[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) >> J (A Child), Re [2015] EWFC B55 (11 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B55.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B55

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 & THE ADOPTION & CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF J (A CHILD)

		11th March 2015

Her Honour Judge Hudson:

Introduction

1. I give judgment on the first day of what was expected to be a contested two day final hearing of care and placement proceedings concerning a baby boy, J, now four months old. The proceedings were issued immediately following J's birth; he has been subject to an interim care order and placed in foster care since the issue of proceedings.
2. Before this hearing started I was told that J's parents, M and F, had reflected on the evidence and had taken a very difficult decision not to seek to oppose the orders sought, whilst quite understandably being unable to consent to them. M and F deserve very considerable credit for the decision they have taken, which puts J's interests before their own wishes. Their distress was very evident in court this morning. It is to their credit and a reflection of their commitment to and love for J that they have remained at court to hear this judgment.
3. In these circumstances the judgment I give will be shorter and contain much less detail than would otherwise be required. It is nonetheless necessary to give a judgment and I will direct a transcript to provide a record of the circumstances in which the proceedings have concluded and the orders are made.

Background

4. M is aged 34; F is 37. J is M's ninth child. None of the older children live in her care and they have all been the subject of care proceedings. I have dealt with the last two of four previous sets of care proceedings. J is the fourth child born to the relationship between M and F. They share parental responsibility for J as F is named on his birth certificate.
5. The background is set out in detail in the judgment I gave on 2^nd April 2012 at the conclusion of care proceedings case number UY11C00032. The judgment records the significant life events that M and F each experienced in their own early lives which left them poorly equipped to provide consistent and reliable care for their children.
6. M's four eldest children were born before her relationship with F started. The eldest two children, both girls, were born in 1999 and 2000 and were the subject of care proceedings. In 2001 the eldest child, S, was made the subject of a residence order in favour of her maternal grandmother, while a care order and freeing order was made in respect of the younger sister.
7. M gave birth to her third daughter in 2002 and a son in 2003. They too were the subject of care proceedings. Care and freeing orders were made in respect of them both in December 2003.
8. The relationship between M and F started in 2003. Their eldest child (a boy), C, was born in 2005, followed by the birth of two girls, CH in 2006 and N in 2008. In 2011 North Tyneside Council issued care proceedings in respect of these three children and S, who by then had returned to her mother's care. During the course of those proceedings a range of assessments were undertaken, including a detailed psychological assessment by Dr Ursula Cawthorne.
9. The judgment I gave on 2^nd April 2012 sets out the findings I made and the conclusions I reached. At the time of that hearing M and F had separated, maintaining that their separation was permanent. Dr Cawthorne doubted their separation would endure, describing the relationship between them as 'extremely powerful'.
10. I found the threshold criteria established on the following basis:

At the time that the Local Authority commenced protective measures the child [T] was likely to suffer significant harm if an order was not made such harm being attributable to the care likely to be afforded to him not being what it is reasonable to expect a parent to give in that:-

1. In proceedings brought by North Tyneside Council under case number UY11C00032 relating to the four older children of [M] and, in the case of three of them, their father [F], judgment was delivered by Her Honour Judge Hudson on 2 April 2012. In that judgment, against which no appeal has ever been pursued by [M] and/or [F], the learned Judge found:-

a. [M] and [F] each had experienced significant trauma in their own lives before their relationship commenced

b. [M] has a number of criminal convictions dating from 1996 when she was only 15 including an offence of robbery for which she received an immediate custodial sentence

c. The relationship between [M] and [F] endured between 2003 and 2011 and was characterised by instability from separations and reconciliations with allegations and counter-allegations. This led to 21 referrals to the Local Authority many of which related to incidents that directly affected the children.

d. On 30 September 2011 [F] was made subject to a restraining order for a term of five years to ensure he kept away from [M].

e. [M] and [F] have reconciled after providing to professionals and the Court clear statements that their relationship had ended

f. Domestic abuse has been a significant factor in the relationship between [M] and [F].

