Local Authority 1 ("LA1") and Another v AF (mother) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cobb,The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2042 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: IL12C0026 & IL12C00917 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 20 June 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2042 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cobb
Case No: IL12C0026 & IL12C00917
Chris Barnes (instructed by Local Authority solicitors) for both Local Authorities
Sally Bradley (instructed by T V Edwards LLP) for the mother
Gillian Marks (instructed by Dunning & Co.) for the father
Shiva Ancliffe (instructed by FMW Law) for the Guardian
Hearing dates: 9–18 June 2014
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.
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
| 1 | Introduction | 1–10 |
| 2 | Background: Judgment – 8 March 2013 | 11–17 |
| 3 | Abduction & Return | 18–41 |
| 4 | Residential Assessment | 42–47 |
| 5 | Residential Assessment breakdown | 48–81 |
| 6 | Repercussions… | 82–87 |
| 7 | Legal issues | |
| ? General principles | 89 | |
| ? Application for revocation of placement order and discharge of care order | 90–92 | |
| ? Application for residential assessment: section 38(6) | 93–99 | |
| ? Application for a care order and placement order | 100–105 | |
| ? Application by non-party for CAO | 106 | |
| 8 | Children: pen-pictures | 107–117 |
| 9 | Assessment of the parents | 118–120 |
| ? Mother | 121–128 | |
| ? Father | 129–135 | |
| 10 | Has there been a change of circumstances? | 136–138 |
| ? Psychotherapy | 139–142 | |
| ? Drug use/exposure to drugs | 143–152 | |
| ? Alcohol | 153–155 | |
| ? Parental relationship | 156–162 | |
| ? Openness and honesty | 163 | |
| ? Lack of contingency plan | 164–166 | |
| ? Conclusion | 167–169 | |
| 11 | Social work assessment: | ? 170–173 |
| ? Care planning | 174 | |
| ? Family finding | 175–181 | |
| 12 | Further assessment? | 182 |
| ? Mother's proposal | 183–187 | |
| ? Father's proposal | 188–204 | |
| 13 | Family support: role of extended family | 205–221 |
| 14 | Maternal Grandmother's position | 222–228 |
| 15 | Guardian's recommendations | 229–233 |
| 16 | Analysis of options | 234–251 |
| 17 | Conclusion | 252–282 |
| ? Orders | 283 | |
| 18 | Immediate consequences | 284 |
| 19 | Post-Script (1) Publication and Publicity | 285–287 |
| 20 | Post-Script (2) Justice for Families | 288–294 |
| 21 | Post-Script (3) Out of Hours and Without Notice Hearings | 295–301 |
| 22 | Post-Script (4) Bundles | 302–306 |
Introduction
By this judgment, I give reasons for my decisions in relation to three siblings:
i) CF, a boy aged 6, currently the subject of a care order and placement order in favour of Local Authority 1 (" LA1");
ii) DF, a boy aged 4, currently the subject of a care order and placement order in favour of Local Authority 1 (" LA1");
and
iii) EF, a girl aged 20 months, currently the subject of an interim care order in favour of Local Authority 2 (" LA2").
They are the three children of the First Respondent, AF, ("mother") and the Second Respondent, BF, ("father"). They live together in a foster home in the area of LA1.
The boys have been the subject of ongoing public law (or associated) proceedings now for approximately 30 months — since January 2012. It is salutary to record that CF was merely 3 years 9 months old when court proceedings were first issued in respect of his future; he is now over 6 years old. At a final hearing in relation to the boys over a year ago, the Children's Guardian stressed that " the boys needed a decision to be made urgently…" (see the judgment of Ms Recorder Ray ['Ray']). Ms Recorder Ray acknowledged at the conclusion of that hearing that the children " need final decisions as soon as possible … their opportunities for successful placement together will diminish quickly over time."
Fourteen months later, final decisions are still being debated for these children; the parents argue even now that the court should defer further the making of final orders. The local authorities and Guardian are clear that resolution is overdue: " the children are awaiting answers … they need certainty" (Mr A: Social Worker LA1).
