[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) >> Cambridgeshire County Council v D [2016] EWFC B48 (29 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B48.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B48

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Peterborough)

		Peterborough Combined Court Centre Crown Buildings Peterborough, PE1 1EJ
		29th April 2016

JUDGE GREENE:

1. The proceedings that I have been hearing for the last three days initially concerned two children, E born July 2010, and F born February 2012. The hearing in respect of the boys is by way of final hearing. I have also been hearing evidence in relation to threshold only in respect of a little girl, G born March 2016. The proceedings have been brought by Cambridgeshire County Council, represented by Miss Gold. The mother of all three children is D, and she has been represented before me by Miss Walji. The father of G is H, and he is also the stepfather of E and F. The father of F is believed to be I, but he has taken no part in these proceedings, despite being aware of them. A subsequent partner of D was named on the birth certificate, but I am satisfied from evidence that I heard that he is not in fact the father of F, and on the evidence I have heard I am satisfied that a declaration should be made correcting F's paternity. I have seen evidence of payment of child maintenance by I and heard evidence on the point from D.
2. Turning to, firstly, the question of the threshold criteria which has to be met before the court can consider making the orders the Local Authority seeks; some partial concessions have been made by H. and D in respect of those matters, so the hearing focused on the areas where the Local Authority seeks findings beyond what H and D were prepared to concede. The threshold criteria, as the Local Authority allege, is set out in a document prepared by Miss Gold dated 19^th March 2016, which was referred to throughout the proceedings. The Local Authority say that the relevant date was 5^th November 2016 when proceedings commenced and that at that date both the boys were suffering, and likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to the care given, or likely to be given, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. The document then goes on to give specific examples of matters which the Local Authority ask me to find. What I intend to do is to go through those one at a time and refer to the evidence I have heard and make findings in respect of each of them and then I will refer to findings in respect of G once I have dealt with that.
3. In dealing with the matter I heard evidence from Dr. Hunnisett, who is
   a consultant clinical psychologist. I also heard from the social worker,
   Nicola Grainger, from H and D and then from the guardian,
   Mrs. Butler. She instructs Miss Shackleford to represent the children in these proceedings. Paragraph 2 of the document, the first of the matters, is that:

"The mother suffers from depression and has difficulties in regulating her strong feelings of anger and anxiety. The children have been neglected, their home life has been unstable and chaotic and they have witnessed their mother's frightening volatility."

To a great extent the Local Authority relied on the evidence of Dr. Hunnisett on this particular matter. In her evidence D conceded that her sad and distressing history had led her to behave in ways that she now realises were harmful for the children. She accepted that she is in need of therapy, and that that will be difficult and take some time. She had clearly listened carefully to the evidence of Dr. Hunnisett and had clearly accepted what Dr. Hunnisett had to say. That must have been very hard for her and I commend her for the courage that she has shown in doing so. I find that there is sufficient evidence in the admissions alone for me to make the findings sought in paragraph 2 by the Local Authority.

4. Turning therefore to paragraph 3, it reads:

"The children have been exposed over a long period of time to chronic domestic abuse between the mother and her partner, H. They have also witnessed abuse and aggressive behaviour between their mother and H and other members of the community. The children have witnessed arguments, violence and aggressive language in and around the home which has been frightening for them and has led to the children using extreme language and behaving very aggressively towards other children and adults at school and nursery."

Those matters are also matters which were conceded to a very great extent in the documents and particularly the evidence that was given by both parents;
D in particular. To their credit, it does appear from the evidence
I have heard that they have undertaken some counselling and that their relationship does now appear to be calmer, particularly when the children are not there, but at this point in the proceedings of course I am looking at the situation as it was leading up to the commencement of the proceedings in November of last year. It is quite clear from the concessions made by D and H, and on the evidence of the nursery, which in effect was unchallenged, and also the expert opinion of Dr. Hunnisett, that the children have suffered emotional harm for the reasons that were set out in that paragraph. Much of the behaviours were conceded and regretted by H and D. That those behaviours that the children were exposed to have caused the children significant harm was demonstrated by their own extreme and aggressive behaviours, and the opinion expressed about that by Dr. Hunnisett is one that I found convincing and which I accept. So I find the matters proved as set out in paragraph 3.

5. Paragraph 4 I think can be dealt with quite shortly. That simply says:

"H's anti-social behaviour resulted in an injunction being granted by Circle Housing on 16^th October 2015."

