[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) >> X (Discharge of Care Order), Re [2015] EWFC B86 (06 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B86.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B86

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

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MILTON KEYNES

		351 Silbury Boulevard Witan Gate East Central Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK9 2DT
		6th March 2015

HHJ VENABLES:

1. I am concerned today with an application made by D for discharge of a care order concerning her young son, X, who is now some 14 years old. D, who has been present in court throughout the last two days, remains in the court building but does not wish to be present as this extempore judgment is delivered. I understand her counsel will discuss its terms at the conclusion of this judgment.
2. The care order made in favour of Buckinghamshire County Council, of which the mother seeks discharge, was made in 2001. The mother has also made an application for an order pursuant to Section 34 of the Children Act, in the event that the care order remains in place.
3. The mother continues to be represented by Mr Barnes, the local authority is represented by Ms Little and the child's guardian, Sylvia Baker, continues to be represented by Mr Brown.
4. This is the adjourned hearing of Mother's application, which was adjourned on 3 December to enable an identified gap in the evidence to be filled through the instruction of an independent social worker. This judgment should be read in conjunction with my judgment of 3 December 2014.
5. I have read the court bundle produced today. I heard evidence from the mother, from the independent social worker, Ms Barnett, the contact supervisor, Beverley Washington, from Mrs Allen, the allocated consultant social worker, and the guardian.
6. The mother's application for discharge of the care order is opposed by both the local authority and by the child's guardian. Although X was made the subject of a full care order in 2001 when he was but a few months old, he remained at home under that care order until the court approved his removal by its order of June 2012. Under the terms of the local authority's care plan of June 2012, X was to be placed in long-term foster care. He was to have the benefit of therapeutic assistance through CAMHS and life story work.
7. As will be clear from the court's judgment of 3 December 2014, the local authority failed to implement its own care plan in a number of significant particulars between June 2012 and December of 2014. Moreover, the robust review mechanism of the local authority's implementation of its plan through the IRO failed.
8. Since the inception of these proceedings, the local authority has reviewed the manner of its engagement with mother. The local authority set in train a series of measures to build a better relationship with her. I understand that summary school reports have been provided and mother has been introduced to the child's social worker. Furthermore, X is now having regular sessions with CAMHS and life story work is underway. The most significant development in the local authority's case is confirmation that the foster carers have restated their wish to care for X on a permanent basis. The placement has been approved by the resources panel with a support package. Insofar as contact is concerned, X has enjoyed two periods of direct contact with his mother since this matter was last before me, that contact taking place on 22 December and on 17 February. The contact is largely viewed as positive. I am advised that a new IRO will be appointed to work with X.
9. I was impressed by the evidence of Mrs Allen, who gave an account of the continuing work with mother. She has made determined efforts to rebuild the local authority's relationship with mother and to address head-on the criticisms of this court. She acknowledges the deficits in the local authority's planning and seeks to establish a renewed relationship with mother through mediation and systemic therapy.
10. I am conscious that mother remains sceptical of the local authority's commitment to the implementation of its stated plan for X. She is concerned the local authority's commitments to X and to her will fall away if X is not returned to her care. It is submitted on her behalf that the local authority's failure to adhere to its care plan to date is and must be considered within the context of the welfare evaluation and in balancing the relative benefits and disadvantages of discharge of the care order.
11. This matter comes to the court on the application of Mother. It is for D to satisfy the court that there has been a material change in circumstances and that X's welfare requires discharge of the care order. In December 2014 the court came to the view that the application should be adjourned to enable an independent social worker to assess Mother's ability to work constructively with, understand and demonstrate insight into the needs of X.
12. X is a child with a high level of need. He is autistic. He is sporadically aggressive and destructive and has displayed self-harming behaviours. He requires a high level of supervision, support, consistency and firm boundaries, which he currently receives, through the cooperation of his school, his carer and social services.
