District Judge Relph :
INTRODUCTION
- In this matter I am concerned with the welfare of three children who for the purposes of anonymity I shall refer to throughout this judgment as either the children or A, B and C.
- The children are 14, 12 and 10 respectively. They are all the children of Y I. and RSC. Tragically for these children their mother died at the beginning of January 2013 some four years ago when she was 43 years old.
- At the time the mother's death the children were in foster care subject to care orders made by me on 19 March 2012. The children were actually placed in foster care in November 2011. They are all placed together within one foster home and have remained within the home since initial placement. I think it is important to note that this has given the children stability which had been sadly lacking in their lives. The placement is supported and approved of by the maternal family with whom the children continue to have a relationship and contact. The extended maternal family have played no part in these proceedings but they do play a part in the children's lives. These are not children who have no links to their wider family.
- Their father is RSC [who again for the purposes of anonymity I shall refer to throughout this judgment as the Father] the Father holds parental responsibility for all the children.
- This case comes before the court as a result of the father's application to discharge the existing care orders and in the alternative that the section 34 (4) order should be revoked. The respondent local authority is Salford City Council and the children are represented by the Guardian.
- At the outset of this judgment I wish to make it plain to the father- although he may not accept it, that I fully acknowledge that he loves his children deeply and that he wishes to play a role in their lives. It is also clear from the evidence that the children far from being alienated from their father as he suggests, retain a curiosity about him and an affection for him. The fact that it has become necessary for the court to make decisions once again in relation to the children's future, is very concerning.
- However, once again, whilst I may understand and appreciate the father's clear anger, frustration and distress in having to deal with social workers over a number of years and having to come to court and face these proceedings in relation to his children, as a litigant in person. I make it plain to the father that, the court has a clear duty under the Children Act to deal with the Child's/children's welfare as its paramount consideration and that in coming to my decision today it is their welfare interests which must take precedence on a proportionate basis within the delicate and holistic balancing exercise of competing needs, wishes and options before this court.
a) At this juncture I will deal with the father's earlier application that I should recuse myself from this case. That application was heard by me in October 2016 and opposed by both the children's Guardian and the local authority. I considered the father's application very carefully at the time and gave a short extempore judgement. On balance I felt that this was a case where there have been so many hearings and applications that in the children's best interests there should be judicial continuity and so it has proved as will become evident within this judgement.
b) I also have the benefit of access to the earlier case files which I dealt with and which I have reviewed with a view to compiling an accurate chronology of the proceedings. I have found this review to be necessary due to the father's assertions and contentions within all aspects of his evidence that certain issues and matters have been presented as fact within these proceedings but consideration of the earlier case papers and evidence demonstrates that this is in fact at best inaccurate and misremembered and at worst a misrepresentation of what was going on before. This is where judicial continuity has been essential in this case.
- applications
The applications before me are;
a) An application by the father to discharge the care order
b) An application by the father to revoke the section 34(4) order confirmed by me on 12 March 2012 and again in 2014 following a three day contested hearing.
c) The Guardian makes an application under section 91[14]of the Act to restrict further applications to the court without the permission of the court for the balance of the children's minority.
I have considered the extensive case papers. I have heard oral evidence from;
i) The key social worker
ii) The father
iii) The Guardian
- The positions of the parties are as follows:
i) The father- asks that the court either discharge the care orders so that the children may return to his care in a structured way or in the alternative that he be granted direct contact with his children and that he should be able to see his children individually and that the section 34(4) is discharged.
ii) The local authority - opposes the father's applications and contends that the care orders should remain in place to protect the children's welfare best interests and that the section 34(4) should be maintained. The local authority supports the making of a further section 91[14] order as applied for by the Guardian.
iii) The Guardian's position is that he also opposes the father's applications and recommends that they be dismissed. The Guardian has also issued an application under section 91[14] preventing further applications by the father during the remainder of the children's minority.
- I approach matters before the court in this sequence
i) Chronology and narrative of the proceedings before the court
ii) The Law
iii) Evidence
iv) Welfare checklist
v) Analysis and conclusions
Chronology and background
– 2008 There is an issue between the parties as to when they separated on the mother's case they separated in 2007 and on the father's case 2008. In 2007, A the eldest child would have been about five, B the middle child would have been about three and C the youngest child would have been about two years of age. Save for a short period of four months around 2008 the children have not lived with their father. The children went on to live with their mother within the wider community until their removal in November 2011 for approximately another three years. The mother was of no religious persuasion and was white British.
to 2009. Following the separation of the parents there are private law proceedings where both parents made allegations and counter allegations against each other. There was an application for a non-molestation order where the allegations from the mother were that the father subjected her to controlling behaviour and was harassing her. The father did not accept the allegations made and undertakings were given. The orders included exclusion areas. In July 2009 a residence order was made in favour of the mother.
The mother's circumstances had by this time deteriorated significantly the local authority initiated care proceedings in respect of all three children who were made subject to interim care orders although they remained at this time in the mother's care.
October 2010 - during the course of the care proceedings both parents were psychologically assessed as were the children. The father was assessed by Dr Brian Stanley within the original care proceedings. The report was not challenged and remains relevant and illustrative - within interview the father expressed the following views –
"Early on in the interview the father emphasised the discriminatory aspects of the proceedings. He said to me these are black children that had been removed from the black community for no other reason than the fact that the people who have done this are white xenophobic ignorant and racist and use the court system to get away with it" – there is no mention of the children being raised within the Muslim faith.
Dr Stanley opines; "Mr C's personality profile displays significant elevations in narcissistic personality traits, although any formal diagnosis would require further assessment. [my emphasis]
The cardinal features of this personality style include an air of conviction and self-assurance. They are able to express their thoughts easily and have a natural capacity to draw attention to themselves. They expect others to recognise their special qualities and some individuals display narcissistic traits can, come across well to others. This personality style has many positive attributes and is usually question of degree and context how their behaviour is viewed by others. Such individuals typically view themselves as being competent and effective. They appear self-assured confident and outspoken. They tend to describe themselves as being assertive energetic self-reliant strong and realistic. As I have indicated it is largely question of degree and context whether these characteristics come across as being positive or challenging. More negative perceptions of such individuals may include their superficiality flippancy and that they project a sense of entitlement. They are likely to emphasise how capable they are even perhaps belittling those who refuse to acknowledge the image that they are trying to protect. In Mr C's case his intellectual and verbal ability is clearly being driven by his personality style and I do not think that this is working to his advantage.
Although he is an articulate and logical his manner can quickly change into verbal hostility. Narcissistic individuals do have a tendency to view their social environment as a competitive place. They feel they have to fend for themselves to function. As a result they tend to be far more assertive than the average person. They tend to emphasise their rights more than others and this can easily develop into an entitlement mind-set. This can further escalate into repeated conflict and as a result they develop a general mistrust or suspicion of others. Although this basic personality style can alienate others, narcissistic individuals tend to respond to this with indifference. This personality style is often perceived by others as one of arrogance and egocentricity. I'm afraid that this is highly likely to occur in Mr C's case."
During the care proceedings the local authority sought to assess the father in terms of him being a potential carer for the children but the father withdrew his cooperation and so the assessment could not move forward. Two contact session were arranged by the local authority in March 2011 an incident took place between the father and contact officer. The allegation which has always been denied by the father is that he assaulted the contact officer. The incident was witnessed by all three children. It was at this point the local authority sought permission to refuse contact under section 34 (4). No direct contact took place between the father and any of the three children for a significant period of time following that incident.
A final care order was made in favour of Salford City Council on 19 March 2012. The interim section 34(4) was also confirmed on that date. There is no question but that the application and order were properly made and that the father had ample opportunity to challenge the making of the orders.
