Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWMC 44 (FPC)

In the Magistrates’ Court
Family Proceedings Court

Before:
     
A District Judge 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	X  Local Authority	Applicant	
	and		
	Ms B  Mother	1st Respondent	
	                         Mr G Father	2nd Respondent	
	L a child through her Children’s Guardian		

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr J	for the	  Applicant	
                                 Mr J	for the	1st  Respondent 	
 Ms  S	for the	2nd Respondent	
Ms M	for the 	Child	

Hearing date: 16th June 2010- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Judgement 

1.

	This is an application by (the Council) for a care order in respect of a child, (L) who is almost 13 years old.. L.'s mother is Ms B (the mother) who is present in court and legally represented and her father is Mr G (the father) who does not have parental responsibility but has been joined as a party to the proceedings.  The father has not attended court today but is legally represented.  Whilst the parents do not consent to the application they have not sought to challenge any of the evidence before the court and have merely made submissions through their solicitors.  L herself is represented through the Children's Guardian,  who supports the application.

2.	Representation

Local Authority: Mr J of counsel
The mother: MrJ, solicitor
The father: Ms S, solicitor
The child and the Children's Guardian: Ms M, solicitor
	
3.	Preliminary application

At the beginning of the case I was asked to consider applications by Ms C, family friend, for leave to apply for party status and for an independent social work assessment of her as a carer for L. Ms C has been the subject of a viability assessment (C 140-146) which was negative.  However, having granted leave for a copy of the assessment report to be shown to Ms C so that she could receive legal advice, I was then asked to grant leave for the applications for party status and independent assessment to be withdrawn which I agreed to.

4.	Background

This is very helpfully summarised in the Council's written opening statement prepared by Mr J.  The proceedings arise out of an incident on 24 February 2009 when L. was punched in her face by her father causing bruising to her eye.  The bruising is described in the medical report from Dr R at pages C 7-8 c.  Following this incident L. was not immediately removed from the family home, the Council having agreed an undertaking with L.'s mother that her father would not have contact with L. pending police and social services enquiries.  However, this agreement was breached when L. spent the weekend with her parents at the family caravan, unbeknown to social services.  Furthermore, the father breached his bail conditions imposed for an unrelated offence of criminal damage at the family home.  The Council then obtained an interim care order in respect of L. on the 22nd of May 2009 which has remained in force ever since.  A copy of my judgment from that hearing can be found at pages 8-16 on the bundle.

Subsequently the father pleaded guilty to the assault on L. and was sentenced to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for 18 months together with a supervision requirement for 18 months.

5.	Threshold

An agreed schedule of findings sought in satisfaction of the threshold criteria can be found at page 28 of the bundle.  I approve that schedule and on the evidence before me I make findings of fact accordingly.  I am therefore satisfied that at the time protective action was taken L. was suffering and was likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm due to the care provided to her and likely to be provided to her by her parents not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give unless an order is made.  

6	Events since proceedings were issued

L. has been placed with two different foster carers.  In October 2009 the Council moved L. from her original placement as it was felt that she was unhappy.  Then, following increasing concern of L. displaying challenging emotional and physical behaviour her social worker referred her for therapeutic intervention with CAMHS.  More recently, L. has been placed in a small residential unit where she appears to be thriving.

7	Analysis and Welfare Test

I must now consider what order, if any, to make having regard to the welfare principles in section 1 Children Act 1989 and reminding myself that it is L.'s welfare which is my paramount consideration.

8	During the course of the proceedings there have been a number of assessments.  Firstly, there have been paediatric assessments by Dr R, Dr P and Dr T to try and determine whether L. has been sexually abused.  This culminated in an experts’ meeting on the 24 November 2009 when it was agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that L. had been sexually abused (C 67).  Consequently, this aspect of the case does not require any further consideration by me.

9.	A psychological assessment of both parents was carried out by Dr T (C 78-105).  In respect of the father Dr T expressed the following opinion:
‘It cannot be recommended that (the father) be viewed as able to provide a safe, secure and supportive environment for his children, either now or in the foreseeable future.’ (C103)

10.	In respect of the mother Dr T concluded:
‘She is likely to be defensive and is prone to not disclose information unless she feels it is in her interest or if it is drawn from her.
She is likely to have difficulty with authority figures and may have a somewhat immature view of herself in the world.
She is likely to take a passive role within relationships
She is likely to have difficulty in placing the needs of others above those of her own and will likely have difficulty in placing herself in the position of another and seeing the world from that perspective.  Her ability therefore to see threats and risks in the environment of her children will be markedly limited or impaired.’ (C103)

11.	Dr T continues:
‘It cannot be recommended that (the mother) has sole care of her children either now or in the foreseeable future…. (the mother) appears to have a bond with her daughter and therefore it is recommended that she be allowed contact on a regular basis with L.  It is recommended that any contact be supervised '.

