F1 and F2 v M1 and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4150 (Fam) |
| Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD08P01237 |
[2013] EWHC 4150 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
For the hearing sitting at the Newcastle District Registry
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb
Case No: FD08P01237
Robin Tolson QC (instructed by Russell-Cooke LLP) for the Fathers
Victoria Green (instructed by BTMK) for M1
Mark Twomey (instructed by Goodman Ray) for M2
Daisy Hughes (instructed by County Solicitor) for X County Council
Siobhan Kelly (instructed by Miles & Partners) for A
Maggie Jones (instructed by Bindmans) for the Children's Guardian
Hearing dates: 11 and 12 December 2013
This judgment was handed down in private on 20 December 2013, and published in a redacted form (removing identifying features of the family) on 24 October 2014 together with
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.
For ease of reference:
F1 = The First Applicant
Introduction
I am concerned once again, in this worrying case, with the welfare of two sisters, namely:
(a) A, 12 years old,
and
(b) B, 8 years old.
A two-day hearing was set up at reasonably short-notice, given the urgency (in everyone's interests, most notably the children's) of a court decision on a critical question, namely:
Whether the girls should be removed from the care of their mother and her partner (I shall for present purposes refer to them as the mothers, and shall refer to the 'men' as the fathers) and placed in foster care.
This has been yet another staging-post along a long and tortuous path of family law litigation between the girls' parents.
I recognise the inconvenience to the parties and their legal teams for having travelled for this hearing to Newcastle (on 11 and 12 December) where I am currently on circuit, and where I could make time available in my list within a time-scale which was appropriate for the children. I am grateful to all for facilitating this.
I informed the parties of my decision at the conclusion of the hearing, and circulated this judgment in draft on 17 December 2013. It is being formally handed down on 20 December 2013.
The critical question outlined above (§2) has been considered alongside a review of:
(a) The services which are to be provided, and made available, by X County Council (in whose favour I have already made an interim supervision order) in respect of the placement of the girls, either at home or in foster care;
(b) Interim contact issues.
The specific ambit of this hearing was actually set out within a directions order which I made on 28 November 2013.
At that hearing I gave a number of additional case management directions designed to ensure that within a reasonably short compass of time, relevant information would be made available to me for making this decision. Specifically,
(a) I joined A to the proceedings as a party in her own right, and appointed a solicitor to act on her behalf;
(b) I gave directions about the filing of evidence and assessments; at that stage, the mothers' long-serving and jointly instructed solicitor had recently come off the record as acting; two newly instructed legal teams were endeavouring to master the filed material;
(c) I required each party to identify any kinship placement for the girls if they wished to do so.
In reaching my conclusion, I have:
(a) Read the written statements of the lay parties, and the reports and care plans of the professionals;
(b) Heard the oral evidence of the Children's Guardian, the social worker GBR, her team manager Ms AM and M2;
(c) Heard the submissions of the advocates on behalf of each of the parties.
I should make clear that M1 was not present at this hearing. I had been advised that she had boarded a flight to Newcastle for this hearing but before the flight had left, she had had to disembark. She is reported to have been worried about having a mental break-down en route here, or while here. She has nonetheless (and within the limitations imposed on the situation) been represented.
A attended the court. I met with her myself during this hearing. I saw her principally at her request; no objection was raised by any party to my seeing her, and having discussed the relevant issues with Ms Kelly before the meeting (specifically to identify the agreed 'purpose' of the meeting), this meeting was facilitated on the morning of the first day, and my discussion with her is summarised in an agreed note. Although a party to proceedings, A has not been in court for this hearing, nor has she had general access to the documents; having regard to the observations of Peter Jackson J in A City Council v T, J and K [2011] EWHC 1082 (Fam) [2011] 2 FLR 803 [2011] 2 FLR 803, I can confirm that I support the stance taken by her representatives in this respect.
The positions of the parties on this issues before me are as follows:
(a) The Children's Guardian recommends the removal of the children to foster care; she is the primary advocate for this outcome. She advises that this removal should take place in the next few days. Thereafter, she supports there being some interim contact between B and the fathers and supervised daily telephone contact to the mothers and supervised bi-weekly contact to the mothers;
(b) The Guardian's position on placement is supported by the fathers; the fathers however seek an immediate resumption of weekend staying contact with B;
(c) The local authority seeks an interim supervision order and proposes a programme of support and work with the mothers, the fathers, and with the children (which I discuss below). They wish to facilitate direct contact between the B and the fathers in the next few days.
(d) The mothers support, or at least do not oppose, the position adopted by the local authority.
(e) A wishes to remain living with her mothers; she does not want contact with the fathers.
Events post-July 2013 judgment
The background to the current dispute is extensively set out in my earlier judgment delivered on 31 July 2013 ( [2013] EWHC 2305 (Fam) "the July 2013 judgment") at the conclusion of a five-day hearing at which I received oral and written evidence from the lay parties and experts. That judgment should be read alongside this.
Without reproducing the detail here, when reaching this decision I have had specific regard to the evidence of Dr. Berelowitz summarised and discussed in the July 2013 judgment, and my assessment of the parties; I have further drawn specifically from my assessment of and findings regarding the following matters:
Relevant to placement issues
(a) the inevitable balancing the risks of harm;
(b) the evidence of disorder of relationships and the distorted thinking in the women's home; the ' folie a quatre'
(c) the positive reports from A and B's schools;
(d) my observations on the issue of the DNA testing;
(e) M1's mental ill-health, and in particular its impact on the children;
(f) domestic abuse between the mothers;
(g) the views of the children;
(h) my analysis of the evidence relevant to, and the reasons for/against, the children being removed from the care of the mothers; at that stage I made the point that removal may have a deleterious (and conceivably long lasting) effect on the well-being of M1.
Contact
(i) history of the demise of contact, and the comments on the positive quality of contact;
(j) the dissonance between what B said about the men, and presentation when B was seen with the men;
(k) the advice of Dr. Berelowitz for the men about accepting a " modest role" and not pushing " the daddy business";
(l) Dr Berelowitz's concerns about M2's position on contact;
(m) my consideration of whether attempts at contact should be abandoned (and my rejection of that option at that time);
(n) Five years ago there was a relationship – a significant relationship – between the girls and the men; this was " before the battle started". At that time, A told her Guardian that she wanted things to be like they were.
Following the July 2013 judgment, and at my direction, the family were further assessed by Dr. Berelowitz. Dr. Berelowitz met M1 for the first time, and also met the girls. He confirmed my view that " [t]he children are suffering significant emotional harm. The harm has a number of causes" (he identifies them, though I shall not reproduce the list here). In relation to future placement options, he advised:
" We could justify a transitional move to foster care if there is a very high likelihood indeed that it will lead to a resumption of a strong relationship with the men, with this relationship growing and consolidating over time, while retaining a relationship with the women. My own view is this is at best a possibility, and is far from a probability. We would have for example to countenance [A] running away or self-harming – do we persist with the plan under such circumstances? I think not."
" I am afraid that I have little doubt that if they are to be left where they are, M2 at least is likely to see this as a comprehensive vindication of her previous views, and I am afraid not likely to have a nuanced approach … leaving them where they are may in the end be the most compassionate (albeit exceptionally unsatisfactory) option of all the unsatisfactory available alternatives. … this question should depend mostly on the overall quality of care that the girls are now receiving, and should depend less on the more unknown issue of whether the move...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re A and B (Contact) (No. 3)
...published in a redacted form (removing identifying features of the family) on 24 October 2014 together with [2013] EWHC 2305 (Fam) [2013] EWHC 4150 (Fam) 4 The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors......