DC v B MBC sub nom C v B MBC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam) |
| Date | 18 July 2002 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA99C0812 |
[2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London. WC2A 2LL
the President
Case No: MA99C0812
Mr R. Tolson Q.C.(instructed by Eastleys) for the Applicant
Miss G. Irving (instructed by the First Respondents)
Mr L. Arnott (instructed by Foot Anstey Sargent) for the Second Respondent
Hearing dates : 19, 20 and 26th June 2002.
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P.
This judgment is being handed down in private on 18th July 2002. It consists of 28 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
DAME ELIZABETH BUTLER-SLOSS, P. :
The mother of a little boy, K aged 8, born on the 14th April, 1994 has made applications to the High Court. Two applications arise under Part IV of the Children Act 1989, first to discharge the care order made on the 20th December 1999 in the Manchester County Court to the B Metropolitan Borough Council, which I shall call B, and, second, to seek a defined order for contact to K. She has also made applications under sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights. The Human Rights applications are made both by the mother on her own behalf and on behalf of K. The mother has not pursued her application to discharge the care order.
The parties to the applications are the mother represented by Mr Tolson QC, B represented by Ms Irving and the guardian represented by Mr Arnot on behalf of K. He is not the guardian appointed in Manchester for the care proceedings, but is a guardian from D instructed to represent the child in the current Children Act proceedings. There is a jurisdictional difficulty for the guardian in making the Human Rights application for K in that such an application does not appear to come within the duties of a guardian. Johnson J's order of the 17th May 2002 made the distinction clear by stating in paragraph 3(a) of his orders that "the Guardian previously appointed in the care proceedings shall, subject to his consent, be appointed as Guardian but only in the applications under the Children Act 1989'. Nonetheless the guardian has supported the Human Rights application made by the mother on K's behalf and I have given Mr Arnot the opportunity to play a full part in the case and in the submissions on the Human Rights issues which he has exercised to the full. If I had not permitted Mr Arnot to play a full part, I should almost certainly have had to ask for the assistance of CAFCASS to provide a Friend of the Court.
During this hearing which has lasted three days and in which a considerable amount of written and oral evidence has been adduced, all the questions other than the application of the mother for defined contact, have to be considered by the court within the compass of the Human Rights Act. They raise the problem of how far it is appropriate for a court to revisit decisions made by the local authority in whose care the child has been placed by the making of a care order by the Manchester County Court. The issues I have been asked to consider involve a review of the current care plan and the future education and welfare of K and his future relationship with his mother. The most contentious issue is whether the child should move from his current placement at a children's home and infant school in T to a residential school, E G School at A, C.
The decision of B to send K to E G, communicated to the mother, persuaded her legal advisers to seek to prevent the removal of the child from D. His Honour Judge Rucker, in the Truro County Court on the 10th May 2002, made a without notice order prohibiting B from moving K from his children's home and from his school. Liberty was given to B to apply to vary or discharge the order on 24 hours notice and the case was transferred to the High Court. Both the mother and the guardian have criticised both the procedural process by which B have arrived at their current care plan for K and the decision itself, each of which in their submissions were in breach of the rights of the mother and of the child under Article 8 of the Convention.
FAMILY HISTORY
I have taken some of the more important events in the life of K with his mother from a much more detailed chronology. K was born in O to D C who is now 25. His father has played no part in his life nor in the proceedings before the court. His mother has had a difficult and disturbed background. She left home at 16 and began to take drugs and associated with other drug takers. She moved to R before the birth of K, and in February 1994 began a relationship with a partner, not the father of K, who abused drink and drugs. K became known to R Social Services at 5 months old. There were concerns about his physical care from the Health Visitor and Community Paediatrician and his name was placed on the Child Protection Register. There continued a catalogue of drink, drug abuse by the mother, unsuitable partners and serious neglect of K.