12.	Dr T also believes that the mother is unlikely to follow direction from the Council and have difficulties in meeting L.'s emotional and physical needs.  Dr T believes that it is likely that the mother will maintain a relationship with the father in the future and even if she separates permanently from him it is likely that she will involve herself in a similar relationship.

13.	L. herself has been assessed by Ms M, psychologist.  Ms M is of the view that L. requires consistent, structured and sensitive care (see 137) and that L.’s enuresis is linked to her emotional state.  Ms M recommends that L. is established in a long-term placement where she has the security to work through her difficulties.

14.	A core assessment was undertaken by Ms C (C8a-19) at a time when it was believed the parents had separated.  During the course of that assessment L. is reported as saying that she did not like her dad because he hit her and always shouts and is in a bad mood.  L. said that she had a better relationship with her family now and that they did some fun things that they did not do before when her dad lived at home (C 11).  L. also said that she felt better now that her dad did not live in the family home and she feels safer and happier (C11).

15.	However, in relation to the mother the assessment concluded that she had minimised the assault on L. and the assessors believed even at that stage that the mother wanted to resume her relationship with the father and was still having contact with him.  If this were to happen, it was believed that it would place L. at risk of significant harm (C12).
	
16.	As I have already indicated, none of this evidence has been challenged by the parents and I therefore accept it in its entirety.
	
17.	Viability assessments have also been carried out in respect of a number of family friends and these can be found at C140-146 and C147-153 of the bundle.  Both of these assessments were negative and have ultimately been accepted by the people concerned.  

18.	The Council's care plan can be found at pages CP1-8 of the bundle.  It identifies that L. needs a safe and secure environment where she can have a variety of stimulating experiences which will help her grow and develop into a positive member of society.  In the light of the various assessments, the Council have concluded that L.'s needs cannot be met within her family.  The Council's plan is therefore for L. to be brought up in either long-term foster care or a residential/therapeutic unit (CP 5).

19.	With regard to contact, the Council propose that L. should have supervised contact with her mother each week for one hour, supervised contact with her mother and father together once every two weeks for one hour.  Furthermore, there will be a joint telephone contact between L. and her parents once every week for 20 minutes.  The telephone contact is to be managed and monitored by L.'s carer (CP3).
	
20.	The Council believe that the mother is still enmeshed in her relationship with the father; there is no evidence of sustained separation and the mother still minimises the threat that is posed by the father.  Mr J therefore submits that it must follow that the mother is not able to protect L. from significant harm.

21.	Both parents have filed statements.  The father’s statement can be found at pages B33-41 of the bundle and the mother's at B42-44 of the bundle.  However, the father has chosen not to attend court although he is legally represented and even though the mother has attended at court she has chosen not to give evidence in support of her statement or to be cross-examined on it.
	
22.	The parents maintain that they have now separated from each other although it is accepted that they travel to contact together and some of their contact is shared.  The mother and father have attempted to separate in the past and mother now accepts that she has not always been open and honest about their relationship.  At page B36 the father describes his relationship with the mother as one of ' close friends ' and if L. is returned to the mother, the father does not rule out the possibility of them all living together in the future (B36).  

23.	In his submissions to me on behalf of the mother, Mr J told me that the mother would like L. returned to her care.  L. has a good relationship with her mother and the latter clearly loves her daughter (C12).  I accept this.  However, in terms of the mother’s separation from the father, Mr J conceded that the reality of the situation is that whilst the two of them are living apart and are no longer romantically linked, the mother has not sufficiently extracted herself from the relationship to rebut the risk identified by Dr T.  
	
24.	On the behalf of the father, Ms S submitted that he has felt excluded throughout this case and she referred me to my judgment dated 22nd of May 2009 (page 10 of the bundle) in which I commented ' (the father) claims, perhaps with some justification that although he is L.'s father he was not included in the work the local authority would doing at that point.’ Certainly, it has been a constant criticism of the father that the Council have not kept him fully informed of all their plans although it is also clear from the report of the Children's Guardian that he has not been the easiest person to deal with (C 156 and C 157).
	
25.	Ms S reminded me that the father has been attending STOP and he has been referred for cognitive behavioural therapy.  The father's view is that it is in L.'s best interests to return to the family home although he accepts that he could not live there himself at the present time.

26.	With regard to the parents’ relationship, the Children's Guardian deals with this at C158 of the bundle.  The Guardian has recorded that the mother informed her that the father stays at the mother's home at weekends and that the two of them have discussed his return to the family home in a few months time as they are getting on much better.  The mother also believes that the father has changed and that he no longer becomes angry.  This is in stark contrast to the reported discussion which the father had with his probation officer as recently as 7 June 2010 when the father is said to have made threats to physically assault the social worker and the probation officer’s concerns were such that he reported the matter to Family Services.  (C 156)

27.	The father has also informed the Children's Guardian that whilst he sleeps at his mother's home he sees the mother on a daily basis and he hopes to eventually return to live with her (C158). This, of course, mirrors what the father has said in his own statement (B36).
	
