health team with the father in 2010 and 2012 although at times the father was discharged from mental health services. In 2013 X left Y, telling the police he suffered from paranoid psychological disorder and was not taking his medication. She told the same to the health visitor and later the social worker. In August 2013 Y told the social worker in Leeds he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and took regular medication for that and when he registered with a GP he sought a prescription for drugs indicative of mental health problems. I note by October 2013 the father was attending a new GP’s surgery and was denying any mental health problems.

The local authority's records also suggested X was suffering from mental health problems. As long ago as 2005 Y referred to X having threatened suicide and a mental health centre in 2009 raised concerns about her mental health. We know that she had involvement with acute mental health services in 2013 and in January 2014 there were concerns about her self harming.

The local authority says that the chronology shows that crises in the parents’ mental health have created enormous instability and stress within the household where the children were living. It also points out that the parents have it seems fluctuated in their willingness to accept that they either have mental health issues or the nature of them and to engage appropriately with support services.

Consistent Engagement with Professionals

The ability of the parents to engage positively and consistently with professionals has been at the heart of these proceedings. The local authority draws from the historic files a wealth of information as to difficulties for health, educational and social care professionals who have been trying to help the children by engaging the parents. Health visitor services in the previous authority referred the family to Leeds when they moved in and on 12 September 2013 Leeds health visitors visited the family. Y refused to open the door as they were late and subsequently requested a change of health visitor, a request which was granted. Two visits followed and the then health visitor agreed to attend a strategy meeting with the local authority. On becoming aware of that Y cancelled the next meeting with the health visitor, threatened media involvement and demanded a change of health visitor, a request again granted. The new health visitor then rang X but she was angry and said she would not go to the clinic.

Similarly, Y agreed initially to a paediatric assessment of Q and R but then withdrew his consent a day later. He was encouraged to see his GP to arrange an assessment himself. His GP in fact was sufficiently concerned as to the children's welfare to make a referral to social care which resulted in the father probably unsurprisingly moving to another GP.

P’s school nurse was asked to feed into a plan for the child protection conference and tried to speak to X about this. X accused her of having already sent her report and not sharing it with the family when in fact the nurse had not finished the report.

When the children came to Leeds Q and R began at a preschool in October 2013. The preschool began to assess the children and look at ways of assisting them with perceived developmental problems, including a plan for R to have his two-year check. At that stage X informed the nursery she did not agree to such a check being carried out, despite the routine nature of this, and the children were withdrawn from nursery.

N did not begin school locally until early November 2013 and her attendance was low. The school was assessing her performance and looking at ways of assisting her in catching up on missed education. Y took exception to some actions of the school including them providing information to social care, expressed his views aggressively to the head teacher in front of his eldest daughter and made a threat to withdraw her from the school.

And then of course there is the question of engagement between the parents and social workers which the local authority says has been fraught with difficulties. Over the summer when S and the mother were in the other local authority’s area she did engage with them and a support package was put in place. However she left the area to reconcile with Y, at a time when an initial child protection conference was planned in respect of S.

In Leeds Y had initially engaged with social care in August 2013 but then withdrew his consent to working with the particular worker involved. A male social worker was appointed and again Y initially engaged and then withdrew his agreement to work with social care, the case having to be again reallocated. By December neither parent was willing to work with the local authority and they refused to attend the child protection conference which was planned. The local authority says in a telephone conversation in December X forbade the social work manager from speaking to the children. Certainly since then there has been a catalogue of complaints against social care employees. SW1 would say also there was a threat made by X to SW1’s own children, the threat which led to her changing her professional name and stepping back from this case. The local authority has on two occasions reallocated the case and only two weeks ago attempted to set a meeting between the parents and the new social worker and her manager which neither of the parents attended.

As a result of this lack of engagement the local authority accepts it has not been able to carry out the type of assessments it would normally do. As a result the assessment the local authority filed by SW1 was inevitably based on an analysis of information from a number of sources rather than direct information from the parents. That assessment from December 2013 provides a picture of the children at that time they were taken into care. The older children were experiencing disrupted education and were seen to be involved in their parents’ conflicts. Q had missed health appointments and was extremely reserved with no speech being heard. R was not moving around as expected and was seen to be relatively unbothered by his father's anger. S had experienced a number of different care arrangements in the first few months of her life. SW1 in her analysis concluded the children were not safe in the care of their parents due to the people the parents were and the relationship between them.

SW2 became involved when SW1 ceased to be the children’s social worker in April 2014. She has filed evidence of her attempts to engage with the parents. She said prior to the parents instructing solicitors she was unable to progress matters. In discussions X’s focus was on complaints about past behaviour of her colleagues rather than the children. When they spoke on the phone X would invariably hang up. After the parents instructed solicitors they agreed to meet SW2 and a meeting happened on 12 June, the parents accepting the terms of a contact agreement in terms of P. The next meeting on 19 June took place in the family home, but again focused on grievances rather than moving forward, and it later transpired the parents had recorded it. Thereafter matters again deteriorated, on one occasion with a tirade from X in the car park after contact including a threat of reporting social care to the press and the HCPC.

A new social worker has now been allocated to the case and she and her manager set up a meeting recently with the parents which X and Y did not attend.

Evidence of Other Professionals regarding the Children

The local authority says the behaviour of the parents has impacted on the children and their development. At the point Leeds City Council became involved it was aware from the previous local authority of their concerns. Health appointments for Q and R had been missed. R's Nelson assessment in August 2013 showed an attainment of 7-9 months when his actual age was 24 months. One month before that assessment the health visitor had noted no speech was heard from him on visits. There were also signs of Q having delayed development including her walking and eating.

The health visitor first involved with the family in Leeds in August 2013 (HV1) was made aware of the concerns as to significant delay in R and Q's development on taking on responsibility for the family.. She had been notified the parents had ongoing mental health difficulties and had difficulty engaging with services. HV1 managed to see the family on 3 October and saw the four older children with their father. In respect of R no language was heard and he walked unsteadily. Q hid behind her elder sister for much of the visit with her eyes covered by her hand. No words were heard from her and she did not engage with the adults. HV1’s observations were therefore in line with what she had gleaned from the records. She visited again on 31 October when the mother had joined the family. Again no language was heard from Q or R. S was seen and at that time her development seemed within normal ranges.

