 |
[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) >> Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v AB [2025] EWFC 63 (B) (28 February 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/63.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 63 (B) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 63 (B)
Case No. SE24C71052
IN THE SHEFFIELD FAMILY COURT
Sheffield Combined Court Centre
48 West Bar
Sheffield
S3 8PH
Friday, 28th February 2025
Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE PEMBERTON
B E T W E E N:
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
and
AB
Transcript of a recording by Acolad UK Ltd
291-299 Borough High Street, London SE1 1JG
Tel: 020 7269 0370
[email protected]
MS WALKER appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MS BRAMLEY appeared on behalf of the Respondent
JUDGMENT (For Approval)
HHJ PEMBERTON:
1. This matter relates to an application dated 25 November 2024 in which the applicant, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, seeks orders for committal to prison of AB whom I shall refer to as "the father" in this judgment. I have not named him in this judgment for publication as he is the respondent father in ongoing care proceedings in which the Local Authority is the applicant and naming him would lead to identification of his children. The application arises in relation to alleged breaches of orders made by me on 5 November 2024 when I made an order pursuant to section 38A of the Children Act 1989 excluding the father from the family home. I also made a subsequent Family Law Act injunction on 17 December 2024 extending the area from which the father was excluded and including some additional provisions for the protection of the mother and the children.
2. The father's alleged breaches, if found, would in effect breach both of these orders as they relate to him attending at the family home.
3. For the purpose of determining this application and in advance of today's hearing, I had read all of the evidence filed in the discrete bundle relating to the committal proceedings, and I have also read all of the evidence within the care proceedings which have been listed alongside today's hearing for the purpose of case management.
4. Looking at the chronology of this case, the care proceedings have been ongoing since May 2024. On 5 November, I made the order excluding AB from the family home in Rotherham and forbidding him from entering or attempting to enter the property. The exclusion order was said to be in force for the duration of the care proceedings. A power of arrest was attached to the exclusion requirement. The order contained a warning notice that any breach of the order would mean that the father would be guilty of a contempt of Court and may be sent to prison, fined or have his assets seized. The father was present and was represented at this hearing. He was served with a copy of this order personally by way of a process server at 7.10 pm later that night.
5. This committal application was issued on 25 November following an out of hours visit on
23 November, at which the Local Authority say they saw the father leaving by the back door of the property.
6. On 27 November, I gave directions for the Local Authority to file evidence in affidavit form in support of its application together with translated copies for the father with provision for him to respond should he wish to do so, and I listed the committal application on 19 December.
7. A further breach was alleged to have occurred on 9 December when South Yorkshire Ambulance Service attended at the family home in response to a 999 call. On that occasion the father was said to be intoxicated and had suffered a head injury. The father was arrested by the police on 16 December and brought before me on 17 December.
8. On that day, I agreed to his release from custody subject to various restrictions which were set out in a non-molestation order of that date. Again, the father was present, having been produced in custody and was represented. This order together with a translated copy was personally served on the father on 23 December.
9. The committal hearing was unable to proceed on 19 December 2024 due to the unavailability of witnesses and the need for the mother to consider her position and her evidence in relation to the alleged breaches. It was therefore re-listed on 9 January 2025.
10. On 26 December a further alleged breach of the orders occurred. Two out of hours Social Workers attended at the family home and the father was observed to leave the property via the back door.
11. The hearing on 9 January was not able to proceed as the father did not attend and had not been served with the updated papers. Instead, a warrant for his arrest was issued and the case was adjourned to today's hearing.
12. The father was arrested and produced before me on 27 January. He was once again represented by counsel, and I am grateful to her for making herself available on all of these occasions. I agreed on that occasion that he should be released pending the full hearing of this committal application and explained to him in court through an interpreter that should he fail to attend the hearing on 28 February, the matter would be likely to proceed in his absence. Fortunately, the father has attended, and it has not been necessary to proceed in his absence.
13. Turning then to the evidence. Until today, the father had denied all of the alleged breaches. This had resulted in a number of witnesses being required to attend at court most notably three paramedics attended today which will no doubt have significantly impacted on the already strained resources of South Yorkshire Ambulance Service at this time of year.
