IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE	Case No. FB12C00302
FAMILY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

Civil Justice Centre
The Priory Courts
Bull Street
Birmingham

Wednesday, 12th February 2014

Before: 

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE HOGG

In the matter of:

Re:  H(A CHILD)

___________________
Solicitor for the Local Authority: 	MS OKUNNU
Counsel for the Father:	MR. A. NEAVES
Counsel for the Maternal Grandmother:	MS D. COLLINS
Counsel for the Guardian:	MS T. LAKIN
___________________

JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT

Transcribed from the Official Recording by
AVR Transcription Ltd
Turton Suite, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6HG
Telephone: 01204 693645 - Fax 01204 693669

APPROVED JUDGMENT
1.	THE JUDGE:  I am dealing with a little girl, A, born on 9th February 2010.  There are care proceedings in relation to her.  She came into the remit of the Local Authority following the death of her mother on 23rd December 2011.  Her father, who was married to the mother, was arrested, charged, stood trial and convicted of the mother’s murder on 3rd September 2012 and was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years.
2.	For more than two years A has lived with maternal grandmother who travelled from her home in the Caribbean and made a home for her in this country.  The grandmother is supported by her son who, with my leave, has always been in court with his mother.  A is an enchanting, confident little girl, thriving with her grandmother.  
3.	The recommendation of the Local Authority, and now the guardian, is that there should be a special guardianship order made in respect of A to the grandmother and I should make it today.  Today was listed as final directions and/or resolution of the care proceedings and special guardianship proceedings, which were due to be heard in June by myself over a period of four days.  The parties (the Local Authority, the grandmother and the guardian) all say to me that now is the time to conclude these proceedings, for A’s sake and for the grandmother’s sake and the family at large:  allow them now some peace and quiet away from litigation.  
4.	The father, who I have endeavoured over the period to ensure is involved in these proceedings was able, particularly today, to speak to counsel on the video-link before this hearing.  Sadly for him, yet again the arrangements for the video-link have failed for him, and, he is unable to be present at the hearing.  This is not the first time, but I have always been anxious that, whatever he might have done and notwithstanding the conviction that he has, he, as a father with parental responsibility, has a voice in these proceedings.  He has a voice concerning his daughter.  For some time he has been resistant to the grandmother caring for the little girl.  Having said that, last October he accepted that the little girl should remain with the grandmother.  He accepted that what the grandmother was achieving for the little girl was good.  He does not wish to upset either the grandmother or his daughter and he accepts that she provides very good care for the little girl and he does not seek to change that.  He was anxious for his counsel today to emphasise that:  that whatever might have happened in the past, he accepts that grandmother is doing a good job for his daughter.  I accept that too.  It is very important that the grandmother knows that I accept that she is doing a good job supported by her son, and the father also accepts it.  This is the important.  What he does say, and has said through Counsel, is that the matter should not conclude today that I should hear the matter in June, and that he wants the child to remain with grandmother under a care order.  He is concerned particularly about two matters: the ongoing need for therapy for his daughter and the issue of contact and how it can be developed in years to come.  These are both valid points and indeed Dr Friedman, in her evidence, emphasised these difficulties.
5.	The little girl has been able to undergo therapy since we last met.  The grandmother has engaged in it and has been able to assist by explaining, in a child appropriate way, why she is looking after her granddaughter.  I add by no means an easy thing, given the circumstances.  It has been a positive good move forward for grandmother and granddaughter to have discussed the reason in a gentle, childlike way.  The Local Authority has committed to provide further therapy in the immediate future and as and when the little girl needs it, and it may be some years ahead.  The Local Authority recognises that the circumstances in which the child finds herself, while some of the difficulties can be met now, may cause her difficulties in the future when she will need extra help.  The Local Authority has committed to providing that therapy.  It also recognises that the little girl, not now but in time, may want to know more about her father, may even want to see him.  At that point she will need help and the Local Authority has recognised that that is a potential for the future.  
6.	What is proposed by the Local Authority and agreed by the guardian is that, if I were to conclude the matter today, there would be a special guardianship order with the supervision order, initially for a year.  It has been accepted that this court can extend that supervision order and when it finally expires, the Local Authority has accepted that the child will remain a child in need for as long as she needs assistance.  That will provide for the funding of therapy.  It will also enable the grandmother to come to the Local Authority and say, “Help, please.”  I hope the grandmother will always feel open and free to ask for help, because what happened to her granddaughter has lifelong implications and consequences.  It is not just about looking after her now.  She will want to know more; it may affect her in a way that we cannot predict, so there may be a real need for help.  I hope the grandmother will feel free to come forward to the Local Authority to ask for help on behalf of her granddaughter.
7.	The father has suggested I should seek an addendum report from Dr Friedman.  Dr Friedman was unable, and declined, to advise me under what legal umbrella I should place the child.  She was concerned about therapy and the urgent need for therapy now, and about contact.  She gave her advice.  The grandmother has engaged in the therapy, and provision has been made for indirect contact three times a year, to be managed through the Local Authority’s services.  I ask myself, “What more could Dr Friedman tell me?  Is it justified (a) to incur her costs and (b) to delay this matter?”  Given what I have heard from the Local Authority and guardian and they are now agreed, and knowing that the grandmother has actively assisted in the therapy, I do not think I need Dr Friedman.  The issues have been dealt with appropriately and are being provided for in the support plan.  I do not think a further report from Dr Friedman is justified.  