g. [M] and [F] displayed a lack of consistent parenting with the children exposed to a number of moves and the appearance and disappearance of [F] from the family's life.

h. [M] and [F] were unwilling or unable to sustain consistent cooperation with professional agencies involved with the family.

i. The children had suffered emotional difficulties as a consequence of an unstable upbringing with frequent changes of carers and a lack of boundaries and routines.

j. On assessment [M] was recorded as having an objective documented history of anger, aggression, irresponsibility and deceit, suggestive of mild anti-social personality difficulties; any capacity to change would take years and [M] was not motivated to achieve it.

k. [F] had a history of mental illness, a chronic mood disorder, a history of panic disorder, agoraphobia and a history of alcohol abuse

l. [M] lacked insight into her past responsibility for the children's circumstances or the need for significant change to meet the children's needs

m. It was likely that any other relationship that [M] may form is likely to bring similar difficulties

2. There is no indication that [M] has developed any further insight into the needs of any child in her care or any acceptance of the findings in the judgment identified in paragraph 1 of this document.

11. At paragraph 90 of that judgment I said this in relation to the relationship between M and F and its impact on the children:

'The relationship between [M] and [F] has been longstanding and volatile. It has been characterised by separation and reconciliation with allegation and counter-allegation. They have reconciled after clear statements that their relationship has ended permanently. Domestic abuse has been a significant factor in their relationship. There have been numerous occasions when the children have been caught up in their disputes. Police involvement has also been a regular feature of their disputes, including with the children.'

12. I concluded that the children could not return to M's care. F was not putting himself forward as a carer. I did not consider the alternative family placement proposed could provide for the children. I made care orders in respect of each of the children and I made placement orders in respect of C, CH and N.
13. At the time of that final hearing, M was once again pregnant. She gave birth to a little boy, T, on 20^th June 2012. There was an issue as to his paternity. DNA testing undertaken in the care proceedings concerning T excluded F from paternity. The identity of T's father remains unknown. The care proceedings were commenced immediately following T's birth by Newcastle City Council. T was placed in foster care, subject to an interim care order. The final hearing in those proceedings took place on 13^th December 2013. There was a short contested hearing over the course of an afternoon, during which I heard evidence from the social worker, M and T's children's guardian.
14. The local authority's care plan for adoption was supported by the children's guardian; M sought T's placement in her care. I found the threshold criteria established based on the findings in the previous proceedings and that there was no indication that M had developed any further insight into the needs of any child in her care or any acceptance of the findings I had made in the earlier proceedings.
15. M obtained a five year restraining order against F on 30^th September 2011. They both now say they were not truthful about their stated separation in the past and that they have remained in contact and, it appears, in a relationship for significant periods. In December 2013 the order was lifted at M's request as a result of her reconciliation with F.
16. In January 2014 M moved into refuge accommodation. The local authority's case is that this resulted from ongoing domestic abuse in the relationship between M and F. They both deny this was the case, although they accept that the move took place.
17. On 9^th February 2014 M and F agree there was a drunken incident between them, during the course of which M caused damage to F's car. The detail of the incident is disputed, as is whether M and F were aware that she was then pregnant.
18. In July 2014 there was a further period of separation when M moved into refuge accommodation. Once again, the circumstances are in dispute. These factual disputes would have been explored during the course of a contested hearing. In the light of the position taken by M and F (in not seeking actively to oppose the local authority's applications), it has not been either necessary or proportionate to determine these matters.
19. Following confirmation of her most recent pregnancy, a referral was made in respect of M and the unborn baby to Gateshead Children's Services (as the local authority area in which the family was by then living). A pre-birth assessment did not support the baby's placement with M and F (either together or separately), but recorded that an updated assessment by Dr Cawthorne was then awaited.
20. During 2014 M undertook the Freedom Programme and also the Triple P parenting programme. She reports she has attended counselling in addition to these courses. F has embarked on the Deter Relationships Skills Programme to address issues of domestic abuse and is reported to have engaged well.
21. Dr Cawthorne's reported dated 14^th November 2014 recorded areas of progress but also continuing risks in terms of the history of the relationship between M and F, ongoing evidence of difficulties between them and the history of dishonesty with professionals. Dr Cawthorne described the progress as early, in terms of long term change. Dr Cawthorne's responses to further questions from the parties reinforced her views about the risks to a child. At E41 she said:

'It remains the case that a child in their care would be at risk of unpredictable and emotionally reactive parenting over his or her lifetime. In my view, a high risk of conflict in the relationship remains present and has been evident during the past year.'

22. The local authority seeks a final care and placement order. The local authority's care plan for adoption reflects its case that placement of J in his parents care could not meet his needs and that no alternative family placement is available for consideration. The children's guardian, Miriam Dolman, also supports the plan of adoption in the light of the strong body of evidence against placement of J with his parents.
23. It was in these circumstances that M and F reached the extremely difficult decision that they would not seek to oppose the local authority's applications.

The Threshold Criteria

24. The threshold is clearly crossed in this case. The findings made in April 2012 and December 2013 form the starting point. In the light of the position taken by the parents in this hearing, I have not considered it necessary or proportionate to determine the issues relating to the events of 2014. In addition to those matters found in respect of threshold in April 2012 and December 2013, I make the following further finding:

1. The relationship between M and F continued to be volatile in 2014, including the following:

(a) On 14^th January 2014 M moved into refuge accommodation during a brief separation;

(b) On 9^th February 2014 an incident of domestic abuse took place between M and F during which she caused damage to his car;

(c) On 9^th July 2014 a further period of separation took place during which M once again moved into refuge accommodation;

The Welfare Evaluation

25. I have approached my analysis of the planning for J in accordance with the 2013 case law, which emphasises that a care plan for adoption can only be approved as a last resort and where nothing else will do to meet the child's welfare needs. Such an order can only be made where it is both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the Article 8 rights of J and his parents.
26. The court was to be asked to consider the relative merits of the two placement options for J: placement with his parents and placement for adoption. In the event, no active case was put by the parents against the local authority plan of adoption. Their position in this regard is a recognition of the evidence against them and a reflection of their acceptance that J's needs cannot be met by them in a realistic timescale.
27. J's welfare is my paramount consideration. In light of the plan of placement for adoption, my analysis of his welfare is undertaken by reference to the checklist in both the 1989 Children Act and the 2002 Adoption and Children Act. J is a very young baby who has all the care needs of a young child. He needs a family that can provide for him throughout his childhood and beyond.
28. The risk of harm from the relationship between M and F in the past is well documented in respect of their older children. They are both to be given credit for the work that they have undertaken - and are continuing to undertake - to improve their relationship and functioning within it. Such work should benefit them and will also be of benefit to S and to C, both now in long term foster care and with whom M and F maintain direct contact.
29. Despite the obvious and very significant disadvantage to J of the termination of his relationships with the birth family, I have concluded that the plan of adoption is the only one which can provide for his welfare needs in the circumstances as they are presented before the court. I have concluded that this is the only realistic plan for J and that nothing else will do.
30. Having reached that conclusion and where J's parents do not consent, a placement order can only be made if their consent is dispensed with in accordance with Section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. A placement order will allow the local authority to progress the plan for adoption without delay, which is clearly in J's welfare interests. I have therefore concluded that their consent to the placement application must therefore be dispensed with.
31. I make a care order and a placement order dispensing with the consent of M and F to the placement application. I direct a legal aid assessment and a transcript of judgment. The transcript will be at the shared expense of the parties to be made on the application of the local authority. In accordance with the President's transparency guidance, an anonymised copy of the transcript will be published on BAILII.
End of judgment

We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by Her Honour Judge Hudson.

Compril Limited