HV1 commented in her statement : “From my assessment of the previous records and my joint contact with Y and X I have great concerns regarding the isolation and lack of stimulation for these children. Q and R are both showing signs of emotional and physical delay and require immediate paediatric assessment and time in social and educational establishments to reach their full potential.” She also recorded from her discussions with X as to her historic difficulties, that the mother said she had been diagnosed with PTSD and been prescribed medication but she reported feelings of great anxiety and concerns that she could shake S which had led to S being placed with her sister. HV1 said in her two contacts with X she was appropriate and calm but increasingly her contact with the service had become more challenging. She concluded : “My overriding concern is that all of the children are at risk of emotional harm as they witness this constant and increasing level of adult distress.”

The preschool which Q and R attended over late October and early November had similar observations of the children. The child protection officer there spoke of Q entering the main room with her hand covering her face, seeming always wary of adults and covering her face if they looked or spoke to her. She never seemed to show any emotions but on the odd occasion she began to laugh and smile, however just as they began to see progress she stopped attending. In her time at school the only word they heard her use was “no”. R’s physical development appeared to be delayed, with difficulties in walking and being unable to use a cup or sit on a child sized chair. The question of R having his two year check was raised with Y who said he would speak to X. She then phoned the worker to ask why the check was necessary, accused them of having meetings behind her back and told the member of staff as a result the children were being withdrawn from pre-school, which they were.

I read statements from workers at the nursery Q and R now attend, having been there since February. Staff there observed that when Q first started she was extremely quiet but slowly developed into speaking to the child care assistant, then to other children, and she now has good speech. She had started to show emotion, smiling, also waving to her foster carer. R’s assistant spoke of how his speech had improved and how by July his development was at age related expectations.

The current health visitor for Q and R spoke in her statement of the significant changes seen in the children since they came into foster care in December 2013. She said over that period of time Q had developed socially, still not making eye contact but seeing a little more confident. She has been diagnosed with selective mutism and may need therapeutic input beyond the current speech therapy. R she said had definitely improved during his time in foster care, particularly physically, his weight having leapt from the 0.4^th – 2^nd centile at the start of the placement to the 25^th centile. She concluded : “Compared to children of similar age, it is my opinion that Q shows developmental delay regarding speech and language, and in her ability to interact sociably, she displays selective mutism. She has made significant progress in other areas of development to become age appropriate. R has made good progress in development while he has been in his care placement to become age appropriate.”

Finally, in terms of changes in the children, I have considered the evidence of SW2 as at the end of August comparing that to her observations in early June. She noted that Q seemed more confident and energetic, particularly more confident in approaching people, although there were still issues with her speech. Likewise she noted how well R had developed. S she said had just mild developmental delay.

Interestingly SW2 spoke of a deterioration she had observed in P since he had resumed contact with his parents. She noted his foster carer and school said he had become much more challenging and aggressive to adults and peers alike, particularly in the foster home.

Dr Patrick Quinn

The court does have some assistance in terms of assessments of the parents because of the two experts who became involved after the parents obtained legal representation. As I have set out above there were concerns about the mental health of the parents and whether this explained any of their behaviour. X and Y instructed Dr Quinn, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. His assessment was somewhat hampered as he only had access to some medical records in respect of the father and none in respect of the mother. He did however meet with each of them and filed two reports.

Looking first at the assessment of Y, Dr Quinn said there was no current suggestion of serious mental illness such as severe depression, manic-depressive psychosis or schizophrenia nor did he meet the criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder. He concluded therefore there was no evidence that Y's behaviours were driven or explained by the presence of mental disorder. I do have to remind myself that Dr Quinn did not have access to Y’s full medical records so he could offer no insight into Y’s past mental health. There are references in the court papers for example to an acute services team (mental health professionals) expressing concerns about the children back in August 2009, reporting Y had a psychotic delusional disorder. Dr Quinn however I am satisfied I can rely upon in terms of how Y’s mental health was earlier this year when he was assessed.

Looking at the relationship between the parents Dr Quinn noted theirs could be a fragile and tense one, which has had insecurity at its core, with allegations and counter allegations. He noted Y's responses to X's distress had not always been healthy and were likely to have increased her sense of insecurity. He observed that unless the parents faced up to each other’s behaviours in an appropriate forum such as couples therapy, it was likely that previous themes of opposition, combative and challenging behaviours would re-emerge. Dr Quinn said stability in Y’s mental health depended upon the stability of their relationship. The couple he assessed were enmeshed and their united stance has resulted in their maladaptive responses during these proceedings.

Turning to X, Dr Quinn said that her behaviour in exhibiting obvious anger, hostility and in making allegations against Y and professionals was likely to be a by-product of her abusive childhood experiences. For her, her behaviour was a maladaptive coping technique which allows her to manage albeit inappropriately her own emotional disturbance. She exhibited traits of Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder.

Dr Quinn observed that both parents have presented as isolated over long periods of time. This can lead to defensive, paranoid thinking in which the behaviours of others are perceived to be unfair, unjust and disproportionate. This can be fuelled by access to materials on the internet.

Dr Quinn said X required professional support to confront her own behaviours. The success of such treatment will depend on her ability to accept that her behaviours have not been conducive to stability for her as an individual, for her relationship with Y or for the development of the children.

It was Dr Quinn's view that should her behaviour continue it would be likely to lead to instability and uncertainty for the children.

Mark Webb

The other expert who became involved when the parents obtained legal representation was Mark Webb. Mr Webb is an independent social worker and was brought in due to the parents’ complete mistrust of the local authority. Such a step is extremely unusual these days in proceedings such as these but I allowed his instruction because the guardian was of the view this was the only possible way to get a proper understanding of X and Y, their ability to meet the needs of their children, and whether or not it would be possible to work with them to achieve this. The local authority took no part in instructing Mr Webb to ensure it was clear that he came to this case utterly independently. He had access to the court papers and met with the parents on four occasions as well as meeting N once.

Due I imagine to the fact that they were the ones instructing Mr Webb, the parents seem to have been fairly open with him in their discussions. X was able to talk about her very sad experiences as a child including sexual abuse from two of her brothers, physical abuse from family members including her father, mental health and psychological problems of family members, and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. In addition to this she had been accommodated by a local authority and was then sexually abused by a member of staff in a children's home.