The recordings on the face of the order are relevant given all the arguments that the father puts forward within all his recent documents and evidence which are factually incorrect;-
paragraph a - recites the evidence upon which the court based its decision including the social work assessments, the psychological assessments and the psychiatric assessment in relation to the mother and the Guardian's report.
Paragraph b recites- that neither parent required the authors of any of the reports to attend court for the purposes of cross examination or to challenge the conclusions of those reports.
Paragraph C recites - that the mother expressed her wish to care for the children but recognised at present that she is unable to care for them. To that end she did not actively oppose the making of the final care order and has expressed strong wish that the children remain in their current placement which is meeting their needs.
Paragraph D recites- that the father does not actively oppose the making of the final care order. However he is keen to ensure that direct contact between himself and the children in the future is explored with the children and is kept under regular review. Furthermore, he is anxious to ensure that the children's cultural needs are met and he does not consider that their current placement is meeting their needs.
In terms of the father's contact with the children the local authority is not recommending any direct contact take place between the children and their father. It seeks that the section 34(4) remains in place continue to be of the view that they do not wish to see their father at present, although child B has said she would like to see her father in the future. The local authority will continue to facilitate letterbox contact once per month. The frequency of indirect contact will be reviewed and contact generally will be reviewed at each LAC review
Paragraph F- set out the fact that the children were engaging in therapeutic work with starlac and that the children's relationship with their father and their wishes and feelings regarding direct contact will form the basis of this work. Should the children decide that they wish to have direct contact with their father then given there will be an expectation that Mr C engages with the children social worker to assess the level of risk given Mr C's assault on a member of staff. If direct contact takes place this would need to take place in a contact centre with two members of staff supervising. Any direct contact will be dependent upon Mr C signing a written agreement and demonstrating a capacity to cooperate with the local authority.
There are additional recordings. It is important perhaps note that the mother was fully supportive of the children's placement at the time and this remains the children's placement. She believed that the placement did meet the children's needs including their cultural needs, the father did not and does not. It is also important to note that whilst there is reference to the children's cultural needs there is no mention or complaint in terms of the children's religious needs and this is significant.
The order goes on to recite the contact arrangements between the children and their mother and the maternal family. Threshold criteria were agreed and the matter proceeded before the court on an uncontested basis. Both parents were legally represented both during the hearing and during the course of the proceedings.
In June 2012 the case was allocated to the present social worker. She has now been the allocated social worker for the three children for almost 5 years.
On 6 January 2013 the mother died. Members of the maternal family have had monthly contact with the three children in the four years since the mother's death.
The father filed an application under section 34 of the children act for contact to the children. Within the application the father stated that he wished "in due course of them to be returned to my care" the application was treated as an application to discharge the care orders and as an application to discharge the section 34 four application.
In January 2014 a contested hearing took place over three days when the court heard from the local authority the father and the Guardian in respect of the father's application. The Guardian Mr Delahunty undertook an independent review and assessment of all the children's circumstances.
There is a full judgement in relation to that application. The following is however relevant;-
"from all the evidence I have heard and read, I cannot see that there really has been a significant change in the father's circumstances since the order was made in 2012 and I am satisfied in this case that the local authority does need to continue to share parental responsibility, and so for all the reasons that I have given I'm going to refuse the father's application to discharge the care order. In terms of the section 34 four application, I think the father must understand that this is a permissive order. It is not an order for no contact. The real key to progress in terms of contact lies very much in his hands. I do not believe and accept the Guardian's evidence that indirect contact is a waste of time. The letters from the children are a real cue to the father that he can take up from and build a relationship and there has been indeed a lost opportunity between July and today. We could have been very much further down this road but the father has chosen not to engage in the children's conversation. He almost seems determined to have a conversation with the children on his terms and I am satisfied that he has sufficient intelligence to know the difference between the two. The concern I have is that this is a reflection of the father's personality.…… All of this I'm afraid is very much in the father's own hands and I would hope that following this very difficult hearing and this lengthy judgement which is far longer than I intended he will have the opportunity to go away and reflect. It is very much in his own gift to progress this but it is very much up to him. He talks about drawing a line in the sand. Rather I would say that following this hearing the local authority and the father can embark upon matters and have a fresh start: that they will be able to cooperate and discuss matters respectfully with each other and that neither party can dictate to the other what should happen. There has to be one conversation between the children and the father and one conversation between the local authority and the father it is up to him. He must accept that he must moderate his behaviour notwithstanding his frustrations and feelings and he must not say inappropriate things to the children in contact."
At paragraph 72 the judgement reads "I accept what the Guardian says and I think the father needs to be very careful. I think we are still at a point where progress is possible …….and there is a window of opportunity but it may be the children will change their minds and I think the father needs to grasp what may be the last opportunity to improve and progress his relationship with the children but I am satisfied that the local authority is addressing this issue appropriately and that they will need the section 34(4) in place to continue to regulate the contact and to promote the children's best welfare"
An order was also made under section 91[14] of the children act 1989 for a period of two years. This meant that the father could not make any application in respect of the children during this period without the leave of the court.
30 May 2014 the father's appeal in respect of the January 14 order was heard by Her Honour Judge Eaglestone. The father did not seek to appeal the refusal to discharge the care order. He did seek leave to appeal the decision of the court to grant an order under section 91[14] and the refusal to discharge the section 34(4). The father's application permission for leave to appeal was refused.
Following the appeal the father presented a further application to the court and on 10 November 2014 the father's application for permission to issue a further application for contact was refused.
However, in the months following the contested hearing in January 2014 the father did take up the olive branch and wrote regularly to the three children. He wrote about once a fortnight. These letters were handwritten and included photographs but .ped in July 2014. Father contends that he continued sending letters but these were not delivered to the children that position is not accepted by the local authority. The reasons for ceasing to write to the children remain unclear.
In March 2015 meeting took place between the father and the local authority discuss the contact arrangements the meeting was attended by the team manager and the independent reviewing officer. The father was accompanied by a solicitor and an advocate and he signed a written agreement in respect of contact arrangements following that meeting.
Direct contact took place between the father and the street children under the supervision of the local authority. This was the first direct contact between the father and the children since March 2011 a period of approximately four years. Further meetings took place between the father and the local authority in September 2015 and March 2016.
On 4 December 2015 a further application from the father was heard. The father was represented at the hearing. The father had the opportunity to present written evidence to the court at that time which he did. Having considered matters the father's application for permission to present a further application was refused.
In January 2016 father wrote to further letters to the children. On 9 April 16 a further direct contact took place between the father and only two of the children. The eldest child a chose not to attend.
Since the contact in April 2016 all three children have consistently stated that they do not wish to have direct contact with their father.
July 2016 the father filed an application for a child arrangements order respect of the three children which effectively acts as an application to discharge the care order . throughout these proceedings it has been clear that the father seeks to discharge and in of the care orders and removal of the section 34 order.
The Law
- The welfare of the children, individually and collectively, is the court's paramount consideration: s1 (1) Children Act 1989.
The standard of proof is the civil standard of the simple balance of probabilities no more and no less.
Contact with a child in care – the general proposition is that subject to the duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare a local authority must allow reasonable contact between the child in care and his parents and certain others. This is the basic position which obtains in every case in default of a court order to the country. There is a duty to promote contact between children in care and their families save in exceptional particular circumstances.
Any application under section 34 of the children act is a substantive application in which the court is determining a question with respect to the bringing up of a child and consequently the court must decide the issue by making the child's welfare its paramount consideration.
