England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

 

                                                                                                                 Case No: UY13C00049

IN THE FAMILY COURT

SITTING AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE                                                 The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 3LA

 

                                                                                                                                                        

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF: C (CHILDREN)

 

Monday, 16^th February 2015

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR   

 

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

 

Re: C (Children)

 

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

 

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

 

Counsel for the Local Authority: Mr Harvey Murray

Counsel for the Mother: Mrs Elizabeth Callaghan

Counsel for the Father: Miss Teresa Taylor

Counsel for the Paternal Aunt and Uncle: Mrs Susan Taylor

Solicitor for the Child: Mr Nick Kincaid

 

Hearing date: 16^th February 2015[?]

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

 

 

APPROVED JUDGMENT

 

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

 

1.                  THE JUDGE:  I am concerned with the welfare of:

A, who was born on 11^th June of 2011; and

B, born on 8^th July 2012.

They are both the children of M and F.

2.                  This matter is listed before me for a final hearing.  F seeks to renew his application before the court for further assessment with the aim of resuming care of his two children alongside M.  The parents live together.  M tells me that their relationship is better and M also wants the children living with her.  I have heard brief evidence from both of them this morning, F to pursue his application for further assessment and M to tell me that she wants the children back with her but if that cannot happen, they should live with Z and Y and she should have more contact and would like twice per week.

3.                  I gave judgment in this matter in February of last year at which time, based upon the evidence before me, I took the view that the welfare of A and B would not be served by them being in the care of their parents.  F tells me that since then there has been change.  He has attended courses, Playwork course, level 2, for some six to eight weeks and he takes the view that it has helped him with his understanding of what children need.  It has helped him develop play skills and he has been able to put into practice those matters which he learnt on the course which has resulted in contact being better.  Although he has not been able to engage on an anger management course because these proceedings are still ongoing, he has taken the step of obtaining membership of the gym and he goes to the gym and goes swimming, which he tells me helps with his stress and anger levels.  It is his concern that he is unable to prove to the court, because the children are not in his care, that in fact he is capable of providing care for the children and in those circumstances wishes a further assessment of his capabilities.  M supports him in that application.

4.                  I fully accept that F and M wish to care for their children and I find that they do have difficulty, perhaps understandably, accepting that they are not able to provide good enough care for their children.  I gave a long, carefully considered, and detailed judgment in February of last year and while it is very much to F’s credit that he has undertaken the work that he has done and clearly it has been beneficial in that it has assisted in contact, sadly I am of the view that the difficulties are so deep seated that the fact of attendance on a course, or a number of courses, does not alter the conclusions that I came to, having considered all the evidence at the previous hearing.  Unfortunately, for the reasons that I set out previously and, effectively, through no fault of their own, F and M are unable to meet the needs of these two young children. 

5.                  They are unable to provide, because of their own difficulties, a consistency of care and a level of care that these two children require to enable them to reach their full potential.  Neither F nor M would in any way deliberately harm their children, far from it.  They love their children very much and want to do everything they can for them but clearly in looking at what is in the best interests of these children, which is my paramount concern, I have to look at the ability of F and M to meet, as set out in the welfare checklist, their emotional, physical and educational needs.  I do not think that a further assessment is going to take me any further.  I have to be satisfied at part 25 that a further assessment is necessary.  I do not take the view it is.

6.                  The issue of contact is a separate issue which I will consider when I have been addressed by all the parties but my decision in relation to any adjournment for further assessment is that I do not think that it is indicated.  The delay would be detrimental and I cannot find that it is necessary with regard to the welfare of these children or the future of these proceedings.  The changes which F has been able to identify for the court are not sufficient to alter the decisions which the court has previously made.

[Judgment ends]