The multiple substantive applications before the Court at this hearing are as follows:
i) Application by the mother (supported by the father) for leave to apply to revoke the placement order in relation to CF and DF; this application is opposed by LA1 and by the Children's Guardian;
ii) Application by the mother (supported by the father) for discharge of the care order in relation to CF and DF; this application is opposed by LA1 and by the Children's Guardian;
iii) Application by the mother for an order authorising a residential assessment under section 38(6) of the CA 1989 in relation to EF (the subject of an interim care order), on the basis that this would also include the boys; this application is opposed by LA1, LA2, and by the Children's Guardian;
iv) A deemed application by the father for an order authorising a residential assessment under section 38(6) of the CA 1989 in relation to EF (the subject of an interim care order), on the basis that this would also include the boys; this application is opposed by LA1, LA2, and also by the Children's Guardian;
v) Application by LA2 for a care order in relation to EF. This application is opposed by the parents, and supported by the Children's Guardian;
vi) Application by LA2 for a placement order in relation to EF. This application is opposed by the parents, and supported by the Children's Guardian;
vii) Application by the Maternal Grandmother ("MGM") for a Child Arrangements Order, to provide that the children 'spend time' with her. The Local Authorities and Guardian oppose this application, as do the parents.
I am conscious that this is a lengthy judgment. I make no apology for that. There are multiple and complex issues to resolve. Moreover, I felt that it may be helpful to set out the relevant material fully here in the hope that it will endure as a valuable record for the children (when they are of an age and maturity to understand it) of why these life-changing decisions were made for them.
Fortunately, I do not need to rehearse the lengthy background history of the period prior to March 2013 which is amply summarised in the judgment of Ms Recorder Ray (8 March 2013); that judgment should be read as a preface to this.
I rely upon the findings which she made (see further [11]–[17] below), and the narrative which is set out in that judgment. Unless necessary to do so for the purposes of explaining my own reasoning, I do not propose to repeat that here.
The inter-connecting issues which have featured prominently in this hearing are:
i) The capability of these parents to meet the needs of these children; although devoted to their children, the parents' lives have been ravaged by drugs, trauma and abuse; specifically, I have had to consider their capacity in the short-term and long-term to meet the needs of damaged children who have suffered significant emotional harm;
ii) The consequence of a prematurely terminated professional parental assessment, particularly where it is argued (by the parents) that the cause for the termination of the assessment could not be blamed upon the parents' themselves;
iii) Delay in decision-making for young children in a case which entered its 123 rd week as this hearing reached its conclusion, against the benchmark of 26-weeks imposed by statute (see section 38(7A) CA 1989);
iv) The challenges facing family finders searching for permanent substitute families for a sibling group of three children, of mixed race, the oldest of whom is already 6 and who has displayed some behavioural difficulties;
v) Specific consideration of sibling attachment and/or relationship, and the weight which should be given to this, where potentially different care plans apply for the older 2 children and youngest child.
Points of note for practitioners in this and other cases are reinforced in this judgment in relation to are:
i) The preparation of a note of a Without Notice or Out of Hours hearing (see [295]–[301] below);
ii) Compliance with Practice Direction relevant to the preparation of court bundles ( PD27A FPR 2010) (as amended) (see [302]–[305] below).
I have heard evidence from the parents, social workers from the two interested Local Authorities (the parents having moved in the period between the birth of the older two children and youngest child), two family finders, an independent drugs worker, the manager of the residential unit where the children stayed with the parents for a 10-day period in December 2013, maternal family members (maternal grandmother and a maternal aunt) and the Guardian.
Background: Judgment – 8 March 2013
As indicated above, the background history is amply set out in the judgment of Ms Recorder Ray, delivered on 8 March 2013, following an 8-day hearing in January/February 2013. By the time of her judgment, the two older children (the boys) had been in foster care for more than 1 year; they had been removed from their parents by LA1 following an incident of extreme domestic violence, the final act of harm to the children against a history of chaotic and abusive parenting, materially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TT (Children: Discharge of Care Order)
...[2001] 2 FLR 707 and Re C and B (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611.” 29 In Local Authority 1 & Others v AF (Mother) & Others [2014] EWHC 2042 (Fam), Cobb J directed himself as follows: “On an application for discharge of a care order, I am required to apply the principle of the par......
-
Essential Daily Guidance for Proceedings Concerning Children
...C v C (Without Notice Orders) [2005] EWHC 2741 (Fam), Munby J (as he then was); Local Authority 1 and Others v AF (Mother) & Others [2014] EWHC 2042 (Fam), Cobb J. 103 President’s Guidance [2011] 1 FLR 303. 38 The Single Family Court: A Practitioner’s Handbook (a) There is always a High Cou......