Wherever a local authority seeks to refuse to allow contact between the child and in a parent or other interested individuals the local authority must make application to the court for permission to refuse contact to that named individual. It is imperative to note that an order made under section 34(4) of itself does not deny contact it simply authorises the local authority to do so it is permissive in nature it is not mandatory. Accordingly if the local authority changes its view in terms of contact an order under section 34(4) of itself does not prevent contact taking place. Such orders should only be made where matters are so exceptional and the risk so is severe that contact must be .ped.
In the context of article 8 ECHR severing ties between the child and parent can only be justified in very exceptional circumstances as it is a very drastic thing to interfere with contact between a parent and child and there must be compelling reasons demonstrated to justify an order under section 34 four. Any order must be proportionate in relation to the circumstances of the case.
Applications to discharge care order –
Section 39 of the children act 1989 deals with applications to discharge care orders. Any person with parental responsibility for the child may make the application and in deciding the application the court must apply the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare and have regard to the matters on the statutory checklist (section 1 (3) of the children act 1989). The burden of showing that the welfare of the child requires revocation of the order is on the person applying for the discharge.
In considering any harm which the children has suffered or is at risk of suffering the risk to be considered will normally focus on recent harm and an appraisal of current risk conclusions reached at an earlier hearing will be of marginal relevance and of historical interest only, but earlier conclusions may be examined afresh in the light of new evidence.
Applications pursuant to section 91 (14) of the children act 1989 – on disposing of any application for an order under the children act 1989 the court may make an order under section 91[14] of the children act that no application for an order under the children act 1989 of any specified kind may be made with respect to the children concerned by any person named in the order without the leave of the court.
Any application under section 91[14] must be considered alongside the principles set out in section 1 of the children act 1989, the welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. The power to restrict applications is discretionary and in exercising its discretion the court must weigh in the balance all relevant circumstances and an important consideration is that to impose a restriction is a statutory intrusion into the right of a party to bring proceedings before the court and be heard and the power should therefore be used sparingly and should be the exception and not the rule.
It is only in suitable cases and on clear evidence where the welfare of the child requires it that such orders should be made, even though there was no past history of unreasonable applications. In cases where there was no past history of unreasonable applications the court would need to be satisfied that the facts went beyond the commonly encountered in terms of the need time to settle to a regime ordered by the court and the all too common situation where there was animosity between the parties adults and/or local authority and that there was a serious risk that without the imposition of the restriction the child or primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain. Although a court might impose restrictions in the absence of a specific request subject to the rules of natural justice allowing a party to be heard that should indeed be the exception.
Any restriction imposed may be imposed without limit of time - but the degree of restriction should be proportionate to the harm it was intended to avoid and a without notice order should not be made of than in exceptional cases and absolute prohibition on making an application could not be ordered under section 9114 but only an order made on the under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
An order under section 91[14] may be appropriate where there have been repeated applications but that is not the sole criterion. Any order must be supported by full and carefully set out reasons and orders of such duration should only be made in respect of cases at the egregious end which merit the strongest degree of protection for the child. The court should only make such orders after full consideration of the evidence and of all submissions. It is wrong in principle except in exceptional circumstances to place a litigant in person in the position of having to confront the making of a section 91[14] order at short notice. An application under section 9114 should be issued in advance and supported by evidence unless there are urgent or exceptional circumstances. It is not appropriate to make a section 91[14] order simply to achieve a breathing space where this may be achieved by simply allowing a settling period for the order to work itself out.
Evidence
- I have considered the written evidence contained in the bundle of documents. At the start of the hearing I was also provided with further extensive documentation from the father which has been included within the bundle of documents before the court much of which is deeply revealing. I heard oral evidence from:-Local Authority, the father and the Guardian.
Local authority
- The social worker Miss W was allocated this case in June 2012 and she has remained the allocated social worker for all three children for almost 5 years now and knows the children well. She filed two detailed witness statements in terms of these applications.
- She outlined work with the children in the process of communicating the father which has been difficult since the inception of the care proceedings. It is clear from reading the evidence that the relationship between the local authority and the father remains extremely strained but in so far as they have been any improvements there is at least now a line of communication where the father is invited to a meeting following the looked after child meetings so that information may be communicated to the father and return to the letters sent by the local authority to the father in due course. Whilst not ideal that is at least an improvement in terms of where we were in 2014 where the local authorities lines of communication with the father failed. I put this down in no small measure to the intervention of the Guardian and his observations during the 2014 proceedings.
- Critically there has been no further assessment of the father circumstances as the Father continues to refuse to work with the local authority either in terms of working towards indirect contact and thus a relationship with his children or indeed a further assessment of the father and his full circumstances which would be a prerequisite to any consideration of return of the children to his care.
- The father asserts many things but given his non-cooperation it is well-nigh impossible for the local authority to consider or reassess his circumstances in any forensic manner. I do not hold the local authority responsible for the lack of further assessment in this regard as I accept father continues to refuse to work with the local authority.
- Miss W gave her evidence in a clear and calm manner. She informed the court that she felt children were settled and secure within their foster placement and that their carers were sensitive and alive to all the children's needs particularly their cultural and racial needs. It is clear to me from her evidence that the local authority remain concerned in terms of the confidentiality of the placement and protecting the placement in terms of the children's sense of security and safety. It seemed to me from her evidence that much of her caution in dealing with the father stems from her anxiety to protect the children's placement. She is very concerned that should the father have knowledge of the children's placement that he would seek to disrupt it.
- Both within her written and oral evidence the social worker was clear that the children were settled that they were content and happy and wanted to remain within the placement and they are anxious that they should be allowed to do so. She reported to the court that the children were doing well in school and they had many activities supported by their carers which they enjoyed. She acknowledged that A who is now a teenager was pushing the boundaries within his placement and that on occasions he has presented as angry it was felt that this potentially related to a number of issues not simply puberty and adolescence but issues at school his feelings regarding contact with his father and his unresolved bereavement issues relating to his mother's death. Although a referral has been made starlac, A at this point has chosen not to engage with any further therapeutic work
- B is described as a young person who loves to learn she is interested in friends and clothes she has positive relationships with the foster carers and other family members and has many interests including drama Street dance and swimming. She is able to express wishes and feelings and is said to be a very enthusiastic and inquisitive young person.
- C is described as thriving in this placement. He is described as happy responding well to the routines and boundaries within the home. He requires some support academically and has access to a tutor at home and has a personal educational plan.
- All three children have been diagnosed with sickle cell anaemia trait which can be affected by high altitude activities.
- Within her written evidence the social worker recites that - " in the past the father previously requested the children attend church and understand the Catholic faith. He has also stated more recently that is children were born into the religion of Islam and should be practising the Muslim faith and culture. The father has also indicated that he wants the children to be withdrawn from any religious studies within school."
- The social worker also informs me that all three children have expressed an interest in their identity and were interested to know about the father's history and family and she acknowledges this is important for the children and will continue to be so as they grow older. The maternal family have provided the children with information allowing them to gain an understanding of their mother's history, cultural identity which has assisted them in promoting their individual cultural and racial identity. The children have requested the same information from the Father through their correspondence to him. The father provided some information about his family however this has been limited and has left all three children with many unanswered questions. During one correspondence B requested a family tree but that was not provided. It appears at this point the children have .ped requesting information about the father's history and family.
- All three children were affected deeply when their mother died and have continued to receive appropriate support from their carers, the maternal family and the local authority.