28.	The Guardian concludes:
' From my own involvement with the family, it is clear that the parents have an enduring, committed and mutually dependent relationship of over 18 years duration, and support each other on a daily basis.  The situation regarding their relationship is very unclear for professionals and must be confusing for L.’
	
29.	I agree completely with this view.  The house in which the mother continues to live is jointly owned by her and the father and although the father is currently living in his own mother's house because she is in hospital, I believe that he will return to the family home as soon as these proceedings are concluded.  During the course of the proceedings both the mother and father have spent considerable time together and the father has regularly transported the mother to contact.  I believe that the two of them are both practically and emotionally dependent on one other.  Furthermore, although the mother has said that she has separated and will remain separated from the father I believe that she lacks the emotional capacity to do so.  In my judgment, therefore, if I were to return L. to the care of her mother I believe the parents would very quickly resume their relationship as indeed they did between February and May 2009 and in those circumstances L. would be exposed to the same degree of risk that led to these proceedings being instituted.  I say that in the light of the Guardian's conversation with the father’s probation officer where it is reported that the father is unable to engage effectively to bring about change and still finds it difficult to compromise when matters are not on his terms.  Furthermore, the father's attendance at STOP appears to have been for the benefit of the court proceedings and not himself (C 156). Even now the Guardian reports that the father presents as a very angry person and he has consistently minimised his role in events leading to the care proceedings and has a limited understanding of the emotional impact of his actions upon L. (C 157).  I accept the Guardian's conclusions.
	
30.	On behalf of L. herself Ms M submitted that she needs appropriate and reliable care and she is described as having complex needs that cannot be met by her parents or other family carers.  L. is almost 13 years old.  The Children's Guardian has met with her on five separate occasions, most recently in May 2010 to discuss the Council's care plan.  The Guardian reports that L. presented as confused about where she wished to reside in the future.  She appeared to have torn loyalties.  She told the Guardian that she wished to return home but also said that she was happy in her residential placement.  She said she did not know what to do.  When asked, L. said that she wanted the court to make the decision (C 161).  I think this is perfectly understandable.  During the course of these proceedings I have been aware that L. has sometimes been placed in an invidious position by her parents, particularly her father, who have asked her to express her views on particular topics such as contact.  Whilst L. is of an age where she is able to express a view, in my judgment this is something which she should be allowed to do naturally rather than having it forced upon her.  L. is described by Ms M as presenting as a child who in many respects is younger than her actual years.  She can retreat into introverted, withdrawn and preoccupied states although this has been much less evident in her present placement.  She is in some respects immature, has lacked control over her negative and aggressive feelings and clearly has little experience of managing and working through complex or difficult situations. (C 134).  Ms M therefore believes that it is essential that L. receives care that is consistent, structured and sensitive to her profound anxieties and vulnerability to becoming introspective and depressed (C 137).

31.	I can therefore fully understand the dilemma which L. faces and in my judgment it is imperative that the court removes from her the burden of making a decision in this case.  I accept the opinions of all the professionals which is that L. cannot safely be returned to the care of either parent, whether individually or together and neither are there any other family members or friends who are able to care for her at the present time.  The Guardian believes, and I agree, that it is significant that L. has made improvements in all areas of her social, emotional, cognitive and physical development since placement within local authority care and she is responding positively to the standard of care that she is currently receiving (C 163). I therefore believe, as does the Children's Guardian, that with ongoing support under the provision of a care order, her experience of security and stability will help her grow and develop in the future. I accept that both L.'s parents love her but in my judgment the only order I can make is a care order to Leeds City Council which I now do.  I am informed that L. will need ongoing therapeutic intervention and a referral has already been made to CAMHS which I approve.

32.	With regard to contact, both Dr T and Ms M comment in their reports about L.’s close relationship with her mother.  However, her thinking and feeling about her father appears to remain ambivalent (C 136).  Nevertheless, Ms M expects that L. would wish to see both parents and particularly her mother (C 137) and Dr T recommends contact on a regular basis although this should be supervised.  To this end as I have already said, the care plan provides that L. is to have contact with her mother for one hour every week and contact to her mother and father jointly for one hour every two weeks.  L. is also to have telephone contact to both parents jointly for 20 minutes each week.  These proposals meet with the approval of the Children's Guardian (C162) and will be subject to ongoing review under the Looked After Children Regulations when L.'s wishes, needs and feelings will be taken into account as she matures into a young adult.  I am satisfied with the proposals for contact and see no need to make an order.  I approve the care plan.

33.	Before a District Judge on 16th June 2010