That is a matter of court record. I have seen the order. It also makes clear on the face of the order that H was given the opportunity to challenge the matters on which the injunction was sought and chose not to do so. It was clear on the evidence I heard that the children witnessed some of those behaviours.

6. Paragraph 5 reads that:

"As a result of his exposure to volatile behaviour and abuse E's aggression became so severe that he was excluded from school during the Autumn 2015 term."

That he was excluded is a matter which is factual and which I accept. That it was as a result of his exposure to volatile behaviour and abuse is clear from the evidence of Dr. Hunnisett, which was very powerful and convincing evidence which I accept and so I make that finding.

7. Paragraph 6:

"The children have witnessed H's dangerous driving and the mother has allowed the children to be driven by him and his brother which was unsafe and put them at risk of serious injury. H has driven dangerously and carried out "wheel spins" with the children in the car. The mother permitted H and his brother to collect the children by car from school and nursery and this arrangement was unsuitable and unsafe."

This is a matter on which there was some dispute. The mother and H did dispute much of the way in which this is phrased. The evidence, however, I found was quite extensive in terms of the dangerous driving. The injunction was based in part upon it. Although some aspects are denied, there were reliable reports of E himself describing being in the car during such inappropriate dangerous driving, and reports from police and nursery of H being seen to do so. Of course on all of these factual matters I have reminded myself that the burden of proof is on the Local Authority to prove the allegations that they make, and that the standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. I acknowledge that some of the evidence which I heard was hearsay, and accordingly I gave it less weight, but nevertheless the totality of the evidence is so overwhelming that on the balance of probabilities I find the matters proved as set out in paragraph 6.

8. Paragraph 7 relates to exposure to drug use:

"The mother permitted or failed to prevent H smoking cannabis in the children's presence. F attended nursery in clothes smelling of cannabis."

The latter part is a factual report from the nursery, and there is no basis upon which I find that I should not accept that. I do of course restrict my findings to the period leading up to the commencement of proceedings, and I note on
a number of occasions H has indicated that he has reduced and stopped using drugs, but there are admissions by him that relate to the relevant period, that is the period leading up to the commencement of proceedings. At E83 in the bundle, which was part of Dr. Hunnisett's report, he is reported by her as indicating that he had been smoking until very shortly before he saw her, and on the evidence therefore I find that the matter as set out in paragraph 7 is made out.

9. Paragraph 8 is:

"The children have been permitted to watch violent films and/or use games which were unsuitable."

Those matters have been accepted and conceded by the parents, and I therefore make that finding on the basis of their admissions.

10. Paragraph 9:

"The children were exposed to sexually explicit behaviour, material or language which was not appropriate for children of their age and caused them sexual harm and led them to behave in a sexualized and aggressive way",

These are matters that both D and H are adamant that they have not knowingly been guilty of. Dr. Hunnisett's evidence was very persuasive, she is a very experienced expert and her evidence was that the children's behaviour was strongly suggestive of exposure to sexual abuse but not diagnostic of it; that it could be exposure to one or two occasions of extreme sexual behaviour, or otherwise exposure over a longer period to a lower level of sexual behaviour. On the evidence which I heard, I cannot be certain as to when this occurred. Equally there is no specific evidence to identify by whom. There is, however, evidence of when that behaviour began to be observed, and that would indicate on the balance of probabilities that it is likely to have been after the commencement of H and D's relationship. The lack of more specific evidence, however, leads me to restrict the findings that I can make on this subject to a finding that the children have been exposed to sexually explicit behaviour or materials while in the care of H and D which may not have been deliberate but which was at the least negligent and led to the children behaving in a sexualised and aggressive way. The latter part of that finding I base on the evidence of Dr. Hunnisett which was very clear on that subject and which I accept.

11. The final paragraph in the document, paragraph 10, is one which is admitted by mother that:

"She failed to establish/maintain boundaries that both the children needed which exacerbated E's insecurity and challenging behaviour."

I need say no more about that other than to commend mother for having accepted that and conceded it. So I make the finding on that basis.