13. It is apparent that the local authority failed to implement key elements of its plan in the period of June 2012 to December 2014. However, it is noteworthy that his current school considers him to be making great progress educationally, behaviourally and socially. He no longer requires one-to-one support and is regarded as a clever child who is well liked. His attendance at school has significantly improved, at almost 100%. He is attached to his carers. Thus, even though the local authority failed to implement significant elements of its plan, his underlying progress has been good.
14. Jenni Barnett, the appointed independent social worker reported on 30 January 2015. She does not consider mother is able to demonstrate insight and understanding of X's needs nor able to show herself able to meet those needs either now or in the future. In evidence, Jenni Bartlett described mother as a dominating, emotional and passionate woman. Her observations accorded with the assessment of Sue Jenner referred to in this court's judgment, at H45, namely that mother was challenging, hypersensitive, confrontational and suspicious. In Jenni Bartlett's view mother's energies focused on her perception of the failings of the professionals and the failings of others, but showed little insight of her own limitations. She found mother had no understanding of the reasons for X's removal and was unable to discuss concerns as to the deficits identified in her parenting. She found mother unwilling to engage, save on her terms. She described her as a survivor in survival mode unable to 'transition towards a conciliatory mode, where change and moving forward can begin'. She considered mother unable to focus on X's needs or to work with professionals constructively.
15. It was unclear whether Mrs Barnett had received a copy of my judgment of 3 December 2014. However, when asked whether this critical backdrop of social work intervention would cause her to take a different view as to mother's insight or her ability to work cooperatively with the agencies, she said that her view was unchanged.
16. The social worker and the child's guardian acknowledge mother's love and commitment to X but each found she has demonstrated a continuing inability to separate out X's needs from her own. They further say that mother's determination to assert her rights and her views renders her unable to listen, heed advice and cooperate with the multiple agencies she would have to engage with.
17. When asked if she could work with social services and other agencies, mother was confident that it would be different if X came home. It was suggested on her behalf that relations with the agencies would improve with a change of team as would necessarily follow if X was returned home. Furthermore, she would feel less challenged and threatened by the involvement of the agencies. However, in interview with Jenni Barnett mother said she would not be able to work with the local authority as they had let her down.
18. The court is clear that a child should be at home with its family where it is safe and consistent with their welfare. The court can only permit continued separation of X from his family and permit the continuing intervention of the state for as long as his welfare requires it and as long as such intervention is proportionate. I have considered the evidence heard very carefully. I was keen to ensure I did not complete the welfare evaluation until I had the benefit of an independent assessment of mother's ability to engage and understand X's needs.
19. Mother's tenacious, forceful and determined approach to asserting her rights and those of X and the rest of her family is to be commended for its marked achievements, most notably obtaining a formal diagnosis of X's autism and, in bringing these proceedings, highlighting the failures of the local authority but, sadly, her inability to compromise, engage, to reflect, to demonstrate insight into X's needs and her own limitations, renders her relationships with professionals strained and destructive. There have been a series of difficulties with social work teams, with schools, and on occasion with medical agencies. Such toxic relationships have proved corrosive and undermining of the professional attempts to work with her. It is in part a consequence of her tenacious and forceful presentation that the local authority has become overly defended in its approach to working with mother. Whilst I understand that the professionals have each found it difficult, it is to the credit of Mrs Allen that she is determined to try and find an improved way of working with mother, enabling her to articulate concerns, whilst at the same time looking at the needs of X.
20. I have seen D give evidence many times. It is apparent that she is capable of great warmth and good humour when she feels that she is being listened to. I agree with the assessment of both Ms Allen and Ms Barnett that the warmth and good humour, love and commitment for X is sometimes masked by her determination to put her case. I hope that she will be able to bring to future dealings with the agencies the positive attributes which I am sure she has, and demonstrate her real love for and commitment to her son.
21. I have been reminded by Mr Brown of matters identified in my earlier judgment of 3 December 2014 and in particular to paragraphs 11-13. It is right that historically mother has had difficulties working collaboratively with professionals. This court has, on at least two previous occasions, granted applications for further independent assessment to afford mother the opportunity to show that she can work constructively with the agencies.