Mr Webb talked to X about her mental health and the assessment by Dr Quinn. She accepted his report and said she was taking antidepressants. She and Y said to Mr Webb that they would engage with the recommended couples therapy. The couple were clear to Mr Webb that they remained just that, a couple, and wanted to bring up the children together. They denied suggestions that X had rung a social worker earlier this year after the local authority's final evidence was filed saying Y wanted to have the children on his own.

Mr Webb in his report addressed matters of parenting capacity with the parents. He acknowledged they did not accept the local authority's concerns or the risk factors, but they believed the local authority had applied to the court under a false premise and the children should be returned immediately. He noted that overall analysis strongly indicated the children had not been afforded stable care arrangements and each now appeared to present with a high level of need. He acknowledged the instability in the parenting the couple had offered the children in the past, allegations of domestic abuse and violence, and separations within their relationship. He observed the impact of the mother's mental health difficulties on their ability to afford the children safe and appropriate parenting.

However Mr Webb noted that the parents had nonetheless eventually engaged with the proceedings. They were saying to him they wanted to take up services to ensure they met the needs of the children. He acknowledged that the parents’ high level of paranoia, wariness and suspicion of public bodies had impacted on their care of the children, whilst acknowledging there may well have been some environmental issues such as housing conditions which had also had an impact. However he went on : “I remain concerned about their ability to fully and comprehensively engage, given the history of this case. If the children were to be placed in the care of their parents, very high levels of professional help, support, guidance and direction would be required. I am not at all sure that Y and X would be able to meaningfully engage to the level necessary in order to achieve a successful outcome in this case.”

In conclusion Mr Webb said : “I consider that the parents have a number of qualities. They require further testing and they will need to develop and consolidate practical parenting skills through attendance at various groups and engagement with various organisations and will need to develop their social skills to demonstrate that they are able to work with a range of professionals. They present with a number of negative traits that, in my view, may well impact upon their ability to engage and co-operate. They present as being somewhat different. They do not fully fit in. They form their own warped analysis of situations and then use that as a means and mechanism not to engage.…..The parents will need to swiftly move on and demonstrate an ability to work fully and openly in partnership with the local authority and a number of agencies if there is to be any opportunity for any of the children to be returned to their care.” He suggested that the parents could be encouraged to engage with parenting skills work and commit to contact, as well as engaging and co-operating with the local authority and other agencies, to have a chance of the younger children being returned to their care. He was however clear that the difficulties P presented and the difference in his behaviour when he was with his parents as opposed to when he was in contact meant he could not support P being returned to the care of his parents.

Mr Webb went on to suggest that a form of mediatory work could be done between the parents and the local authority to re-establish a working relationship as a precursor to them then engaging with parenting skills work. His view was they seemed motivated to move matters on from what they said to him. He acknowledged his view was at best very guarded in terms of whether they could make the necessary change in timescales for the children.

The local authority then convened a meeting, chaired by the solicitor for the children as an independent person and attended by Mr Webb, Mr Parr, the social worker and her team manager, and the guardian. That meeting took place just after the hearing in August when the parents had walked out as we were debating an adjournment, telling me they were “going to the press” even though I was granting the application their representatives were making. Mr Webb was also made aware that the parents had not had any contact with the local authority, had continued to make complaints against professionals. Having considered matters further Mr Webb came to the conclusion it was highly unlikely the parents would actually be able to move on and demonstrate their ability to meet the needs of the children within the children's timescale.

Dr Morrell

The local authority did within these proceedings seek to assess the children with a view to understanding the impact if any of their experience of parenting on them. The first report obtained was from Dr Peter Morrell, a consultant paediatrician with a particular interest and expertise in matters relating to child protection. The plan had been for him to see all five children but N did not wish to engage and so just the four younger children were assessed.

In respect of Q his view was that she was suffering from a degree of delayed development, particularly with regards to language. He was very concerned about how she presented and said it was suggestive of an attachment disorder which should be looked at further by a psychologist. In respect of R and S he said : “With regard to Q and R’s development…... I think both children do have some delays. The cause of this delay is unclear and there are clearly genetic factors which must be taken into account. I note that both parents have mental health problems although I do not have any detail regarding any cognitive assessment of the parents…. However, I also note the reports of the health visitors who saw both Q and R at home. There are concerns raised by the health visitors regarding the appropriate stimulation of the children. It is certainly possible that part of the developmental delay seen in the children could be related to poor stimulation or neglect. If this were the case then I would expect both children’s development to improve once they are placed in a stimulating environment although this improvement may take some time to develop.”

I should say Dr Morrell also agreed with P’s diagnosis of autism, although he felt he may have improved and should be reassessed to see if this was still the right “diagnostic label” to use.

Robert Parr

Mr Parr is a clinical psychologist who was able to assess all five of the children. He has filed two reports in these proceedings setting out the concerns he had about each of the children. He did not support any of the children being placed back in the care of their parents. Mr Parr was worried about N’s vulnerability. He noted what he described as her risk taking behaviour. He felt there was a burden placed on her by her parents, and he spoke of her identification with their position and her denial of any concerns, even those she had raised in the past. She had spoken to him of the period when she had self harmed, ascribing it to living in a damp house which she felt also caused any difficulties the younger children had, and she also talked of her mother's mental health difficulties at this time. He noted she had also had three attendances at A & E earlier this year including one for self harm. Mr Parr spoke with N’s school and I thought was interesting that a teacher there referred to how the whole family thought the school were in collusion with the local authority, clearly N's perception as well as her parents’.

Mr Parr concluded in respect of N : “It is understandable that she should seek to identify a cause for the difficulties that preserves family unity and integrity…. N is clearly very loyal towards her parents. It is likely that N feels the burden of maintaining the integrity of the family falling upon her, particularly as her parents are not participating in the proceedings. However, she expresses an understanding and acceptance of her parents’ position. She is thus likely to be in a particularly difficult and dissonant position; feeling the responsibility of maintaining family integrity yet largely unable to express her concerns about the actions of her parents as a result of her loyalty towards them.”

I appreciate that N is no longer part of these proceedings but Mr Parr's assessment of her I have set out here because it is relevant in terms of what the future might hold for the other children if they were to be in the care of their parents.

In respect of P Mr Parr was not certain that the diagnosis of the Autistic Spectrum Disorder was necessarily correct. He set out his observations of P which might undermine that proposition whilst accepting that there were features that would be consistent with such a diagnosis. He concluded : “On balance therefore, I would not think it wise, at this stage, to challenge the established diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. However, I would not discount entirely the possibility that P’s difficulties are a consequence of adverse environmental conditions rather than an underlying developmental disorder.”