14. At 11 am this morning I was told that the father no longer disputed the alleged breaches of
23 November and 9 December but continued to dispute the alleged breach of 26 December. I indicated that I would hear the Local Authority's evidence, and the evidence of the parents should the father wish to give evidence in relation to this third breach.
15. At 12.05 pm I was advised that the father now accepted this third breach.
16. In reaching my determination as to what penalty is appropriate in this case, I have taken account of the following important matters. The exclusion order pursuant to section 38A made on 5 November confirmed and extended by way of the Family Law Act injunction order made on 17 December were clear and explicit in terms of prohibiting the father from attending at the family home. They set out the potential consequences should the order be breached. They each contained a clear penal notice. The father was present in court when the orders were made with the benefit of representation and an interpreter. I also made it clear on each occasion as to the significance of the orders I was making and the importance of them being complied with. The father has now admitted to breaching the orders on three separate occasions on 23 November, 9 December and 26 December. The breaches occurred within a short time of those orders being made and the consequences explained to the father.
17. The consequences of the breaches in my view could not have been more profound. They have led to the three children of this family being removed from their family home and from their mother's care and placed in foster care. The sibling group have been separated. The children have been exposed to frightening behaviour as a result of the breaches. The police attended at the family home following the first alleged breach. The second alleged breach was when the father had sustained a head injury, and the evidence is clear that he presented as intoxicated and demonstrating psychotic behaviour and evidence of hallucinations. It is clear from the evidence of the paramedics that the children were all present and witnessed their father in this state.
18. The incident on 26 December once again involved the police attending at the family home and the mother's statement records that the children were frightened and upset by this.
19. The father in his affidavit today apologises for the breaches but does not in my view even begin to acknowledge the harm that his breaches have caused his children.
20. I see all of these matters as aggravating features of the breaches. Whilst I do and must give some credit for his admissions, I note that they have literally been made at the eleventh hour and were only made when all of the witnesses were ready and willing to give evidence and knowing that a trial would proceed today.
21. I remind myself that I may impose a fine, confiscate assets or impose a period of imprisonment. I also remind myself of the three potential objectives to be considered when determining what is an appropriate penalty for the breaches of the orders.
22. The first is punishment for breach of an order of the Court to emphasise the importance of compliance with such orders. Any sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence determined by assessing the culpability of the offender and any harm which the offence has caused, whether intended or foreseeable.
23. The second objective is to secure future compliance with the Court's orders. In this case I think that is of less relevance given that the orders were to protect the children in the care of their mother and those children have now been removed.
24. The third is rehabilitation which is a natural companion of the second objective.
25. In my approach I have considered the culpability and harm as set out above as features that I see as aggravating and as potentially mitigating. I have also considered guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines in relation to breach of protective orders. I have considered the father's ability to pay a fine or for him to have assets that could be seized. Sadly, he is not in a position for either of those penalties to be appropriate.
26. In this case, given the number of breaches and the other aggravating features I have identified, I have determined that a period of imprisonment is appropriate. In the light of all of the above I consider that the culpability of this father falls somewhere between Category A and B given the number of breaches and that the harm caused by the breaches as I have already set out has been significant and serious falling somewhere between Category 1 and Category 2 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
27. Looking at the totality of the breaches and the position of the father throughout these proceedings and his late admissions, I consider that a period of imprisonment of 12 weeks is an appropriate sentence for the breaches. In effect, this represents a period of imprisonment of four weeks for each of the breaches. Given that the father has today accepted the breaches and avoided the need for evidence to be heard, I give a discount of one week and the sentence imposed is therefore 11 weeks with the three days already spent in custody to be deducted from there.
28. Considering all of the relevant factors I have been drawn to the conclusion that given the father's history of poor compliance with court orders, the number of breaches and the need to enforce orders of this Court and to make it clear that the orders are not to be ignored, I have decided that it is not appropriate to suspend this sentence. The period of imprisonment therefore is of immediate imprisonment. Could AB be taken down to the cells now please.