H (A Child)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE:,MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1932 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B1/2002/2627 |
| Date | 12 December 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1932
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE CORRIE)
Lord Justice Thorpe
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
B1/2002/2627
MISS V MEACH (instructed by Richards Heynes & Coopers, Coventry CV1 2NT) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR G ROGERS (instructed by Messrs Penmans, Coventry CV1 3DH) appeared on behalf of the 2nd Respondent
MR B COLEMAN (instructed by Coventry City Council, Coventry) appeared on behalf of the Local Authority
MR A NEAVES (instructed by Roberta McDonald Solicitor, Birmingham B13 9EZ) appeared on behalf of the 3rd Respondent
(Approved by the Crown)
Thursday, 12 December 2002
This appeal concerns a little boy named B, who was born on 5 May 2001. He has lived throughout his life with his parents: his mother, who is 39 years of age, and his father, who is 31. His mother has three older children all of whom have been taken into care. A fifth child is due in late April or early May 2003. The two youngest and the expected child are all the children of the second respondent father.
In the light of the history the local authority, quite understandably, obtained an interim care order in relation to B within ten days of his birth. However, the family of three was united at a specialist residential unit called Westwood House where they all lived between May and September 2001. There is some evidence in a subsequent remark made by the mother that on two occasions during that stay, sometime between May and August, she was assaulted by the father. That is the only evidence of those incidents, and even by her description the assaults seemed to have been relatively minor occurrences.
In September 2001 the family were transferred to an alternative residential unit called Monkswood House and there they have remained to the present day.
The local authority were, in the light of the history, ambivalent as to B's future and they sensibly pursued a policy of twin-tracking until progress reports from Monkswood House encouraged them to the optimistic view that these two could provide good enough parenting for B. So by 2 July the local authority had replaced the policy of twin-tracking with a policy of rehabilitation to the parents in the community.
The plan lurched off the rails later that month when, during a fraught week between 19 and 26 July, the mother described to one of the workers at Monkswood House her sense of despair at her relationship with the father and her determination to escape from his unreasonable controlling personality. She did leave for a women's refuge, but within 24 hours she was back again and the relationship crisis was seemingly overcome. However, it led the local authority to reverse their proposals for B's future. At a planning meeting on 7 August they decided to seek judicial sanction for B's immediate removal from his parents.
There was a fixture in the appropriate court, namely, the Coventry County Court for 28, 29 and 30 August. But for the shock of the events of 19 July that would no doubt have been a useful vehicle to have carried the case forward to rehabilitation; but given the reversal of the local authority's care planning it was impossible for them to present their full case at the fixture. In any event on 25 August the parties were informed by the county court that the court could no longer meet the fixture. The most that could be allowed the case was half an hour. Furthermore, we have been told this morning that the parties were informed that the next available three-day fixture would be sometime in April 2003. That is a profoundly worrying failure of the family justice system to meet the needs of the case and thus the needs of the child within the case. It is my hope that the liaison judge for the Midland and Oxford Circuit will examine the circumstances surrounding the loss of the fixture in Coventry as well as the circumstances surrounding the subsequent development of the case. Obviously if the local authority had a case for immediate removal it could not be indefinitely postponed for judgment. So the parties were able to obtain a two-day fixture for 22/23 October by going off circuit and taking advantage of a window in the listing in the Sheffield County Court. However, that fixture fell casualty to difficulties that the mother encountered in her pregnancy. The judge in the Sheffield County Court, Judge Murphy QC, took steps to divert the case to a vacancy in the Northampton County Court for 4, 5 and 6 November. His Honour Judge Corrie took the case. Unfortunately the guardian fell ill on 6 November and it was necessary for him to adjourn over to 29 November to continue the hearing.
Judge Corrie's extempore judgment was given on 2 December. He accepted the submissions of the local authority, and sanctioned B's removal from the care of his parents on the closure of Monkswood which was ordained for 17 December. The mother applied to this court for permission on 10 December, and on the day that the application was received, marked urgent, I made an order for an oral hearing on notice with appeal to follow if permission granted fixed for today, 12 December. At the outset we granted permission to Miss Meach, who represents the mother, and we have through the course of the morning heard submissions in relation to the appeal.
I revert to the history to trace an issue which has had great significance throughout the argument. The guardian ad litem instructed a local clinical psychologist, Dr Mellor, to prepare a report. She was particularly suitable since she had prepared reports in relation to the earlier proceedings which had resulted in care orders in relation to the three eldest children. Her report of 6 May had this to say of the father:
"… although Mr H has made some progress, he is still ambivalent in his acceptance of violence as a means of exerting control and that to some degree he continues to lack relapse skills for preventing anger expression."