Mr Parr expressed particular concerns regarding Q. He noted she was selectively mute – “too anxious to use her voice” - and was possibly suffering from an attachment disorder. He was satisfied her selective mutism and her general inhibition were not the consequences of her being removed from the care of her parents as it was an issue at preschool in October and November 2013. He said : “There have been indications in her response to me in the foster home at contact and in her nursery that she is motivated to become involved in social exchanges, but that her anxiety and inhibition prevent her from doing so. Thus, the distortions in her social behaviour and her apparent extreme inhibition are not indicative of an Autism Spectrum Disorder, but, in my view reflect extreme anxiety.” Later in the report he said it was wholly reasonable to suppose her presentation reflected the quality of care she had received hitherto and the nature of relationships established in the family. He also spoke of recent progress which had been observed in the foster home.

Mr Parr noted that both R and S had some developmental delay, R’s gross motor development appearing to have been significantly impaired and some indications of a mild delay in S’s gross motor development.

In terms of the future, Mr Parr said he would be concerned regarding regression in the development and adaptation of Q and R if they were to be returned the care of their parents, the apparent variability in their patterns of growth over the course of their lives adding weight to this concern. The concerns that arise in respect of Q and R were such he said that S’s development and adjustment might be considered to be seriously threatened as a result of a return to the care of her parents.

Mr Parr was also asked to look at relationships between the younger children in particular were it to prove necessary to plan for their long-term outside the family. He concluded the three youngest have limited attachments to the eldest two children; the eldest two children have much stronger relationships to each other than to the younger children. He said to place any of the younger three children with N or P would compromise the youngest three children’s needs. He was certain that long term foster care was not appropriate for the youngest three children.

Mr Parr was asked to comment in a second report on the local authority's plan which at that time was one of separate adoptive placements for each of the three younger children. He acknowledged that there were arguments for the joint placement of children, as it would reduce the scope for uncertainty and fantasy later in life and would preserve some connectedness in their lives. He acknowledged there might be considered some potential benefit to Q of a joint placement with R in terms of the continuity that such a placement would offer and a lessening of any uncertainty and anxiety in her. He would be less concerned about the impact upon R of his separation from Q.

He also acknowledged a further change of placement to each of the children would bring uncertainty, and Q in particular might regress which could impact upon the other children. Mr Parr commented : “Notwithstanding the evident progress that the children have made, they clearly have the capacity, as a sibling group, to place very considerable emotional demands upon their carers. The sum total of the children’s needs might be considered very substantial and potentially overwhelming.” Placing the children together might also cause inordinate delay in identifying in establishing placements which would not be in the children's best interests.

I need to address the fact that X said, prior to her being represented, Mr Parr was biased against them as his CV shows he has sat on Adoption Panels in the past. Adoption Panels, which no longer exist, were multiagency bodies which considered cases of individual children and advised local authorities on whether the plan for adoption was correct for that child. Professionals such as psychologists are routinely involved in such panels which were designed to give an external perspective on decisions regarding adoption. I am quite satisfied that Mr Parr is in no way inappropriate as an expert in such cases as this and has practiced as an expert in this field so many years. I do note that when she was represented X in her statement said she would have been keen to talk to Mr Parr if she had had the opportunity “because we know he does not work for the Local Authority and he would have been at least someone with an independent voice”. When unrepresented X also took issues with matters such as Mr Parr using the wrong name for SW1 and him not agreeing with other professionals as to whether P definitely had autism. If X had chosen to require Mr Parr to attend to cross examination this could have been taken up with him but she did not.

The local authority’s plans for the children

The local authority’s plans for the children are for P to remain in long term foster care with monthly contact with his parents and N. For the younger three children the plan is one of adoption, S on her own and the other two children together if at all possible. Sibling contact would reduce gradually but continue on a monthly basis until adoptive placements are identified. Between any of the children who are adopted there would be the possibility of ongoing direct contact subject to the views of adopters but there would be no plan for any contact between the adopted children and their older birth brother or sister or with their parents.

The parents’ position

The parents clearly have an intense distrust of many professionals and are convinced that there has been a campaign to remove the children from their care permanently. I accept that they clearly include me in that, believing that I have been against them since the start given that I made an interim care order at the first hearing when they had chosen not to attend court and did not then discharge that order when they wrote in objecting and setting out their version of events.

The advantage of me retaining responsibility for this case, given the fact that the parents have chosen not to engage in any meaningful way with the final hearing, is that I have some understanding of their issues from their correspondence with the court and evidence filed prior to the final hearing. Within the court service letters from Y and X have been brought to me as they have come in to enable me to keep on top of them. At one point prior to the parents instructing solicitors I anticipated that I would need to test the local authority's evidence in line with the case of the parents if they did not come to court so looked in some detail at the issues they had. I am going to address these as best I can here.

The parents in their earlier documentation felt they had not been properly assessed under the Children Act, particularly objecting to the assessment document filed by SW1 as they say they had no knowledge they were being assessed, something the social worker disputed in her oral evidence. At that time Y was saying he did not want to be assessed by the local authority and instead wanted a private mental health assessment and an independent social work assessment, both of which of course were permitted when the parents engaged with the court proceedings.

X alleged that SW1 had committed fraud by using different surnames and had given herself different job titles. X took this up with SW1 in her oral evidence and did not seem convinced by the explanation that she was using her married name initially but reverted to her maiden name to protect her family from repercussions due to work. She said this had been approved by the HCPC. X objected to a computer printout which, referring to something prior to the time of the alleged threat, used the social worker's new name. SW1 explained when a social worker's name was changed on their computer system the technology changed it retrospectively throughout the whole of social care records, hence when the printouts were produced the name seemed to have changed at an earlier date.

X felt that SW1 had given false evidence to obtain the emergency protection order as she had lied about whether the parents had made an unplanned move from the other area to Leeds. This seems to relate to the question of whether the father had accommodation in advance of his move to Leeds, X having produced to the court file recording from the local authority which seemed to show the allocation of a tenancy for the family the day before the date they moved. SW1 said she had worked from information Y had given her. She said he told the local authority the plan had been for the whole family to come but when X separated from him he decided to come alone with the children and he left in the middle of the night. The social worker said it was because of that she described it as an unplanned move, not due to whether or not a tenancy had been obtained in advance. There were other factual matters in the assessment which X challenged by way of cross-examination, SW1 saying she could only go on the information they had been given and which she had read in other documents given the inability of social care in Leeds to engage the parents.