The mother and K led a peripatetic life, moving from the R area in 1995 to E in Scotland and returning in 1995 to R and in the same year back to Scotland, this time to G. In 1996 they returned to R and then elsewhere in BE. In a period between January and March 1997 the mother and child moved between R, BR, E K, S, and R. K was left with unsuitable carers including children who were drug users, unwashed, hungry, having head lice and serious eczema. The mother became a heroin user. On one occasion in March 1997, K went to foster carers while the mother and her partner were arrested. The mother from time to time was begging on the street accompanied by K. In April 1997, the mother's heroin supplier, K W, moved in with her.
In May 1997 K started nursery but was noted to attend sporadically, to be hungry and unattached. In the latter part of 1997 until February 1998 the mother and K lived in BE. In January 1998, K was admitted to hospital with scabies, impetigo and head lice. He arrived dirty and in smelly clothes. After his discharge from hospital, great concern was expressed by the Health Visitor to BE Social Services. On the 5th February 1998, the mother was placed on probation for theft and handling and on the same day K was present in the house when a man was stabbed. The police found the house being used as a drug venue.
The mother and K and K W moved to his family in OL in February 1998 and in March the mother presented herself as homeless. She, K W and K were housed in OL and social workers gave them considerable support. Different agencies reported concerns about the care of K. OL Social Services initiated a section 43 inquiry but took the case no further. And in July 1998 the family moved to B. On the 10th September K was admitted to the Accident and Emergency department of the local hospital with bruising. He was dirty and unkempt. There was suspicion of non-accidental injury. A police protection order was obtained.
B commenced proceedings in the Family Proceedings Court and obtained an interim care order on the 21st September 1998. K was placed with foster parents. K alleged assaults on him by Mr W who was charged with causing K actual bodily harm. In April 1999 he was convicted and received a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for assault on K. The mother pleaded guilty to child cruelty and neglect and was placed on probation. B, as I have already set out, obtained a full care order on the 20th December 1999. K was placed back with the mother on the 25th November 1999 and remained with her under the structure of the care order until the 27th November 2001.
The mother was, it appears, scared of K W and concerned about his release date from prison. She informed B at a statutory review in October 2000 that she wanted to move to D. According to the social workers, they were in the process of making arrangements for K and his mother to move when the mother, without any warning to social workers in B, presented herself and K at a refuge in T in South D. That step by the mother without any consultation with the social workers whereby she moved a child in the care of B to T is the root cause of the difficult situation faced by the court. A report dated the 16th of June 2002 by Ms Christine Boyle, an independent social worker, was incorrect. Ms Boyle was under the misapprehension that the mother and K "moved to the T area with the knowledge of the Local Authority".
The mother and K remained in the refuge until allocated housing in April 2001 by T Borough Council, whom I shall call T. Between October 2000 and May 2001 there was no social worker overseeing this family either from B or from T. In May 2001 T allocated a social worker who oversaw the family until December 2001 when she left the department. On 3 October 2001 the mother and K again moved to a refuge. In November 2001 the mother was drinking, sometimes all day, and taking drugs. K was bedwetting and soiling. He was hungry on arrival at school. K remained in the day to day care of his mother until the 27th November when he was removed by B and placed in the BH Children's Home in P.
There is no evidence as to how K was being cared for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luton Borough Council v PW and Others
...for example (as in Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) [2001] 2 FLR 1300, C v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 868 and Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42 an application under s 39......
-
R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1151, [2001] 1 WLR 2002 at 2036 (paras [118], [120]) and C v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 868 at 882 (paras 77 The background to the proceedings 7870. The background to these proceedings reflects two areas of ......
-
Re L (Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claim)
...and the High Court have jurisdiction to hear such applications, the President made it clear in C v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 868 at para [55], that: "human rights challenges to care plans and placements of children in care should be heard in the ......
-
G and Others v Local Authority
...On 2 December 2002 the Circuit Judge, having been referred to what the President had said in C v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1438 (Fam), [2002] 2 FLR 868 at para [55], transferred the application under the 1998 Act to the High Court. The parents filed affidavits sworn on 6......