22. Regrettably, both historically and now, the assessments have proved negative. It is apparent that D cannot meet the needs of X on her own, in consequence of her limited insight and understanding of his social, emotional and psychological needs. Further, she does not accept the impact on X of the toxic relationships she has with professionals. She cannot meet his needs independently and, as I assessed in 2012, cannot work constructively with external agencies to bridge the gaps in her care and understanding.
23. The evidence of the independent social worker is clear, coherent and compelling and echoes the assessment of the social worker and child's guardian and the assessments of previous professionals. I therefore conclude that mother is unable to establish material change. When considering the paramountcy of his welfare and the welfare checklist, I am not persuaded that mother would be able to meet X's wide-ranging emotional, social and educational needs.
24. I note that X's view on placement is equivocal and he has expressed affection for his carers and a mixed response to his possible return to his mother's care. I note that in the LAC review minutes at page E35 he spoke positively about going home. He said he wished to be home with his mother, 'because she wants me to be there with my sisters' and 'to see my sisters growing up'. That's an entirely understandable position. I am sure that he has great affection for his family and enjoys spending time with them.
25. I have weighed in the balance the failings of the local authority in considering the relative advantages and disadvantages of X remaining in care or returning to his mother's home. On balance, it is clear X has thrived in the last two years, notwithstanding the deficits in the local authority's plan. The solidity of his placement will now be secured with a formal match in line with the aspiration of the local authority back in June of 2012. I accept that X is doing well at school. He is enjoying his time and thriving there. CAMHS will continue to work with him until May. Life story work is now in place.
26. It is apparent from the evidence that mother would not be able to provide such a secure and stable environment. I note she sensitively suggests there should be a phased return, but this would necessarily bring about uncertainty for X, which would be disadvantageous. If X were to be returned home with the support of the agencies under a supervision order, it would be incumbent on mother to hold the ring and bring together the agencies, to seek advice, to work and plan collaboratively. The evidence is clear that she will not be able to do that.
27. Whilst I cannot endorse X's return home and grant the discharge of the care order it is important that this judgment and my earlier judgments of June and December 2012 and December 2014 be made available to the new IRO. The guardian has indicated she would write a letter in strong terms to the new IRO, setting out her concern that the local authority adhere to its enhanced care package which is resourced and capable of implementation. If the local authority fails to do so, then the IRO must ensure that the matter is referred back to Cafcass.
28. I have expressed serious reservations about mother's abilities to work with the agencies. I hope that through systemic therapy and through the mediation on offer she will be able to work cooperatively with the local authority around arrangements for contact and whilst only an aspiration enable contact to develop.
29. For the moment, it is agreed by all parties that X should see his mother not less than six times a year during the school holidays. I am asked by Mr Barnes on mother's behalf to confirm that arrangement by the making of a defined contact order. The local authority do not oppose the making of such an order. The guardian, on balance, invites the court to be silent as to the terms of such contact arrangements.
30. In this particular case, I see there are advantages to X in defining contact. An order will make clear the expectations of the local authority in school holiday periods and enable mother to improve her cooperation with the authority. As to whether or not there can be other forms of contact over and above that direct contact that should be considered within of the LAC reviews.
31. The only other matter of issue is that of publication of this judgment and that which I gave on 3 December 2014. I am of the view these judgments should be published on Bailii in line with the guidance of the President. It is important for the court to record noted difficulties and further to comment on the ability of the professionals to accept and address criticisms. I have heard nothing from mother to suggest she would seek to undermine X's placement by misusing the judgments of this court. I can see no reason at all for the anonymised judgments not to be so published.
32. I refuse the application for permission to appeal. I consider such an appeal would stand no real prospect of success. The court placed appropriate weight on the expert assessment of Ms Barnett, which echoes the assessments of professionals previously engaged to assess mother's ability to work constructively with the agencies and to provide care on a collaborative basis for X. Furthermore, I have expressly considered the deficiencies and failings of the local authority in the implementation of its care plan and have taken those on board in considering the relative merits of discharge and the continued placement of X in care.