- Following the conclusion of the previous application in January 14 the father did to his credit actively engage in indirect contact as described above. These letters were read out to the children who have retained the letters within their memory boxes. The children raised a number of questions about the father and his family they wanted to know if he was a teacher and if so which school he worked at. The father frequently signed his letters in what appeared to be another written language and the children would often ask the social worker what that meant. Her evidence was that the children enjoyed receiving letters particularly when the father was sending them on a regular basis. The children it is said were reluctant to write letters however they were happy to send drawings occasionally postcards and photographs. During this period (2014) the children were reluctant to engage in direct contact however B maintained that she did want to see her father and by the end of 2014 – December 2014 all three children stated that they would like to see their father. This was no doubt as a result of the indirect contact.
- By February 2015 arrangements were made by the local authority to request an advocate for the children (Barnardo's) their role was to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the children in relation to direct contact. There was a meeting between the independent reviewing officer and the father and his advocate in March 2015 where discussions took place with a move to moving towards direct contact.
- Matters move forward and although the children expressed concerns about seeing their father one of which was that they were concerned that their father may assault the workers supervising their contact – as happened in March 2011, they also stated they did want to see him.
- By July 2015 dated been agreed the direct contact to take place during school holidays. The children were prepared for that meeting and eventually it took place on 30 July for an hour and a half. During the session B left the room to speak to the social worker. She was upset and tearful stating she wanted to live with the father but also wanted to remain living with her foster carers. She told the social worker that her father was saying things that were confusing to her such as preparing her bedroom for her return and that he had organised horse riding lessons and was purchasing a car large enough for them all to sit in. The social worker felt she had to explain to B that there were no plans for her to return to the father's care and that she would continue to remain living with the foster carers until she was now adult. The social worker told the court that she seemed to accept the social workers response and after five minutes returned to the contact and stayed for the remainder that session. A and C asked the social worker at the end of the session if they were going to see their father again as the Father had informed them that they would be seeing him on a weekly basis. The social worker explained that that was not the current plan.
- Feedback from this initial meeting after many years was positive. All three children stated they had enjoyed the time spent with the father and had also like the venue. However, they also stated that there were times when they felt uncomfortable regarding some of the comments their father had said these appear to be in relation to comments referring to them returning to his care. The children stated that they would want to see their father again however they did not wish contact with the father to impact on the contact with their maternal family.
- Further meetings took place between the local authority and the father on 16 March 2016 when the father was given feedback in terms of the direct contact which had taken place and informed that another direct contact session would be arranged during the April half term. At this stage B and C stated they wanted to have contact with their father and were quite excited about the prospect of seeing him again A however did not wish to see his father as he felt his father kept putting him in an uncomfortable position and he didn't want his father to talk about them going home
- The second direct contact session took place on 9 April 2016 when only B and C attended. The father provided a bag of goodies for each child including A Unfortunately following this contact the two children who had attended reported that they were unhappy with the contact as their father had made statements that had made both of them feel uncomfortable C stated that he had not enjoyed the time as much as he thought he would. B stated that she felt even more uncomfortable than during the previous contact session in July 2015 and they both stated that they did not wish to see their father at present.
- All three children continue to maintain that they did not wish to see their father they were informed that another session would be identified in August 2016 and it will be their choice if they wanted to attend however all three children made the decision not to attend this further direct contact session. The children also stated clearly that they were tired of constantly being asked about contact as they had stated several times that they did not wish to see their father at the present time.
- At the LAC review meeting on 25 September 2016 it was felt that constantly asking the children about contact with the father was now having an emotional impact on them. Unusually it seems to me it is recorded that a recommendation was made for the social worker to talk to the children as to whether they would like to make a complaint about local authority regarding this issue and following discussions with the foster carer and social worker the children made a formal complaint to the local authority and they have since received a letter of apology from the local authority.
- In terms of correspondence and communication the social worker acknowledged that it would appear that there have been some delays in passing on information to the father in the last two years but overall I accept the evidence that information is passed onto the father. I accept her evidence that these children are secure within the placement and wish to remain there. I also accept her evidence that this placement is supported by the maternal family and that although the placement may not be an identical racial match for these children it does meet their needs and that the foster carers encourage the children to discover more in relation to their racial identity in an age-appropriate way. The foster placement is however reflective of the children's placement within the community prior to the issue of the care proceedings as they were living with their mother who was white British within the wider community.
- On the social workers evidence the indirect contact simply .ped. The father does not accept that is the case and argues vehemently that letters have been sent that money has been sent to the children and they have simply not been delivered.
- The social workers evidence was that she has continued to talk to the children about seeing the father but that they were weary about having to continually discuss their wishes and feelings and that they are weary with all the questions about contact and indeed have made a complaint in relation to this issue.
- It is clear that in the intervening 2 ½ years since the matter was last before the court there has been some progress but it feels as though there are has been one step forward and two steps back. In terms of communication the social workers evidence was that although there had been improvements it remained a difficult situation she did not believe that there had been hostility shown to the father within meetings and that the local authority has repeatedly tried to discuss the children's progress with the father there were occasions when she believed the father simply did not want to hear what he was being told. Much of the work that she would wish to undertake with the children in terms of their identity and ethnicity she felt was hampered by the refusal of the father to respond to the children's requests for information about his family and his background which he had consistently refused to provide. This she told the court had led to confusion for the children.
- The evidence of the social worker was clear that the starting point for rebuilding a relationship between the children and the father would be a return to indirect contact which she hoped could be re-established on a consistent basis. At the present time the children have no realistic relationship with their father and therefore a return to his care was not a viable option for her at this time. The father's refusal or inability to work with the local authority in a meaningful way was also something which had prevented any further consideration of his circumstances which might in due course lead to return of the children to his care.
- With regards to the discharge of the care order and a return to the care of the father within her written evidence the social worker reminds the court that whilst in the care of the parents all three children were exposed to a great degree of hostility domestic abuse manipulation and a constant barrage of allegations between the adults in terms of their respective behaviour towards the other. They were also witness to their mother's alcohol and drug abuse. They experienced real turmoil in their early childhood high degree of instability and chaos. The children lived within a number of different households either as a direct result of their parent's separation ongoing feuds with drugs and alcohol.
- Prior to recent events, the children's last direct contact session with their father was in March 2011 when the children saw their father the father assault the local authority contact worker and this has had a great impact on the children who were at that time fearful. All three children have a very limited relationship with their father they have not lived with him since 2008 and have no understanding or knowledge of his daily life or circumstances.
- The children remain curious about their father but have stated clearly to the social worker time and again that at present they do not wish to see their father that they are settled where they are living and do not wish to move. The father's comments made to the children during the two direct contact sessions where unsettling. The social worker was clear that she wished to continue working with the children but would be guided by their wishes and views she accepted that the section 34(4) was simply permissive but felt it was still required in order to enable the local authority to continue to manage contact in line with the children's wishes and feelings and that they are all now of an age where their wishes should be given some weight.
- The father does not and will not engage with the local authority in terms of further assessment of his circumstances to realistically advance a case where the children could be returned to his care and the starting point should be the building up of the direct relationship between the children and the father.
- Following information obtained at the outset of the hearing that the father had been in touch with the school the day before the final hearing enquiries were made with the school in terms of the father's involvement and the social worker Miss S gave evidence to the court in relation to this, following a telephone conversation with the head teache:- her evidence was that the school had received an enquiry from the father but that no information had been passed on to the father by either the headmistress or any member of her staff. She indicated that the school had in fact that morning received the freedom of information act request from the father in relation to the schools ethnicity.
The father
- The father loves his children that is not in doubt. He wishes to be involved in the children's lives, to be involved in decisions in relation to their upbringing and care and feels himself frustrated at every turn in terms of his dealings with the local authority. The father contends that he has been lied to by the local authority, that his views are not considered or listened to and that he has been harassed by the local authority. He is clear in his convictions in all these matters that he is not at fault and there is no reason why the children could not be returned to his care. He asserts the vehemently that he is a good parent.