I ask myself, “Should there be a further hearing so that I can decide whether there should be a care order or a special guardianship order with a supervision order?”  I do not think it is justified.  The father has been involved with this hearing and I am very grateful he and his counsel discussed the matter before I came into court.  I am pleased that the father has been able to say through counsel that he is grateful to the grandmother.  I understand his concerns.  I understand that he would have preferred to be here, either in person or by video-link, but he has been involved and he has been ably represented.  He has not been shut out, although he would have liked to be here, I have to think what is in the best interests of this child.  
8.	I knew many years ago my then head of chambers, a man of great renown, say one day in consultation with our client, “Now Mr So & So, do you really want to do this?  You must remember that litigation is aggravation.”  I have always remembered that.  Lawyers earn their living by litigation.  Lay parties find it a very anxious-making process and lawyers tend to forget that, but as the guardian said, “Litigation is a burden on the grandmother and the family.”  They need peace.  They have had a terrible few years:  the death of a much loved daughter; the poor grandmother coming here and then her husband dying.  It has been a terrible time, but she has survived and survived well and she is doing a good job.  Nobody wants to take her granddaughter from her.  Everyone wants to keep them together and they need the support of the Local Authority, which will be there.  Should I now deprive the grandmother of the peace and quiet to get on with the job that she is doing so well?  I have come very clearly to the view that now is the time to end litigation.  Provision is made to safeguard the child and help the child for the future.  The special guardianship order will give the grandmother parental responsibility.  Up to now she has not had it.  She is the primary carer.  She needs to be recognised as such and to have that power to make decisions on behalf of her granddaughter.  It would be wrong to delay matters further, wrong for her, wrong for the little girl, and wrong for the family at large.  They need to move on without the anxiety of further litigation.
9.	Therefore, I am going to make the special guardianship order, as recommended and supported.  I will make a supervision order for a year and, if it needs to be extended, I hope the matter will come in front of me next year. I hope that counsel can agree the additional terms to the support package that has been already discussed in court.  It should be recorded on the face of the order that the Local Authority has made a commitment to future therapy and assistance with regard to contact, as and when the need arises, and that, at the expiry of the supervision order, she will remain a child in need for as long as is necessary.  That needs to be recorded as a preamble so that it is there on the face of the order.
(End of Judgment.)
(Discussions followed regarding provision of a transcript.)
__________