Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council v KC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Dancey |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWFC 20 |
| Date | 19 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: BH19C00222 |
| Court | Family Court |
[2020] EWFC 20
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT BOURNEMOUTH
Courts of Justice
Deansleigh Road
Bournemouth
BH7 7DS
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Dancey
Sitting as a section 9 Judge
Case No: BH19C00222
and
and
Dan Nother (instructed by BCP Legal Services) for the Applicant
Caroline Kinloch-Jones (instructed by Laceys) for the 1 st Respondent
Tor Alloway (instructed by Fort & Co) for the 2 nd Respondent
Sarah O'Hara (instructed by Aldridge Brownlee) for the 3 rd Respondent
Hearing dates: 11–12 December 2019, 4–6, 10 and 18 March 2020
Introduction
) These care proceedings concern W, a girl aged 9, nearly 10. W's parents, who were married, are Polish nationals and W was born there. Following the separation of the parents in Poland in April 2016, contested contact proceedings there resulted in an order providing that W live with the mother with contact to the father. The father's parental responsibility was limited to decisions about medical treatment and education. Following the breakdown of the father's contact with W, the mother brought her to the UK in June 2018 where they have remained since. That was done without the father's agreement, although he was aware the mother planned to relocate and acquiesced once the move had taken place. The mother did not tell the father of her and W's location within the UK.
) On 28 February 2019 the police attended at the mother's home. There had over the preceding month or so been a number of referrals from concerned neighbours about the mother's mental health state. The mother was found to be suffering a delusional psychotic breakdown. The police exercised their protection powers and removed W. She has been in foster care since. The mother was sectioned and spent time at a local psychiatric hospital. The local authority issued these proceedings on 15 March 2019 and W was made subject of an interim care order.
) The parents accept that at the point the proceedings were issued, W was suffering, or was likely to suffer significant harm by experiencing her mother's frightening psychosis. The threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are therefore accepted. The mother disputes allegations of neglect and harsh discipline of W.
) Because W had been in the UK for 9 months I found her to be habitually resident here and declared that this court had jurisdiction. The Polish authorities were given early notice of the proceedings and have assisted with advice from time to time. There has been no challenge to the court's jurisdiction and no request to transfer the proceedings to Poland under Article 15 of B11a. Instead the father has come to the UK as necessary to attend hearings and (with his parents) for assessment.
) The mother seeks the return of W to her care, supported by the maternal grandmother who has since came to the UK and lives with the mother in her flat. The mother points out that W was in her primary care down to the end of February 2019 and that she has now recovered her mental health with low risk of relapse. She has had a positive parenting assessment. The mother would either remain in the UK with W or, if W wished, return to Poland.
) The father asks that W be placed in Poland with him and his partner and her son F (who is a similar age to W).
) The common professional view of the local authority, the court appointed psychologist, Dr Jefferis, and the children's guardian, is that W's best interests would best be served by returning her to Poland under her father's care with a child arrangements order. All the professionals share concerns about the mother's attitude towards the paternal family and contact between them and W and aspects of her parenting and personality.
) That said, the local authority accept that the mother has made a good recovery from her psychotic illness and would be able to meet W's day to day care needs. Given that the issue is with which of two potentially viable parents W should be placed, the case has taken on the hallmarks of a private law dispute.
) The local authority also proposes a supervision order, permission to the father to relocate W to Poland with release of appropriate documents to the Polish authorities.
Summary of decision
) Both parents were the subject of negative comment by the Polish court in 2017, with the mother being assessed as being obstructive towards contact between W and her F and the father as lacking insight into W's needs.
) By October 2017 the Polish Court had a more favourable view of the father. However the mother continued to obstruct contact and in June 2018 moved to the UK with W. That was not a child-focused thing for her to do. The father took a rather laid-back attitude until he found out in March 2019 that the mother was ill and W had been removed into foster care. Since then he has engaged well, shown commitment to W and been assessed positively as somebody who could care for W in Poland.
) The mother has recovered well from her psychotic episode but aspects of her parenting continue to cause concern. She and her mother continue to have a negative attitude towards the father and his family.
) I have decided that W needs emotional stability and security which would best be met by the father in Poland. I have greater confidence in his ability to promote a relationship between W and her mother than I have in the mother to promote a relationship between W and her father.
) W would like to return to Poland. She does not express a clear preference as to which parent she lives with.
) I am therefore making a child arrangements order providing that W is to live with her father. I give permission for him to remove her from the UK to Poland. He must make sure W has contact with her mother, with a one month gap in direct contact to allow W to settle and thereafter supervised contact. Supervision is necessary because the mother is likely to be upset by this decision, may continue to undermine W's relationship with her paternal family.
) I will also make a supervision order to secure help and support for W and her family in Poland.
The hearing
) The local authority are represented by Dan Nother, the mother by Caroline Kinloch-Jones, the father by Tor Alloway and W by Sarah O'Hara, instructed by the children's guardian.
) The parents have each had an interpreter throughout the main hearings. The mother's English is very good. She worked in marketing in the UK for some years. However, she finds it easier to express herself in her native language when stressed and so used an interpreter at times during the hearing. The father's English is limited. I should say that W has very good command of English and no professional saw the need for an interpreter when speaking with her.
) On 11 and 12 December 2019 I heard an application by the mother to discharge the interim care order. I heard evidence from Dr Jefferis, the allocated social worker, the mother and psychiatrist, Dr Doherty.
) At that point Dr Jefferis had met with the paternal family and formed a favourable impression. His view on balance was that W, who was missing Poland, should go back there with her father. That was also the social worker's view.
) Dr Doherty accepted there was a risk of relapse in the mother's mental health. The diagnosis was more likely to be depression with an acute psychotic episode than schizophrenia (although the latter was not discounted). The mother was driven by her delusions which were terrifying for her and W (involving microphones in her flat and snipers trying to kill her). The mother had recovered by June/July 2019 (following a second admission to hospital in May) and had developed good understanding of her condition. Her memory of events for some time before the acute episode may have been affected by her depression. There is a risk of relapse if W is not returned to her care.
) Because Dr Jefferis' report about the paternal family was not at that point available it was thought it would be premature to come to a conclusion. That hearing was treated as the start of a final hearing and adjourned part-heard to a further hearing in January 2020.
) Dr Doherty agreed it would be a good idea if somebody with knowledge of the mother's condition spoke to W to give her a balanced perception of her mother's mental health. There was concern that W's experience of the acute episode and lack of subsequent explanation may have left her worried about returning to her mother's care and the possibility of relapse. Sadly, that piece of work has still not been undertaken.
) Very soon after that hearing the guardian was taken ill and a new guardian had to be appointed. The new guardian was not available for the adjourned hearing and the matter had to be further adjourned until 4 March.
) I have over three days (4 to 6 March) heard further evidence from Dr Jefferis, a previous social worker, the allocated social worker, the parenting assessor, the mother's neighbour, the mother, the maternal grandmother, the father and the guardian. I directed written submissions on 10 March and reserved judgment.
Threshold findings sought
) The local authority's threshold document falls under two headings – the impact of the mother's mental health on her ability to provide W with consistent and stable parenting, which is largely conceded – and neglect and emotional harm, in particular:
a) emotional harm found by the Polish Court, set out in the threshold document as follows;
• It is “indisputable that the Parties remain in mutual conflict…unfortunately this impacts negatively on the Parties' daughter because this embeds a negative image of the parents (Respondent (father)) in the child's eyes...
To continue reading
Request your trial