- The father has consistently made complaints in respect of all the professionals involved with his children via every avenue open to him. The complaints are simply too numerous to mention.
- The father is an intelligent man who represents himself within these proceedings I intend to take the father's evidence both written and oral as a whole. His written evidence comprises two lengthy detailed statements at C 33 to 53 and C 54 to 72. There are additional documents filed by the father in terms of position statements and a document headed resisting children act 1989 section 91[14.] There are documents addressed to various individuals including the school, letters purportedly from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service but plainly from the father. There is a document described as court hearing synopsis of October 2016 - there are many other documents including copy letters received from the local authority which form the basis of the father's complaints in terms of antisocial behaviour and harassment from the local authority.
- The position he takes within the written documentation and oral evidence is often ambiguous and contradictory - by way of example the father complains that he is not kept appraised of his children's development yet at the same time he accuses the local authority of harassing him and engaging in antisocial behaviour towards him by sending correspondence to his address. He has complained about this to the police. Even allowing for the fact that the father is representing himself he is an intelligent man he is a teaching assistant - but not a teacher as he often describes himself, his written representations are often difficult to fathom, they are impenetrable, repetitive and often it is difficult to discern and make sense of his actual meaning Frequently his arguments descend into what can only be described as repetitive and incoherent language the full sense of which is impenetrable.
- However doing the best I can it seems to me that what emerges from the father's evidence are a number of themes and complaints;-
The father is an angry and frustrated man and he wants the professionals involved in the case to be brought to account for what he describes as the abduction of his children and makes a range of allegations and accusations against every professional (including perjury) involved in the case he expresses himself as outraged that proceedings have not been taken against the social worker by way of committal proceedings and/or arrest for perjury, defamation of character and theft. These are but some of the allegations he makes and has made over a significant period.
He loves his children and wishes to be involved in their lives. He wants to see his children and be a parent. He sees writing letters to the children as destructive. He is adamant that numerous letters have been sent (he says over 67 letters have been sent) which have simply not been delivered to the children including gifts of money, which he alleges has been stolen. The father is adamant that he continued writing letters up until December 15 and that these had simply not been passed on to the children.
The father was clear that he felt that direct contact is the only way to progress the case. He contended that he should be seeing the children and going out together. He wanted to see the children individually. He told the court that he had tried indirect contact and that this had been mismanaged by the social worker and that in the modern era contact could take place in a more imaginative way by way phone calls and Skype et cetera that is if the children were not to be returned home. He told the court that he was prepared to do anything to get his children out of this foster placement which he believed was destroying them. He was adamant that the end objective of the local authority was to end his relationship with his children and that the local authority in his view have not tried to promote his contact with the children. He alleges that the local authority's actions towards him have been vindictive and malicious. He denies being confrontational within any meeting. He complains bitterly that he has simply been ignored.
He believes that his children have been alienated by the actions of the local authority and that as a result of the local authority actions the children have started to in his words internalise that alienation. He believes that the children have reached a point where they think he does not care about them and that he has no intentions of ever walking away from his children.
He believes that he has been ignored and that is views are not taken into account - when it was suggested to him that repeated applications had an impact on the children the father's response was vehemently given "are you completely insane I will not abandon my children I can't do that"
The father accepts no personal responsibility for the children's circumstances when they were received into care or for his current predicament.
There are inaccuracies within the father's evidence which he stridently asserts [incorrectly] as fact which I do need to deal with as it represents a distortion and misrepresentation of the proceedings as a whole and what has actually occurred and it is in this regard that judicial continuity has been important in this case. It is clear that certain allegations presented as fact have not simply been misrepresented but in certain circumstances have been fabricated and invented by the father.
There is evidence before the court that the father simply refuses to accept any information which does not accord with his strongly held views and wishes. An example of this is that during the directions hearing in October 2016 the father sought a report or some form of evidence from Barnardo's as to the work they were undertaking with his children. At that hearing I directed the local authority to provide information from Barnardo's and in default to explain why it was not possible to produce such information. The father was adamant that a report existed from Barnardo's that it had been withheld from him and that he wished to witness summons the workers from Barnardo's to come to court and give evidence. The social worker in her evidence indicated that there was no formal report – all she had have ever had was some informal feedback from Barnardo's.
However, from the papers supplied by the father at the outset of this three day hearing it is clear that Barnardo's have in fact communicated directly with the father setting out their position .On 9 September 2015 they wrote to him and indicated that "the children identify themselves as having no religion and describe themselves as mixed race British. Barnardo's accept that "this is a snapshot of how they perceive their identity at that point of time. They explain that "although the father may not share that view that Barnardo's would be always be guided by the voices of the children in terms of our advocacy work", a second letter again addressed to the father sets out their role and how they wish to protect their work with the children. They wanted the children to be able to be confident that they could speak clearly openly and honestly to their workers about their wishes. "There is a risk that if they become aware that the detail of their conversations are disclosed to others that they may be less inclined to speak to us as they will be concerned about causing upset to their current carers, their social worker or yourself" - they go on to provide the father with a summary of the information provided by the children indicating that the children had enjoyed the contact that they'd had with the father and would like a similar session to be arranged like the first one that they would prefer staff to be present not having seen their Father for a long time there was no complete agreement about future contact but there was consensus that all the children would like a similar contact to be arranged as before i.e. in the contact centre..
The final communication from Barnardo's was dated 13 January 2017. That document is clear on its face as to Barnardo's role and involvement - "as Barnardo's involvement with the children has been solely limited and related to the delivery of advocacy services for them we do not consider that it would be ethically appropriate for us to provide a statement and are therefore seeking the court's further consideration of this request. We have advised Mr C of our position and have previously advised him of the rationale for nondisclosure in relation to confidentiality and information sharing. Should you require any further details to inform your decision making on this matter please do contact me directly" it is perfectly clear from this information that Barnardo's role in the children's life has been a therapeutic one and as such they contend that it would be inappropriate for them to provide any report or statement for the court proceedings. Their response could not be clearer and has been made on more than one occasion over a period of time, nonetheless the father pursues his position regardless.
Having considered these documents and particularly the last communication dated 13 January 2017 I refused the father's request for a witness summons and rescinded the direction as to disclosure.
I have set this out in detail as it amply exemplifies father's habit of not accepting information which is given to him which he may not wish to acknowledge or accept and to continually pursue avenues of enquiry where the information is already available to him or as I described it in my previous judgement does not meet his agenda. He simply does not listen to information which he does not wish to hear. He consistently describes any responses to his queries as "facile".
There are specific matters which I need to deal with are as follows;-
- The assertion that there are ongoing police and CPS investigations in relation to these matters and the documents presented to the court ostensibly from both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when clearly these are documents created by the father.
- The issue in relation to the children's religion and religious upbringing.
- The issue in relation to the father's involvement with the children's school and his recent actions in terms of contacting them and its impact upon the children.