Looking back at other matters raised by X in evidence she filed in May, she said that SW1 had proceeded falsely against the family despite not being the allocated social worker, said that the manager at the time lied about contact arrangements, said there was a lie in the assessment of a family friend as the local authority were wrong about the date when the parents first knew her, and said that police records had been falsified (although I think she might mean false information had have been given to the police). As X did not remain involved with the hearing and in any event had said she would not give evidence, I am limited in my ability to know the truth in relation to each specific complaint.

One matter the mother objected to was that early on the local authority raised the possibility that marks seen on one of the children could have been inflicted whereas in fact it was a result of the birth process. The local authority accepted it had raised this at a time before the medical records of the children were available and this is not something with which local authority have proceeded. I have therefore entirely disregarded it in reaching my decisions.

Another matter raised by X related to the allegations N had made of sexual abuse by her mother, made it a time when the parents were separated. X made the point that N had later retracted those allegations and denied having made allegations against any other adults. X wanted all documents about those allegations removed from the court bundle. The local authority however has not sought to say that those allegations were true although the fact that N made them the local authority would say shows she was caught up in the dispute between her parents. I entirely accept that N has retracted the allegations and I do not intend to rule on the truth or otherwise of them.

Both X and Y in their May evidence not unreasonably pointed out that N had gone back home on 21 March and they did not see therefore how it could be said that they posed a risk to the other children. The local authority has always been clear that it would have liked N to remain in foster care but given her age in reality could not oppose her voting with her feet. Its case remained however that the other children would be at risk of harm were they to be returned.

During the latter part of the parents being represented they raised the possibility that the difficulties the younger children presented with could be a result of a syndrome called Fragile X. The possibility of the children being tested for this was raised. The parents declined to allow Dr Morrell to see their medical records so this could be considered by him, even though I warned them this might limit to the court's ability to consider the issues they were raising. It was then suggested that, as this was an inherited condition and knowing that the parents had apparently sought to be tested themselves, the outcome of that testing should be awaited. X and Y have never made the court or the local authority aware of the outcome of any such tests if indeed they have been carried out. This is therefore not been something I have been able to pursue.

Another focus of X's has been the question of them moving at times because of inadequate housing conditions and in particular mould. X I think might attribute some of the children's difficulties to this. From documents she has filed it certainly seems there have been genuine causes for concern regarding housing conditions, certainly in the other area, but I cannot look into this further given the way this case concluded. I have no reason to think though that the housing conditions could have caused the children’s problems, though I accept may explain the parents moving to Leeds in the hope of better housing, an entirely reasonable wish on their parts.

I also have some understanding of the position taken by the parents in July from the report of Mr Webb, the independent social worker they instructed. He talked to them about the statements they had filed prior to what had been planned to be the final hearing. He raised with Y the fact he had said in his statement he had separated from his wife due to her mental health difficulties and was aware that when unwell she posed a risk to children. Y stated that such comments were not approved by him and should not have appeared in his signed statement. Y also said his wife wanted to care for the children with him but said she would separate from him if only he could care for the children as a sole carer because of her past issues.

After they decided once again to represent themselves, both parents then filed statements dated 14 October prepared personally by them. The statements were both being written out in the same hand, I believe by X. Y in his statement says he is able and very willing to have the children in his care. He said when he came to Leeds in 2013 he arranged schooling, sorted out benefits and accommodation, and kept up health appointments, and he said he would continue to do this. He said he was willing to engage with professionals and accept advice and indeed would seek help from professionals himself when needed. He said “I can guarantee that my children will blossom in my care with the right type of housing I have now, with stimulation and days out, with the right support from professionals and from education. I would seek further support with the help for my children's development. I will provide a loving, caring and safe environment for my children, free from conflict, damp free home for health, a garden for the children to play in and most importantly a chance for my children to be raised together in their birth family.”

Also filed with Y's statement was a page from his medical records, the only page I have ever seen. It was filed apparently to show that the GP had seen Y with the four older children who were all well-behaved and there was no sign of health problems with Y. Another entry was referred to to show the GP noted Y was coping with the children. The page actually gave me some additional information, in that Y told the GP he had “?autism and depression and had one break down in past”, and spoke of his wife manipulating things regarding his diagnosis, calling it “munchausens by proxy”.

X in her statement of 14 October says she supports her husband and would be willing to move out of the family house and out of Leeds altogether if necessary so Y could care for the children. She says she would accept any orders to tell her to stay away. She notes the experts say it is the relationship between her and Y which is the problem so this would be an appropriate remedy.

I should say that X also has raised objections to the way the court, specifically myself, has acted. In her evidence filed in May she says the court has discriminated against the parents due to their disability and used blackmail to make them attend hearings, referring to the fact that I would not list any contested hearings unless the parents were going to attend. She also took exception to a letter I sent to her in January, and one in similar terms to her husband, trying to encourage them to engage in the court process. She also said the court had been wrong to renew the interim care order without them having agreed in writing, a misunderstanding by her of the court process. I entirely accept that I have tried my utmost to involve the parents, as I have no doubt that this court can do its job better with a proper understanding of everyone's perspective on a case. I do not lightly approach a case such as this, with the potential for children to be permanently removed from their family, and I cannot think of another case where I have had to make decisions without parents being properly involved in the court process. I am quite satisfied that the steps I took were appropriate to try to involve the parents and it is to my great regret that they did not engage properly with the final hearing.

X also says that I have made up my mind about this case, that I did so a long time ago. As I explained to her on the first day of this final hearing, whilst one could not help but have a view of a case when reading the court bundle in advance, what brings it to life is hearing witnesses and seeing people in court. I was quite clear that my decision would not be made until the hearing finished and I had heard all the evidence. It was her decision to walk out of the hearing, as it was Y's to choose not to come as he apparently felt I was biased, and she knew the consequences when she left court.

The Position of the Children’s Guardian

There has been one children's guardian throughout these proceedings. When the parents were unrepresented at the beginning of proceedings she managed some communication with the parents and did consider whether it might be possible to get an independent social worker involved. At that point the parents did not take up her recommendation but she was supportive of such an assessment when they eventually did seek legal representation, even though it meant delay for the children. She was conscious that the plan for the younger three children was adoption and was clear every effort had to be made to see if there was any chance of them living with their parents. Ultimately however she has come to support the plans of the local authority, including plans of adoption for the three youngest.