12. So far as G is concerned, having made those findings I am satisfied that at the relevant time, namely, the commencement of proceedings in respect of her, there was a likelihood that she would suffer such harm from those matters.
13. I therefore have to go on, in relation to E and F, to decide what orders should be made and in doing so it is their welfare throughout their lives which is my paramount consideration and concern. In considering those matters I have had in mind throughout the welfare check lists in Section 1 of the Children Act and also Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act. The evidence of the social worker, Miss Grainger, satisfied me that there was no other help or services that could be put into the family to address the difficulties which have been experienced with the children. The evidence of Dr. Hunnisett explained very clearly and convincingly why the children cannot be safely in the care of
    D or H at least until after they have successfully undergone extensive therapy and that such therapy could not be achieved within the children's timescales. Moreover, the children themselves, especially E, have been so profoundly harmed by the parenting that they have received that they themselves require therapy and that that also is a matter which leads to a conclusion that they cannot return home.
14. The unfortunate backgrounds of both D and H are such that significant work is required that will be very difficult for each of them. It is encouraging that both have now indicated that they accept that that work needs to be undertaken. Both I think appeared to accept that it would be difficult and that it would take some considerable time, and of course that time will only start from when they can access and begin that work. Dr. Hunnisett then went onto say that success cannot be guaranteed, although of course it would be hoped for, so that at the end of any such work further assessments would be required; so one is looking at a timescale of at least a year. The social worker and guardian were in full agreement and acceptance of the assessment in that regard that was made by Dr. Hunnisett. It was clear to me from her evidence that D, and indeed H, had very clearly taken into account and taken to heart the evidence of Dr. Hunnisett. It was clear that both were emotionally affected by what she had to say and the consequences for them and for the children. Mother said she accepted she had problems and needed help and said that she could not be ready in the children's timescales. It was indeed moving evidence and it was clear to me, as it has been to everyone else involved with the family, that she loves the children and said that she wanted the best for them. There is perhaps the awakening of some insight into the difficulties and the problems and what needs to be done to address them. There was a very clear acceptance on her part, and indeed on H's part. It is a sad situation, but of course it is the children's welfare which has to be paramount and it is their needs which I have to give priority to in deciding what orders should be made.
15. Unfortunately there are no other suitable members of their family who have been put forward or positively assessed as carers, and in respect of E, his father in effect is unknown, and F's father has shown no interest in the proceedings. The evidence was very clear that the harm the children have suffered in their short lives means that they need to have the type of expert care that will help them recover from that. Dr. Hunnisett referred to it as "reparatory care". It will require a high level of skill to enable the children to get over the difficulties that they have. Dr. Hunnisett was concerned that without that skilled level of care the difficulties were likely to endure and would result in a very poor prognosis for the children in later life. Her opinion was shared and accepted by Miss Grainger and Mrs. Butler. Mrs. Butler had provided a very clear and helpful report, which
    I accept. I found the evidence quite compelling that the only outcome that could meet the welfare needs of E and F would be adoption by carers who could give that level of care and that they should be placed as soon as possible if they are to be helped.
16. I am also satisfied that the provisions as to contact put forward in the care plans are appropriate, and that E and F should, if at all possible, be placed together, but that the need for them to have an appropriate placement was the overriding need; overriding even the need to be together if that could not be achieved as well. So the care plan is being amended to indicate that the search for a joint placement will be time limited; six months was mentioned as being an appropriate time, and I will accept that. I am satisfied that there is no realistic alternative, and of course in considering a care plan of adoption I have borne in mind that it is a very serious and final order, and I have to be satisfied that nothing else will do to meet the children's welfare needs. I am satisfied that there indeed sadly is nothing else that could do that in this case and that adoption is the only way to try and address their needs appropriately.
17. I therefore approve the care plan put forward by the Local Authority and make care orders on that basis to Cambridgeshire County Council in respect of E and F.
18. I therefore move on to consider the application for placement orders in respect of each of them. The care plan which I have just approved cannot be effective unless the Local Authority also has a placement order to enable them to implement that care plan by seeking and placing with appropriate potential adopters. I can only make that order either with the consent of the parents or if I find that I am able to dispense with their consents. I accept fully that in these circumstances it would be asking too much for them to be able to give formal consent. I am satisfied that the children's welfare requires that I therefore dispense with the parent's consent, and I therefore do dispense with D's consent. I do not believe that I has parental responsibility, but in any event I would dispense with his. So I therefore make placement orders in respect of E and of F to Cambridgeshire County Council.
19. The proceedings in respect of G, having made the threshold findings, I simply adjourn at this stage. I think directions have already been given for another hearing.

MISS GOLD: They have, but in fact I have drafted another CMO with some additional directions, which perhaps we can deal with afterwards.

20. Yes. So that is my judgment and decision in respect of the matters which I have been dealing with for the last three days.