Police investigation; As regards the father's evidence of a police investigation and enquiry being undertaken by the CPS, this is contained in two incoherent communications received by the court from the father, the first on 16 November 2016 and the second on 9 December 2016. These documents have been disclosed to all the parties. The first communication which comprises five pages opens "I am a serving police officer outside of Manchester with the rank of detective inspector I have been asked to provide clarification upon any criminal allegations…." the communication continues by way of a tirade of complaints and allegations against all professionals past and present in terms of violations of the right to fair and impartial hearing, incriminating and false evidence being provided by the social worker, allegations of misappropriation of funds by the father's previous solicitors. There are allegations of defamation and theft. Within the body of the text the father goes on "as an experienced police officer I have investigated rape murder manslaughter fraud and armed robbery and establishing the facts regards allegations of the applicant being a victim together with his children of an offence motivated by hatred is transparent… The father complains that there has been a three-day hearing arranged when he feels it is contempt proceedings which should have occurred in November 2014 and December 2015. It continues "I have discussed this with the Crown Prosecution Service the clarification and given an ex parte hearing was applied for and not given to the applicant I would state solicitors have like pigs at a trough been taking legal aid with no regard to making representation effectively a gagging order was effectively in place against applicants who were acting on the idea of good faith…" It goes on "the Crown Prosecution Service state…"
- It is regrettable that the father no doubt born out of frustration with his predicament has taken action which effectively crossed a line. Both communications are plainly documents created by the father purporting to be a serving police officer. When cross-examined in relation to this matter the father told the court he had indeed spoken to 2 police officers - which I accept. He told the court that this was information which the police wanted and that which the CPS wanted, however for an individual who always knows the name of anyone with whom he has dealings – he either could not or would not however give the names of the serving officers he spoke to but was adamant that they were aware of this communication was being sent to the court and wanted the information requested.
- This evidence is simply not credible on any view. It has been fabricated/invented by the father in an attempt to control these proceedings seeking an enquiry on his case into the actions of every professional concerned, the court, local authority and Cafcass seeking vindication of his views and on the way that he feels he has been treated. It is an attempt to remove all existing professionals involved with the children's case and involved with their care from the arena.
- This evidence is illustrative of other matters which have been put before this court as fact which consideration of the case papers within both the current proceedings and preceding applications demonstrates to be untrue and simply not the case. Sadly for the father by fabricating this piece of evidence he must understand that it undermines the balance of his evidence in certain regards which will be treated with great caution. In plain English by this action, he has scored an own goal and tripped himself up. Although I acknowledge that just because an individual has lied in relation to one issue does not mean that that individual has been untruthful in terms of all evidence.
- The children's religion – throughout this application but more particularly within the father's application heard in 2014 by me he contended that the local authority had ignored the children's religious background and that the children were being deprived of the opportunity to be brought up within the Muslim faith. Throughout his evidence before this court the father has maintained this as fact. However consideration of the chronology, the social workers evidence and the earlier proceedings contradicts the father's assertions as being accurate. As the chronology shows these are children whose parent's relationship was difficult chaotic and tempestuous. The papers filed by the mother within previous proceedings complain of controlling behaviour by the father. The parents separated on the mother's case in 2007 and on the father's case in 2008. At the date of separation in 2007, the eldest child A would have been just five, child B would been three, and child C would have been aged two at best. The father contends that the children were bilingual when they were taken into care and this is simply not borne out by independent evidence gathered when the children were received into care in 2011. At that stage the children had been living with their mother who was white British and an atheist (save for a period of four months when the children were looked after by the father during one of the mothers illnesses) since 2007. When received into care there was no evidence that the children practised any faith nor that they had any knowledge of Arabic written or oral. The social workers current evidence is that the children have no memory of learning Arabic or reading Arabic. Nor do they have any memories of living with their father and being involved in any activities that relate to the Islamic faith.
- Within cross-examination before this court the father indicated that during the marriage pursuing his Islamic faith was difficult as the mother interfered.
- At the time of the care proceedings in 2012 this was not raised by the father as an issue and for him to assert otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances which pertained at the time.
- The issues raised by the father at that stage were in relation to the children's racial identity. He was principally concerned (and remains so) about the children being placed with a white British family – which he did not believe and does not believe meets their racial identity needs. Whilst this stance is perfectly understandable in many respects what the father ignores it seems to me is that the children have a white British heritage as well and when they were placed within a foster family which reflected the mother's background and heritage and the community within which they were living at the time did meet their needs although it might not have been a perfect match nor the match he would have preferred. Again this exemplifies the father's very real difficulty in coming to terms with the situation or a view which does not reflect his views or preferred options. He has struggled and continues to struggle to accept that a different view from his own might meet the children's needs and interests.
- School; the father's case is that the children are being failed in terms of their education. He complains bitterly that is not been kept informed about the children's education that he has not received school reports or been allowed to speak with the school. It has to be acknowledged that the local authority have been reticent in providing the father with information such as school reports and have been slow in doing so. To that extent the social worker in her evidence accepted that this was fair.
- It seems the local authority's reticence in relation to this issue has been borne out of the desire to maintain the confidentiality of the children's school and the placement. It is clear that the local authority have had and continues to have a concern that the father may seek to disrupt the placement.
- In his evidence the father was clear that one of the children particularly was failing in school and his evidence that this was that he had spoken to one of the teachers who had given him this information. In all aspects of his dealing with persons in authority the father is assiduous in obtaining the names of individual but in this instance the father either could not or would not provide the court with the name of this individual.
- The father was also asked about how he knew which school the two elder children attended. His direct response was that the middle child B had told him about school during contact in 2016. I cannot know whether that is true.
- However given the information received from the school during the course of this hearing on a balance of probability I doubt that the father has spoken to a member of the teaching staff and that the contention put forward by the father that the child is struggling academically and being failed by the school and the local authority which he asserts as fact, has no evidential basis other than the father's assertions. The LAC review reports show that the children are progressing and that their educational needs are being met and that they are being supported educationally in accordance with their abilities. I remain concerned however as to how the father actually discovered which school the two elder children attend.
Guardian
- The Guardian has provided the court with a detailed, reflective and considered report. It has been helpful that the Guardian was involved in the 2014 proceedings. He was not the Guardian involved in the original care proceedings. His previous involvement has been beneficial in terms of him being able to compare and contrast the situation as it presents itself before the court now and the circumstances presented to the court in 2014. It has also meant that he was someone whom the children had met before. However the father has refused to meet with the Guardian to discuss matters which is reflective of the father's approach to the local authority. In this the Guardian felt it had been very difficult to assess the father's full circumstances and whether or not there had been any change save that the tone and content of the documents filed by the father in support of his application were familiar to him from the previous proceedings and do not suggest that there has been any significant change in either his circumstances or his views.
- His evidence was very clear that the father presents very much the same arguments to the court in 2016 as he did in 2014 without any real evidence of change. He felt that the main difference was that the children are now older and have a better understanding of their circumstances and the issues and that they have been settled with their current carers for longer. Also the children's social worker had not changed and so there had been continuity in that regard and he felt that the social worker knew the children well.
- Within the previous proceedings in 2014 one of the criticisms that the Guardian made was a level of involvement between the local authority and the father acknowledging the difficulties which had arisen following the assault on the contact worker in March 2011. In this regard he felt that since the last hearing the local authority had taken on board both his recommendations and the judgement of the court and that there was a better line of communication (notwithstanding the father's complaints) then there had been. He expressed himself as perplexed in terms of the contradictions within much of the father's evidence, for example one of the father's chief complaints has been lack of communication and information and yet the father complains of harassment and antisocial behaviour when sent letters by the local authority informing him of meetings and the children's progress. His evidence was that he was very confused about what it actually was that the father wanted the local authority to do as this was exactly what he expected a local authority to do where a parent had children in the care of the local authority.
- The Guardian clarified within his oral evidence that he had been guided very much by the wishes and feelings of the children as they are all now of an age where their views should be afforded some weight. The Guardian met with the children and confirmed that the children have read the part of his report which sets out their wishes and feelings and they informed him they were happy with that and that his report set out their views accurately.