The guardian has filed two reports in these proceedings. Having considered the evidence she concludes that it is compelling in suggesting that all five children have been exposed to instability in care, exposure to domestic abuse and conflict, and issues of neglect in their parents’ care. She also noted the hostility and conflict at times between the parents including brief periods of separation which has caused instability for the children, as well as the mother's mental health difficulties. She noted the children's moves of school and nursery, that S had lived with four different family members and friends in the first two months of her life, and that Q had not been enabled to access speech therapy. The guardian noted how N had been caught up in conflict between her parents, including making very serious allegations against her mother in 2013 which she says now were encouraged by her father. N of course is also very caught up in the dispute in these proceedings which was evident when I met with her along with her solicitor and guardian.

The guardian agreed there was a wealth of evidence before the court to suggest the parents often found themselves in conflict with professional agencies which had led to them refusing to act upon advice and resulted in them withdrawing the children from professional interventions. She noted such behaviour had led to the children's needs being neglected and issues relating to developmental delay. The guardian noted the extreme hostility by the parents to professionals, being very defensive and challenging, and said their continued failure to engage meaningfully with professionals had prevented any real progress being made to address the areas of concern as has been set out above. She said: “They continue to battle authority which is indicative of their inability to prioritise their children's needs, their unwillingness to accept any responsibility to their children's difficulties, and their inability to access and welcome the support they would require to ensure the children's needs are fully met.”

I remind myself the guardian had tried hard to engage the parents in these proceedings and to address their worries about the court process. However in her report she said : “The parents’ stance in continuing to maintain that the Court process is unfair, that professionals and solicitors have colluded with the Court, and that the decision for the children to be adopted has already been made and reaps financial gain, goes further in suggesting that these parents continue to have distorted thinking and cannot enter into rational debate regarding their children's future well-being. As such I would concur with the Local Authority that there is no evidence to suggest that these parents are willing to work openly and honestly with professional agencies within a reasonable timetable for the children, and that it is unlikely that further delay, to allow for the parents to continue in couples therapy and enter onto a parenting programme, will improve their maladaptive thinking and ability to prioritise the children.” The guardian therefore supports the plan that none of the four children returned to the care of their parents.

In her report the guardian addresses the welfare checklist and in particular the impact on the children if they are separated and having looked at the options and carried out the necessary balancing exercise she concludes that long-term foster care would be right for P, in light of his age, his existing relationship to his parents and his strong sense of identity within his family. In respect of the younger children the guardian agrees that adoption is the best way to secure permanence for them. She notes the plan now that Q and R will be placed together if at all possible but that S will be placed separately. She agrees with those plans.

My decision - Threshold

This is a case where the parties disagree not only on the ultimate outcome for the children but on the truth or otherwise of the evidence on which I need to base my decision. The local authority has to cross what is known as “the threshold” for orders to be made as sought by them, in line with s31 Children Act 1989. When considering if threshold is met I am conscious that it is for the local authority who brings this case to prove the allegations it invites me to make and the appropriate standard of proof I must apply is the balance of probabilities.

The local authority invites me to find in this case that family life for these children has been shaped by chronic inadequate parenting which is focused on paranoia and self- preoccupation: this has led to the children’s practical and emotional needs, including the need for stability and consistency, being persistently neglected. In support of that finding the local authority invites me to find that particular facts have been proved. I am going to address here each of those facts individually.

1. The parents’ relationship is volatile and chaotic. It involves serious allegation and counter allegation followed by withdrawal and reconciliation. I look at the history of the parents’ relationship, their separations and reconciliations, the allegations they have made and withdrawn about each other not just to social care but to other professionals such as the GP, and I am satisfied that this fact is made out.

2. The children have frequently been present and involved in the situation when one parent makes allegations against the other, these are often in aggressive terms. There are in the papers many references to the children being present when one parent makes allegations against the other, largely at times when the parents have been separated. Just to give one example I note that the page from the medical records of Y shows the children being present when Y was criticising X. There are also the allegations made by the eldest girl against her mother which were at the very least supported by the father if not encouraged by him. Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that this fact is made out.

3. The children have experienced instability at home as a result of parental conflict; home moves, change of carer and separation from siblings. S experienced at least four change of care within the first few months of her life. N lived in at least three different households in 2013. From 2009 P and N have attended at least four different schools. Again, from all the evidence I have read I am satisfied this finding is made out. The children have experienced instability and this has resulted from the conflict in the relationship between the parents.

4. The parents' relationships with professionals are volatile and chaotic. The parent’s refusal to work with professionals has negatively impacted upon the children’s welfare, for example by the children being removed from nursery or school, medical appointments being missed, Q not being able to access speech therapy, and fluctuating engagement with health professionals. Yet again, I find this fact made out, as I accept the evidence of professionals as set out by me in detail earlier in this judgment.

5. The children have lived with parents whose mental health/emotional stability significantly fluctuates. The variety of causes given by the parents for these difficulties has made it impossible to ascertain if either parent has a diagnosed mental illness or if the parents are receiving the correct help/medication. I am satisfied that X suffers from mental health difficulties as highlighted by Dr Quinn. Y must have at times had mental health problems, given the involvement of mental health services, although Dr Quinn's evidence is this is not a current issue. I agree therefore both parents’ mental health has fluctuated significantly. I am satisfied their mental health difficulties have impacted upon their ability to meet the needs of their children consistently.

6. The parents have refused to attend contact from the time of their children entering foster care. This is despite efforts of the Local Authority to arrange the same. On occasions N and Y’s adult son have been transported to contact by father and he has chosen not to attended contact himself. This has had a particularly adverse impact on P. I am conscious the parents do not accept the local authority has attempted to offer contact but this was unable to be tested in cross-examination. The local authority says after the children were removed they tried to enter into a contract of expectations with the parents of that contact could get underway with the parents would not meet with them to do this. Although I have been unable to hear evidence fully on this point, given the clear impression I have of the parents and of SW1, I am satisfied that attempts were made to organise contact but the parents would not engage. I appreciate X and Y may not accept an agreement was needed before contact could happen but I am satisfied it was. It was only after lawyers became involved that contact was able to be addressed, too late to restart contact with the younger children given the imminent final hearing. I would agree therefore this finding is made out but it postdates the local authority taking action to protect the children and should not therefore form part of threshold, which has to be looked at at the time protective measures were taken.