In relation to the mother Dr Mellor noted that she had been receiving counselling from a local charity known as The Lighthouse. That counselling had commenced in October 2001 and a report of March 2002 showed that the mother had engaged well and had been making reasonable progress. Of that, Dr Mellor said:
"I would suggest that consideration be given to providing her with a more robust form of therapy in the near future, which could be accessed from a clinical psychologist in adult mental health services, via her GP."
Later in her report she said:
"Both adults are in need of skilled group work or cognitive behavioural work to continue the process of change, alongside ongoing daily professional support.
I would suggest that existing or additional therapy requirements I have indicated would need to be in place and well established prior to any transfer to the community."
That report was taken up by the worker at Monkswood, House, Mrs McNamara. This we see from a report written by the mother's general practitioner, Dr O'Hagan, on 21 August 2002. The report records as follows:
"On the 10th July 02 I wrote to Maureen McNamara explaining that psychology had declined my referral as they were unable to take on individual psychotherapy due to lack of funding.
I saw [the mother] on 24.7.02 when she was again depressed and tearful … She felt this was related to her relationship with [the father] who she felt was too controlling she was accompanied by her social worker, Maureen McNamara who had arranged separate accommodation for her for a while. I again raised this issue of lack of psychological therapy and Mrs McNamara was to discuss this with Dr Mellor."
There have been a number of failings in the endeavour to provide the mother with the psychotherapy that she plainly needs. One such was that Mrs McNamara did not discuss the problem identified by Dr O'Hagan with Dr Mellor. Mr Coleman, who has most ably put the case for the local authority, tells us that Mrs Mcnamara in her evidence to Judge Corrie frankly accepted that she should have pursued this with Dr Mellor and that she had failed to do so.
Some independent effort was made by the guardian ad litem. His solicitor wrote to Dr Mellor on 13 September, saying:
"I have been asked by other parties whether you have names and addresses of practitioners capable of undertaking the work which you have recommended for [the mother]."
Dr Mellor's answer came on 7 October when she said:
"I am unable to name any sources in the Coventry area, although the usual route for cognitive behavioural therapy is via mental health services."
I turn now to the local authority' efforts. The team manager, Marion Hodgkins, in an affidavit or statement of 23 August wrote at paragraph 7:
"The Psychotherapeutic services in Coventry have a two year waiting list and have frozen the list. They have also made a decision to improve the availability and efficiency of the service in future that they will not be offering individual psychotherapeutic services."
As Mr Coleman himself pointed out, it is a perversion of language to suggest that the withdrawal of individual psychotherapeutic services could possibly constitute an improvement in the availability and efficiency of service.
Mrs Hodgkins continued:
"I have contacted the link person responsible for commissioning in Coventry Health Services, Karen Corbett. She confirmed the information from the Psychological department and suggested that I contact the Psychological services in Birmingham to see if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X (Children) and Another
...of these cases, Re L-A, Thorpe LJ referred to three previous decisions of the Court of Appeal: Re H (a child) (interim care order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1932, [2003] 1 FCR 350, Re M (Interim Care Order: Removal) [2005] EWCA Civ 1594 [2006] 1 FLR 1043, and Re K and H [2006] EWCA Civ 1898, [2007] ......
-
X Council v B (emergency protection orders)
...or EPO when there have as yet been no adverse findings against the parent. As Thorpe LJ said in Re H (a child) (interim care order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1932, [2003] 1 FCR 350, at para [39]: “… the Articles 6 and 8 rights of the parents required the judge to abstain from premature determination ......
-
L (A Child)
...trial" ( Re H§38). 38 The guidance as to when an interim care order is appropriate can be found in Re H (A Child)(Interim Care Order) [2002 ] EWCA Civ 1932 ("separation was only to be contemplated if [the child's] safety demanded immediate separation"), Re M (Interim Care Order: Removal [2......
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v D; Re D (unborn baby) (birth plan: future harm)
...HL. G (care: challenge to local authority’s decision), Re[2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42. H (a child) (interim care order), Re[2002] EWCA Civ 1932, [2003] 1 FCR 350. Haase v Germany[2004] 2 FCR 1, [2004] 2 FLR 39, ECt HR. K (Contact), Re[2008] EWHC 540 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 581. McMich......