- The Guardian discussed direct contact with the children. He asked them how they had found it and he felt it was striking that after the first contact child A had chosen not to attend and after the second session of direct contact the two other children had decided not to attend further contact with their father. The explanation given to the Guardian was that they had not enjoyed the contacts overall. There were parts of the contact which they enjoyed but they felt it centred too much on questions which made them feel uncomfortable agitated and awkward. Child B indicated that her father had asked personal questions and that "he criticised us and we didn't like it" the Guardian's view was that it was very sad that their most vivid memory of the direct contact sessions was that the father had asked them questions which made them feel awkward and that's why they didn't want to attend further contact sessions. The local authority records presented to the court in relation to the contact reflected very much what the children had told him.
- The Guardian was very concerned in relation to the new information about school. He informed the court that the children were very anxious that the father knew which school they attended. It was surprising to him that if he had been informed about the school by child B during contact that he did nothing with that information for nine months - this did not fit in with the way the father has generally conducted himself and if he had had that information in this way the Guardian felt that he would have acted upon it sooner. The Guardian was therefore concerned as to how the father had discovered this information. Of equal concern the Guardian was the impact that the father's intervention with school has had for the children. As a direct result of the father's communications the children were sent home for a day and a half and since that time the routine has been disrupted as the foster carers now take them to school and bring them home whereas before they would make their own way to school with their friends and the children resented this. One of the things that is important for the children is for them not to feel different and this has made them feel very different and unsettled them. The children were particularly upset by the fact that when they returned to school the other children thought they had been excluded. This is yet another example where the father is simply not thought through the consequences of his actions which has had a direct impact on the welfare and happiness of his children. His actions on this occasion have also added fuel to the children's long-standing anxiety that he may find out where they live and may attempt to disrupt the placement.
- In terms of the guardians application for an order under section 91[1]4 of the children act his evidence in support rested upon a number of factors. The children are older and are much more aware of ongoing litigation and proceedings they are weary of court proceedings. They are weary of being asked the same questions and giving the same answers and feel they are not being listened to. The children simply want to get on with their lives and their interests.
- The Guardian has been concerned by this application and that there has been no material change and that the issues litigated by the father during the course of this hearing reflected very much the issues raised within the previous proceedings in 2014.
- The Guardian's view is that contact between the children and their father would not be solved by litigation and continued applications to the court.
- In terms of the actual application to discharge Guardian retains a very positive impression of the foster carers and believes them to be sensitive to all the issues the father has raised the children have said that they want to remain where they are that they are very settled within the household and that is where they want be. None of the children have expressed a desire to live with their father The Guardian accepts that is very difficult for the father to accept but that is the reality of the situation. The Guardian accepts that the father has never been content with this placement.
- The Guardian was clear that the local authority would need to have a section 34(4) in place giving them the ability to manage contact in the interests of the children and was satisfied that the social worker was being guided by the children at this point and push them further that this point could only be counter-productive. Without such an order the local authority would have no discretion to follow the children's wishes and feelings. The Guardian felt the local authority had demonstrated that it had a good understanding of its powers under section 34 [4] and their actions during 2015 and 2016 demonstrated this as well as a proper regard for the children's welfare, wishes and feelings.
- The Guardian felt that the children would benefit from an additional measure of protection from future litigation and that could only be achieved by further section 91[14] order. Such an order would not bar out the father completely it would simply mean that he would have to demonstrate some real change rather than raising the same issues again and again.
- In all his meetings with the children the Guardian was clear that these are intelligent and articulate children and that the views they expressed were their own stemming from their experiences of contact. There was no sense of their views were manipulated or that they had been put under pressure. The views he felt should be given weight. There was no question of these children being alienated by the local authority had that been the case the local authority would not have arranged direct contact in 2016 nor would the children have attended the direct contact.
- In terms of the duration of any order under section 91[14] the Guardian was concerned about the ongoing impact for the children are further repeated applications. Having listened to the father's direct evidence his view was that the father would simply issue a further application upon the expiry of any prohibition that is effectively what he has already done and having considered his oral evidence was every reason to believe he would do so again in the future. Indeed in the Guardian's view the case for an order under section 91[14] is that the argument for such an order was stronger now than it had been in 2014. The Guardian was clear that he had never recommended an order for this period before that he felt strongly that it was warranted in these particular circumstances the proper welfare reasons. In a nutshell this was an issue that would not be solved within the court arena but by considered and careful work over a period of time.
The welfare checklist
- I will briefly identify the main features as they appear from the evidence.
The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the children in the light of their age and understanding
- All three children are now of an age where their views must carry weight. They have expressed as clearly as they are able their views and wishes both in relation to where they wish to live and the contact they wish to have with their father. They have expressed their views to their social worker on a number of occasions. The Guardian visited the children reading out to them the content of his report and what was said in terms of contact. All three children confirmed to him that it was an accurate reflection of their wishes and feelings on this issue. They do not wish to see their father at this time. The children are weary of being constantly asked about the issue. The children all indicate that they wish to continue living with their foster carers and that they are happy there.
- Their views wishes and feelings could not be clearer.
Physical emotional and educational needs
- Notwithstanding the father's contentions to the contrary the evidence is clear that their physical emotional and educational needs are being met within the current placement and that they are being sensitively met. There is no evidence before the court that the children's educational needs are not being met in accordance with their individual abilities. It is clear that where support is required educationally that it is provided for example by way of a maths tutor.
- The children are described as intelligent articulate and contented individuals with all the normal childhood issues common to all children. I accept that is a result of their life experiences and in particular their feelings of grief and loss following the death of their mother that from time to time they may require additional support and that is likely to be required during their minority. Having considered the case papers and heard direct evidence. I'm satisfied that the children's carers and the children social worker are all alive to these issues and have acted appropriately when the need arises and that they will do so in the future.
The likely effect of any change in circumstances
- The potential disruption for these children were they to be returned to the care of their father as he asks would be wholesale. The impact upon them of a change of placement would mean that there lives would be turned upside down in every aspect. It would mean a change of home, a change of school and loss of friends. They would lose the security that they have had over the last few years. In short the impact upon these children in every aspect of their lives of a move back to the fact father is incalculable.
- The impact upon the children of a reintroduction of direct contact to the father at this stage in the light of all the evidence would be significant and entirely against their wishes. It has the potential to describe disrupt security of the placement.
- The reintroduction of indirect contact should the children accept it and wish it might be a possibility but that is a circumstances situation which needs to be carefully managed.
Age, sex, background
- All three children approach adolescence and those difficult teenage years where the stability of placement will be crucial to their attaining their full potential.
- They all have a view to express and need to feel that they have been heard.
- The evidence before the court is that the children identify themselves as black British children. They have a dual heritage however as the mother was white British and they maintain their links with the maternal family. Certainly after the parent's separation save for a very short period of time the children lived with their mother within the wider British community.
- In terms of their religious upbringing the children have no memory of being brought up within the Muslim faith. they have no memory of either reading or speaking Arabic. When received into care they were living with their mother who was an atheist. On a balance of probabilities there is no direct evidence that these children were born into the Muslim faith or that their religious needs have not been met.
Any harm which the children has suffered or at risk of suffering
- It is clear that these are three children who have suffered emotional harm. And continue to be at risk of significant harm if returned to the care of the father. Given the father's refusal to work cooperatively with the local authority in terms of assessment and the past history of this matter there remains a risk of harm were these children to be returned to the care of their father which remains on assessed.
- Given that the children do not have direct contact with their father and have indicated a wish not to see him at the present time the children do not have a significant relationship with their father and their primary attachments are to their current carers.
How capable each parent is of meeting the children's needs
- The children's mother has died and so the father remains the only surviving parent. As referred to above there remain clear unassessed risks in terms of the father's potential to care for these children. The children do not have at this time a significant relationship with their father.