7. All of the above has had a significant and negative impact on the emotional and physical welfare of the children. N has had periods of self harming and placing herself at risk. Q and R were both exhibiting signs of emotional distress and neglect before entering foster care. Since entering care each has made significant progress within a short period of time indicating that their adverse presentation within the family home was significantly contributed to by the home environment rather than organic causes. The effect on P is harder to identify due to his difficulties. S as the youngest child and one who spent only a short period of time in the care of her parents appears to have suffered the least. All the children have had their welfare neglected and been at risk of harm whilst in the care of their parents. Looking at all the evidence regarding the impact of the above on the children, it is clear N has been caught up in the dispute between her parents, such that when she went into foster care she said she was unable to cope with the emotional turmoil at home and at that she and her parents needed a break. I am satisfied that all of the children have been affected by the turmoil in their lives and their emotional and physical welfare has been harmed. It is clear from health evidence there were concerns about the development of Q and R even before they came to Leeds. All the evidence I have read shows the improvements they have made since being taken into care which certainly satisfies me of the impact of their home environment in causing their difficulties. S, having been removed at a very young age, does not seem to have suffered as much although the number of changes of carer she had in the early months of her life seems to have affected her ability to make secure attachments. I agree it is harder to know the impact on P given his acknowledged difficulties related to the diagnosis of autism but I think N's comment about being unable to cope with the emotional turmoil at home must be relevant to the impact of the way his parents live their lives on P. I therefore make this finding as well.

8. The parents have not engaged in any assessment within these proceedings. The parents have shown no acceptance or understanding of the inadequacies in the way they way they have parented their children or the adverse impact this has had and would have in the future on their children. It is therefore likely that if the children return to the care of their parents they will suffer further emotional and physical harm as a result of neglect of their welfare needs. Given all I have said above it is evident this finding is also proved. The ongoing denial by the parents of the big issues and their focus on minutiae within the evidence shows their inability to see the harm they have caused their children and will continue to do. I am satisfied therefore if the four younger children were returned to the care of their parents they will be a risk of future harm if nothing changes.

Decision –The Children’s Future

Having found that the threshold for the making of orders has been met, I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of P, Q, R and S. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do”. The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them” and adoption “should only be contemplated as a last resort”.

I also remind myself it is not for the court to look for a better family for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said : “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and….everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”

In the case of Re L (Care : Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050 it was said that “significant harm is fact-specific and must retain the breadth of meaning that human fallibility may require of it…..it is clear that it must be something unusual; at least something more than the commonplace human failure or inadequacy.”

I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for these children, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others could offer.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account that the children’s welfare throughout their life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I am conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of children. I have also to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights and be proportionate.

A placement order is sought by the local authority in respect of Q, R and S. The court cannot make a placement order unless the parents have consented or the court is satisfied that the parents’ consent should be dispensed with. A court cannot dispense with a parent’s consent unless either the parent cannot be found, or lacks capacity to give consent, or the welfare of the child “requires” consent to be dispensed with. In that context I am conscious that “requires” means what is demanded rather than what is merely optional.

The central question I have ask myself in this case is whether the children could go home to the care of their parents now or in the immediate future. If not I have to consider whether P should be in long-term foster care and whether the younger three children should be adopted. I only need to address options which are realistic for the children and given the ages of the younger three children I do not think long-term foster care would be appropriate. I remind myself of the words of Black LJ in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913 where she summarised the advantages to children of adoption over long-term foster care in terms of what both types of placement would offer by way of security. With children as young as these I accept the perceived wisdom that they should not be placed in long-term foster care, endorsed by Mr Parr’s evidence, and that their need for a permanent secure home would best be met by an adoptive placement if they cannot be with their parents.

In addressing the task of analysing the options I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and propose to consider the evidence in the light of those factors.

The particular physical, emotional and educational needs of these children are primarily the same as any other child, for physical and emotional stability, for their health and educational needs to be met, for love and affection and for strong secure relationships with their carers.

A judge always needs to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of children, taking into account their age and understanding. The three younger children here are not of an age where one can ask them their wishes as to their long-term futures. P however is in a different position. I have evidence from the local authority and the guardian regarding P's expressed wishes. He undoubtedly has told them that he wishes to return to his parents’ care. He has also told people he does not want to stay with his foster carers. That said he told the guardian if he went home he would want to spend time with his foster carer and he has told the social worker he likes his carer very much and enjoys being in her care. P was certainly very distressed during the time he was not having contact with his parents. The difficulty with P's views is that one has to take into account his diagnosis of autism. In any event, at the present time I cannot give precedence to his views over other factors but I have kept them very much in my mind when making my decision.

Significant factors to me in this case are the question of any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) which the children have suffered or would be at risk of suffering. As I have set out above when addressing the threshold, I am satisfied the children have suffered significant harm as a result of the care they have received from their parents and would be at risk of suffering harm in the future were they to be returned to an unchanged situation. I shall return later in this judgment to the question whether the situation might change such that the risk of harm would be sufficiently reduced.

In my analysis I must also consider the risk of harm to the children if I do not return them to one or both of their parents. The plan for P is that he should remain in long-term foster care. He has not experienced a consistent placement to date and I have to acknowledge the risk of further moves in the future. One hopes very much that if P cannot remain where he is then a long-term placement will be found with a carer who can meet his needs and support him whilst he has contact with his parents. Even if it is though, P will continue I am sure to be torn between his parents and being in foster care. There is no easy answer for P as both options for him bring with them some risk of harm. I am satisfied though the potential for greater harm would be were he to be returned to an unchanged situation with his parents. The local authority would be able to give support to P and foster carers, support which crucially would be accepted, which would minimise the risk of harm to P.

Equally, there is a real risk of harm to the three younger children if I approve plans for adoption. The hope for Q and R is that they can be placed together but there can be no guarantee of that given their ages and difficulties. It is possible that each of these three children may grow up without their birth parents or any birth siblings, a very real loss. And adoption is not a panacea for correcting harm children have already suffered. Q and R I am satisfied already have developmental delay as the result of the parenting they have experienced and whilst they have made great improvements whilst in foster care much more is needed. Adopters, however good, may not be able to overcome the damaging start in life these children have had. S too has potential issues around attachment as a result of the number of changes of carer in her early life. I have to acknowledge that adoption, whilst aiming for forever families that these children, potentially may not achieve that. I know that adopters would be prepared for this and would receive support in the early stages but I accept these may not be straightforward adoptions.

