[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) >> Bristol City Council v S [2015] EWFC B64 (20 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B64.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B64

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

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BRISTOL

		Bristol Civil Justice Centre, 2 Redcliff Street, Bristol
		20th May 2015

JUDGE WILDBLOOD QC:

1. On 26^th November 2014 I issued a notice as Designated Family Judge for this area. It read as follows: "There have been several recent cases in this area where it is quite apparent that accommodation of children under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 has continued in an unstructured way for excessive periods of time and in circumstances where proceedings are either inevitable or otherwise highly likely to be issued. I regard such accommodation in those circumstances to be unprincipled and wrong. Further, where this occurs it leads to unjustifiable delays in the completion of arrangements for the child concerned. I refer in particular to the decision of Hedley J, in Re: C.A. (A baby) [2012] EWHC Fam 2190 in which guidance is given about the use of accommodation under that section. It includes guidance that the local authority should consider: 'would it be fairer in this case for this matter to be the subject of a court order rather than an agreement'? In my respectful opinion that question should be read as if the word 'fairer' were to be expanded so that the question reads; 'Would it be fairer and in the better interests of the child in this case for this matter to be the subject of a court order rather than an agreement? It is not in the interests of a child for accommodation to be used in the unstructured way that I have described. Therefore, in any cases before District judges or magistrates in this area where there is any significant suggestion that accommodation under section 20 has been misused in the manner that I have described the case should be listed before a Circuit judge following a case management hearing. Circuit judges are encouraged to give Judgments on any such issues that arise before them on referral or on a C.M.H. listed before them. Where possible and appropriate the Judgment shall be placed on Bailii in accordance with the transparency provisions. I consider it to be in the public interest that any such misuse of accommodation under that section should be made public."
2. This case before me today concerns two children. They are a girl, who is now nearly four years old and is due to start school in September, and a boy, who is aged two years. The mother is aged 34. The father, who does not participate in these proceedings, is aged 52.
3. In the application for a Care Order concerning those two children the Local Authority gave this account of the reasons for its intervention in the life of this family: "The children were at risk of physical and emotional harm as a result of mother's mental health difficulties and uncontrolled epilepsy. Mother suffers from depression and is addicted to slimming tablets. The excessive consumption of slimming tablets interferes with the effectiveness of the epilepsy medication. When mother has an epileptic fit she is not able to supervise the children or keep them safe. Furthermore, mother is usually very tired, sleepy and confused following a fit. This can last from a few hours to a few days. Mother is not able to consistently meet the children's emotional needs as a result of her own mental health difficulties. Mother is not always able to accept advice and guidance. She has recently been advised that a child needs smaller portions of food but has refused to accept this advice. Mother struggles to manage the children's behaviour at times and is not able to prioritise the children's needs above her own. Sadly, mother does not have a supportive family network as she is estranged from her family. The local authority understands that the children's maternal grandmother would present a risk to the children. Mother does have friends both locally and elsewhere but is isolated most of the time without any significant reliable support network'. Those contentions within the care application are of course not the subject of a concession and I refer to them without making any findings of course.
4. In the application the plan of the local authority was expressed in this way: 'The local authority plan for the children is that they should remain in the care of their current foster carer until it is safe for them to return home to the care of their mother. Mother is accessing intensive help with her mental health difficulties and detailed consideration is being given to the provision of a high level of practical support within the home. Whilst the children remain in foster care mother will continue to be offered supervised contact twice each week. The local authority will also be twin tracking the plans for the children's long term care'.
5. Today I am told that there are two stark options for the children, either adoption or that the children should be placed with the mother with support packages in place. I am told, but do not accept, that there has been insufficient time to collate professional information and that the current position is an evolving process. I would suggest that those two stark options were perfectly apparent right from the start of intervention in the life of this family.
6. The children were first accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 on 25^th July 2014. The boy was then aged 18 months and the girl was three years old. Given the ages of the children, it was apparent to everyone that expedition was essential. The boy in particular was of an age where his attachment to his mother was established but continuing to develop quickly. The girl at the age of three was well within the age at which children are making important social connections, and so both children needed to have their futures resolved with urgency.
7. The care application was not made until 6^th February 2015, which is some nearly seven months after the children were accommodated. They have now been in foster care for 10 months. The case was listed by me for final hearing on 26^th and 29^th June. I am now told that that listing cannot proceed and that there need to be further professional discussions in order that the local authority might finalise its care plan. Today was set as the Issues Resolution Hearing with a timetable in place for the production of necessary documentation.
8. The difficulty that has arisen is that on 26^th February 2015 I directed that a necessary psychiatric assessment of the mother should be carried out by Dr. S. His report was due to be filed by 22^nd April 2015. In fact what happened was that he saw the mother on 17^th April, some five days before his report was due, and then produced a report on 13^th May 2015. Within his report at E84 he says this: "In my view, there is a need for the mother to process early traumatic events in an appropriate way. She still uses techniques which are maladaptive; self-harming behaviour is one such technique, to deal with negative emotions. I am aware that she is currently under a community mental health team and receives regular support from her care coordinator. I would advise consideration to be given to consider her for treatment geared towards borderline personality disorder and possibly a referral to the Pathfinder Service in Bristol. If she is able to engage effectively, which is likely having considered the previous engagement, then there is evidence to suggest that some of the traits can be addressed and she will be able to cope with the stress and anxieties in a better way and in turn reduce the risk she poses to self and children. These therapies are of long duration and may range from six months to a year. There is a need for a significant level of commitment from the patient. As noted in the past when she did engage in eating disorder therapies, there is a risk of her engaging in maladaptive techniques to cope with her negative emotions. I feel these need to be supervised and supported by the community mental health team. The therapies are only advised if the mother wants to have additional responsibilities like caring for the children. I know she does want to provide care for her two children."