- The whole history of the case and of these proceedings demonstrates on a balance of probabilities how difficult it has been for the father to work cooperatively with the local authority and on the evidence it seems to me there is little prospect at this time of any further assessment nor that it is warranted given all the circumstances.
The range of powers available to the court
- In the circumstances of this case the court has the option to maintain the care order or to discharge it. If the care order is to be maintained then consideration needs to be given whether or not the section 34(4) needs to continue so that the local authority can continue to exercise its discretion in terms of promotion of contact or whether it should end as the father wishes.
- Given the number of applications that there had been in relation to these children the court must also consider whether or not on the evidence it is in the children's welfare interests for there to be a further order made under section 9114 the children act 1989 so that there may be no further applications made to the court without prior permission being granted. If such an order is to be made on welfare grounds consideration needs to be given to the duration of such an order.
Assessment and conclusions
- I have taken some trouble during the course of this judgement to set out in detail the chronology of events from my dealings with this matter and with these children and to set out in some detail the inconsistencies within the father's evidence as a means of demonstrating that there has been no real change in the father's circumstances or views or indeed in the children's views.
- When the original care orders were made the father did not consent to the making of the care orders but nor did he actively challenge the local authority evidence. Within those proceedings there came a point where the father withdrew cooperation from the assessment process and he has not meaningfully engaged with the local authority on any sustained basis since that time. From the conclusion of those proceedings the father who has never accepted any personal responsibility for the children circumstances or predicament has quite simply waged war on the local authority and the social worker in particular.
- The fact that the social worker has kept faith with the children and continues to work with them notwithstanding the absolute barrage of complaints against her is very much to her credit, lesser souls would have given up long ago.
- The father has never accepted the local authority's case against him and he never will. He did not and does not accept the judgement of this court in terms of contact in 2014. He appealed that decision but was unsuccessful. I have no doubt that the father will not accept the decision of this court on this occasion either. Both in 2014 and 2016 the father has been given every opportunity to contest matters to put forward his point of view the suggestion that any of this has been done without him being given the opportunity to make representations is simply not sustained on the facts and not true.
- My duty is to the children. Consideration of the chronology serves to remind me that these children suffered significant harm whilst in the care of their parents. Their early years were characterised by the alcohol and drug misuse of the mother. A chaotic lifestyle and a tumultuous relationship between the parents until it finally broke down. Between 2007 and 2011 save for a short period the children were in the care of the mother and their relationship with their father was difficult.
- During the course of the initial care proceedings the father did however cooperate with Dr Brian Stanley who undertook a psychological assessment of him. I have included within the chronology an extract from Dr Stanley's report and opinion. His description it seems to me is as apt now as it was then and fairly describes the father's course of conduct since 2012 in many ways. It is not a description which the father would accept of himself but it rings very true to this court.
- The evidence produced within these proceedings reflects as the Guardian rightly points out the evidence that was produced in 2014 some of the allegations and complaints made by the father are more extreme. Whether matters are misrepresented or misremembered or created as in the purported letter from the police they are set out before the court as matters of fact by the father when that is not so and where the evidence simply does not support the father's contentions.
- My concern within these proceedings is that the allegations do appear to have escalated -the fact that the father felt it necessary to create evidence by way of the communications to the court allegedly from the police causes me great concern, as does the father's most recent involvement with the school. My worry on behalf the children is that the father appears to be locked into a war with the local authority and at this point I cannot see where a ceasefire may emerge. Also by being continually frustrated he is seeking alternative means to achieve his ends and I sincerely hope that he will take no action which might disrupt this placement for the children. The children have been within this placement now for six years it has provided them with the stability which they did not have within the family and it is where they very much wish to be.
- I have no difficulty in accepting the evidence from both the social worker and the Guardian in terms of the children's wishes and feelings and I accept that they do not wish to see their father at this time. The reality is that the children at this time have no meaningful relationship with their father this is not something that has been engineered by the local authority but largely the responsibility for the failure of the children to have a relationship with their father lies with the father. I appreciate that the father will not accept this analysis or that he is in any way to blame or responsible for his own predicament but I'm afraid having considered all the evidence that is my conclusion. In the light of this conclusion it cannot be right that that the care order should be discharged.
- In my judgement these children would be at risk of harm if they were to return to the care of their father with whom they have no meaningful relationship at this time and his personal circumstances remain unassessed due to the father's failure to cooperate in any meaningful way with the local authority - importantly it is also the children's wish to remain where they are.
- The irony is that these are children who retain a level of curiosity in relation to their father and an affection for him – nonetheless they also have an anxiety in relation to him. In my last judgement I hoped that there could be an olive branch sent out by the local authority and that things could improve and indeed matters did improve and direct contact did take place following the last proceedings largely as a result of the indirect contact which commenced but that improvement was not maintained largely as I find due to the father's presentation within the contact sessions themselves.
- I concur with the Guardian's assessment that the way forwards is not through ongoing litigation. My hope is that once the pressure is removed from these children that at some point they will find their own way back to the father if that is their wish in their own time but constantly subjecting them to litigation is not the way forward and I have to ask myself the question how I can best protect them. Within the two-year period following the making of the 2014 orders the father did attempt to bring a further application which he withdrew. That application was one effectively seeking to bring contempt proceedings against the social worker. It is also clear that pretty much following the conclusion of the barring out period the father issued a fresh application when there had been no real change in circumstances. In his response to cross-examination his answer as to whether or not he would issue further proceedings was the immediate response "No, no, no are you insane do you think I would completely abandon my children I can't do that"
- I am driven to the conclusion that in the absence of an order under section 91 [14] the father will issue further applications. I'm satisfied that he has had proper notice of the application and indeed has made written submissions in respect of it. This is a case where there have been numerous applications. This is an exceptional case where the father has dogmatically waged war against the local authority and failed to accept any personal responsibility for his predicament many of his difficulties are of his own making which he does not accept. This is simply not a case where given time matters would bed in and resolve themselves as the chronology clearly demonstrates.
- The duration of the orders suggested does trouble me however this is the second set of proceedings following the conclusion of the hearing in 2014 I accept that the children are weary of the litigation I accept that they become anxious during such litigation and that it does have an impact upon them regrettably therefore I am going to make an order under section 91 [14] for the duration of all the children's minority. I do not do this lightly. I believe that these are exceptional circumstances and this is the first time that I have ever made an order of such duration and indeed it is only the second time that I have made an order under section 91 [14.]
- It is also clear to me that the section 34 [4] order should remain in place. The local authority clearly need to be able to manage any contact between the children and the father and absent such an order they would not be able to do so. Their conduct of the last two years clearly demonstrates in my view their acceptance and understanding of the nature of such an order that it is discretionary only and does not prevent them continuing to work with the children in so far as that is appropriate with a view to promoting contact. The evidence of last two years it seems to me demonstrates that they have used the order responsibly and I have no reason to believe they will not continue to do so.
ORDERS
- Accordingly on the basis of the evidence and the findings made by me as set out above I find that it is both a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to dismiss the father's application to discharge the care orders in relation to the three children and to dismiss his application under section 34 [4].
- I make an order under section 91 [14] in relation to all three children to expire upon the minority of the youngest child.
- I make no order as to costs save detailed assessment of the costs of the publicly funded parties
- I would like to thank both the social worker and the Guardian in this case for their clear evidence and measured views - acknowledging this I do the barrage of complaints which they have had to endure.
- I was asked at one point to see the children but circumstances made that impractical before the hearing and happy to meet with the children should they so wish would ask the Guardian to make final enquiries in that regard
District Judge Relph
31st January 2017.