The key part of my thinking when considering the plans for these children comes when I look at how capable each of their parents are of meeting their needs. As I have already set out, I do not believe the parents without change can meet the children's needs now. What is crucial then is whether X and Y can make the changes the children require. One option they appear to offer me is that they would separate so Y could care for the children. I am afraid I am wholly unconvinced this would happen or, if it did, that it would be maintained given the history of this couple. Their lives, their existence, has been enmeshed for very many years and I do not believe they can simply separate as they suggest. And looking at them together as potential carers, as far as I can tell they have not done any of the couple work suggested by Dr Quinn. Nothing in their approach to the local authority all through these proceedings makes me think they would engage with any work to address the issues in their parenting, indeed they simply do not see those issues. Without an acknowledgement of the problems by X and Y one cannot have any optimism as the prognosis for the future. I cannot therefore envisage any support which could be offered by professionals to assist them to meet the needs of their children.

For Q, R and S I have to consider the likely effect on them throughout their lives of having ceased to be a member of their original family and become an adopted person. Linked to that I must consider the relationship which they have with their relatives including the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of it doing so. I do not doubt the significance for any child of being adopted and as a result losing their birth families. Q and R may well have a memory of their parents, despite not having had contact now for a year with them, although S will not. Whether they do or not, adoption would mean the end of that relationship as I acknowledge there would be no realistic prospect of direct contact here given the inevitable hostility from the parents to any adopters. If more than one of the children are ultimately placed for adoption the possibility of direct sibling contact may well be much more likely and that would be significant, given that sibling relationships are the longest lasting.

I could not fail to be conscious that when considering adoption for the younger three children this is totally contrary to the parents’ wishes and feelings. Even though Y did not attend the final hearing and X did not remain, I have known since the outset of these proceedings that the parents wanted all their children home. They do not see any problems with how they have brought up all their children nor do they see why people would say they should change. Their view is that they, or at least Y, could provide all their children with a secure environment in which they could develop and in all other ways meet their children’s needs.

Looking at the likely effect on each of the children of any change in their circumstances, I am conscious P may have to move placement, that the other children definitely will, and that this will mean the children being separated. I do not underestimate the potential impact of that on the children. I know if I approve the local authority’s plans, social workers will do their utmost to prepare the children for those changes but for P in particular these changes would be particularly difficult.

The Balancing Exercise

Looking then at the options available to me, for all four children the first option is them returning to the care of their parents. I have already said that I do not think the parents will be able to achieve a permanent separation so I do not see the possibility of Y alone as a realistic one. The evidence I have read satisfies me that, as the guardian puts it, the children experienced family life shaped by inadequate parenting, such that their physical and emotional needs including their need for stability and consistency were neglected, and as a result the children have suffered. I cannot begin to see how, even if the parents acknowledged a need to change their parenting, any professional would be able to work with them to achieve it as historically it seems any attempt to effect change has resulted in the parents disengaging. Reunification therefore of the children with their parents I am satisfied would result in further harm to them.

Given their ages I am not considering long-term foster care for the younger three children, but it is relevant for P. Such a plan for P would mean he could hopefully remain in a secure placement where his needs would be met but could maintain a relationship with his parents and older siblings. Foster care is not ideal as it does not always mean a child will stay in the same placement throughout their childhood and changes in his placement would impact on P’s sense of security. It would mean however P would be less tested in terms of having to separate from his parents than if he were to be adopted. And the reality for P anyway is that he is of an age where there is no realistic chance of him being adopted.

For the younger three children there is however the possibility of adoption. Research tells us that this is the best outcome for young children who cannot grow up in their birth families as it conveys the sense of security a child needs. It would have the undoubted disadvantage, as I have set out above, of severing the children’s relationship with their parents and with their older siblings.

Looking then at the options for the children, I am clear that none of them can return to the care of their parents. Looking at P first, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for him is proportionate and in the context of s1(1) Children Act 1989 in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order in respect of P in favour of Leeds City Council.

Turning to the younger three children, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of them being returned safely to their parents’ care and that their needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority’s final care plan for them is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in their best welfare interests. I therefore make care orders in respect of Q, R and S. Further I have concluded that their welfare requires me to dispense with their parents’ consent to placing them for adoption, the word “require” here having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, “the connotation of the imperative”. I therefore make placement orders authorising the local authority to place Q, R and S for adoption, dispensing with the consent of the parents.

There is one further direction I wish to make. I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have read and heard in court, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing the younger three up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment must be released by the Local Authority to any adopters so that it is available to the children in future life. I also direct that the Local Authority should provide a copy to P’s independent reviewing officer.

Finally I also make an order for public funding assessment for the children.

THRESHOLD AS FOUND BY THE COURT

The court finds that P, Q, R and S have suffered and are likely to suffer significant harm, which harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them if the order was not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. The court is satisfied of this because it finds that the children have experienced family life shaped by inadequate parenting, such that their physical and emotional needs including their need for stability and consistency have been neglected, and as a result the children have suffered. In particular :

1. The parents’ relationship is volatile and chaotic. It involves serious allegation and counter allegation followed by withdrawal and reconciliation.

2. The children have frequently been present and involved in the situation when one parent makes allegations against the other and these are often in aggressive terms.

3. The children have experienced instability at home as a result of parental conflict, home moves, change of carer and separation from siblings.

4. The parents' relationships with professionals are volatile and chaotic. The parents’ refusal to work with professionals has impacted negatively upon the children’s welfare.

5. The children have lived with parents whose mental health/emotional stability significantly fluctuates. Their mental health difficulties have impacted upon their ability to meet the needs of their children consistently.

6. All of the above has had a significant and negative impact on the emotional and physical welfare of the children. All the children have had their welfare neglected and have suffered harm whilst in the care of their parents.

7. The parents have shown no acceptance or understanding of the inadequacies in the way they way they have parented their children or the adverse impact this has had and would have in the future on their children. It is therefore likely that if the children return to the care of their parents they will suffer further emotional and physical harm as a result of neglect of their welfare needs.

	[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, Q, R and S (Children) [2014] EWFC B166 (5 December 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B166.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B166

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)