9. In fact, I am told some of the therapies that are recommended by Dr. S are already in place and being done through an organisation called Steps. It would appear that Dr. S was not aware of the full extent of therapeutic involvement that is already taking place.
10. Today I am told that there has not been any multi-disciplinary meeting involving Children's Services and Adult Services. There appears to be a profound lack of knowledge of the responsibilities that arise under the Care Act 2014. I have mentioned that lack of understanding of that particular statutory provision in at least one newsletter that I issued as the Designated Family judge. Knowledge of that Act has to improve.
11. It is to my mind manifestly unacceptable that a multi-disciplinary meeting of the type now sought has not taken place so far. What has happened, quite apparently, is that this case has drifted, both in the section 20 phase and in the formulation of the local authority's care plan. It was plain to all that multi-disciplinary discussions would have to take place. The fact that they have not is unjustifiable.
12. Further, it was wholly foreseeable in a case such as this that there would be recommendations of therapy for the mother. She is fortunate in having one of the most dedicated and able family solicitors that I know, Miss Alison Lipman, to guide her in these proceedings. Miss Lipman as long ago as 12^th February 2015 said this: "Mother says the use of section 20 in this case has been inappropriate. Alternatives to voluntary accommodation were not set out to the mother when the children were removed from her care. Mother was advised to seek legal advice. The P.L.O. process was not commenced for a further three weeks, essentially denying the mother legal aid until this point. Further, the mother has not been invited to nor informed of the outcome of any of the Looked After Children reviews. The children have been accommodated with the local authority since 25^th July 2014, some six and a half months. The issue of the appropriateness of section 20 accommodation was raised by the mother's solicitor during the P.L.O. meeting on 5^th December 2014. Although mother was in agreement with the children remaining in foster care temporarily, this was on the basis that the local authority were working towards reunification at the end of February 2015 and would be increasing her contact with the children. Contact was never increased and no plan was put in place for the children to live with their mother. Since July 2014 the children have been deprived of separate representation through a Children's Guardian and solicitor. Further, the court has not been able to scrutinize and control the planning for the children. The accommodation of children in foster care for almost seven months is not in the spirit of the P.L.O. pre-proceedings process. The court is referred to the recent judgment of Keehan J, in Northamptonshire County Council v. D.S. [2015] E.W.H.C. Fam. page 199 and a judicial warning issued by His Honour Judge Wildblood, Q.C., Designated Family judge for Avon, North Somerset and Gloucestershire on 26^th November 2014. During the last P.L.O, meeting mother's solicitor made the local authority aware that they would be making a significant suggestion that section 20 accommodation had been misused and the matter should be listed before a Circuit judge in accordance with His Honour Judge Wildblood Q.C.'s comments'.
13. In the case of Northamptonshire County Council the circumstances were more stark than in this case. In that case section 20 accommodation began on 30^th January 2013. On 23^rd May 2013 a decision was made by the relevant authority to issue care proceedings. The proceedings were not issued for another six months, that is on 5^th November 2013. Therefore, there were 10 months of section 20 accommodation. Following that there were delays by the local authority and a hearing was not completed before Keehan J, until 30^th January 2015, almost two years after the section 20 accommodation began.
14. In the case of A Council v. M, reported on Bailii at 2014 EWFC B158 I said this about the circumstances that arose in that particular case: "This case is another example of how important it is that, if therapy is needed, it is obtained at an early stage. Time and time again I see a process whereby the following occurs, (a) a local authority intervenes and begins making assessment of the family, (b) months later proceedings are issued, (c) an order is made for some form of expert evidence to be produced, often a psychological report, (d) months later the psychological report is obtained which said invariably and utterly foreseeably that someone within the family needs therapy, and, (e), it is stated that by then the beneficial effect of therapy would be outwith timescales for the child." I went on to say this: "I have already set up arrangements in the New Year to look very carefully at how we facilitate and access therapy in this area with a view to doing my outmost to encourage much earlier therapeutic intervention if possible, ask for as much help as possible with that endeavour." The call that I made there for assistance has been one that has been met by a few practitioners and we are well on the way of looking at how to resolve that issue.
15. Quite plainly now, the hearing on 26^th and 29^th June cannot remain. I am, therefore, having to list this case in August. Despite submissions that were made before me, I see no basis upon which the 26 week period for the resolution of these proceedings could properly be extended and I would not allow these proceedings to extend beyond the dates that I found at the outset of August.
16. The root cause of the difficulties in this case, in my opinion, are these:

i) The circumstances of the children were allowed to drift in the pre-proceedings stage and the use of section 20 of the Children Act 1989 was too prolonged.

ii) The absence of a meeting of professionals from the Local Authority's Children's and Adults' Services in the early stages of the Local Authority's intervention. I do not understand why that meeting has not yet taken place.

iii) A lack of understanding of The Care Act 2014.

iv) There were inadequate assessments of the mother in the pre-proceedings stage. If there was insufficient information available to the local authority for it to formulate a satisfactory care plan at that stage a proper and full psychiatric assessment of the mother should have taken place within the pre-proceedings stage. It should not have been left to the time of the proceedings.

v) The apparent lack of information held by Dr. S as to exactly what has been provided to the mother by way of therapy within the community.

17. It is now incumbent on everyone to ensure that this case is in a fit state to be resolved on the dates that I have fixed for the final hearing. I have no intention of seeing that final hearing adjourned. The girl in this case is due to start school in September. There is now an urgent need for her to know where she will be living at that important stage in her life.
___________________