A Local Authority v GG
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Willans |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWFC 61 |
| Docket Number | Case No: ZW21C50019 |
| Court | Family Court |
[2023] EWFC 61
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Willans
Case No: ZW21C50019
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT WEST LONDON
West London Family Court,
Gloucester House, 4 Dukes Green Avenue
Feltham, TW14 0LR
Nairn Purss (instructed by The Local Authority Legal Department) for the Applicant
Martina van der Leij (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the First Respondent
Barbara Connolly KC and Hannah Gomersall (instructed by Lock & Marlborough) for the Second Respondent
Mark Rawcliffe (instructed by Blaser Mills) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 18–20 April 2023
JUDGMENT No.2: WELFARE DECISION
Introduction
) On 1 June 2022 I gave judgment following a fact-finding hearing in these proceedings. This judgment is reported within the National Archives with NCN [2022] EWFC 190. My essential findings were that the father in this case (FF) is a paedophile and has a sexual interest in children. Further, I found he acted on that interest and had in concert with another sexually abused a child. The full details of my fact-finding is set out within the written judgment. I do not intend to recite that detail within this judgment.
) No findings were made in respect of the mother in this case (GG). Prior to final submissions during fact-finding, she informed the Court she was troubled by the evidence she had heard about the father and had separated from him. Before me today there is common agreement that the child is safe in her care, and she is providing him with good care. It has been agreed for some time that there should be a final order in this case confirming his living arrangements in his mother's care without need for a public law order.
) The fundamental issue to be considered during this final hearing is the question of the father's ongoing contact with Z (“the child”). However, following the evidence of the social worker and the expert the father modified his position such that no further issues remained in dispute. Notwithstanding this agreement I considered I should provide a judgment setting out my reasons for approving the final orders approved by the parties. I consider the circumstances of this case merit clarity as to the manner in which the case ends both to inform the parties as to my conclusions and to inform any future litigation. Finally, I continue to bear in mind the significance of the decision I am being asked to make and consider the rationale for such should be set out in an appropriate manner. It is the least the parties deserve of the Court.
) In reaching my conclusions I have full regard to the documents contained in the final hearing bundle; the written position documents of counsel for each party, and the live evidence of the social worker and the sexual risk assessment expert. In the light of the concessions made the parties informed me they did not need to make final submissions and neither the parents nor the guardian were required to give live evidence.
) This hearing proceeded as an attended hearing save for the evidence of the expert that was received remotely.
The proceedings since fact-finding
) I generally refer to section B of the bundle which contains the case management orders and applications.
) Following the fact finding the father made clear he did not accept my findings. The mother accepts the findings. The father applied for a specialist risk assessment from the well-known Lucy Faithfull organisation. On 17 June 2022 I approved such assessment notwithstanding that this would necessitate delay within the proceedings given the report would not be available until November 2022. I fixed an IRH for 5 December 2022. This delay was problematic but on balance justified given (a) the security of the child in his mother's care, and (b) the fundamental need for a specialised risk assessment if contact between child and father were to be considered. In making this direction it was understood the assessment might proceed notwithstanding the denial of culpability. In due course Dr Andrew Smith (“the expert”) conducted the risk assessment and gave evidence before me.
) Unfortunately, events did not proceed as intended. I was informed the father had failed to engage with the assessment. The applicant returned the matter to Court and on 4 October 2022, I discharged the direction for the assessment and fixed a final hearing for January 2023. Then 3 weeks later the father applied to recommence the assessment process. On 10 November 2022 I heard this application. There were many reasons for refusing this application but on balance I permitted the work to recommence. I reset the final hearing to this week. The father engaged with the assessment and the report is dated 26 January 2023.
) This delay has undoubtedly been contrary to the child's welfare interests. However, I recognise he has throughout remained in the care of his mother and continues in this secure environment. This final hearing could have been resolved earlier but that would inevitably have been based on less clear evidence. As such it would have potentially left the parents to litigate these issues at a later date within private law proceedings without the support, funding and professional input provided within these proceedings. With reservations I consider this delay has been necessary. In making this point I do not lose sight that the mother has also had to await the conclusion of these proceedings and this delay will have impacted on her emotional wellbeing.
Background detail
) This is sufficiently detailed in my fact-finding judgment. I will though detail the contact history between father and child which is subject to this final hearing.
) The child was born in September 2020. The applicant became concerned as to his safety in January 2021 when it became aware of a finding (analogous to my own) made against the father in proceedings in another part of the country. Prior to this the child had been raised by both his parents whilst they lived together in a relationship. The applicant engaged with the parents and agreement was reached that the father could not continue to reside with the mother and child whilst further investigation was undertaken. He moved out and contact was then supervised between the father and child by the paternal grandmother. At this point in time the applicant considered her able to safeguard the child from harm. Proceedings commenced in May 2021.
) In early November 2021 a social worker met with the paternal grandmother to conduct an updating risk assessment in the light of developments in the case. However, the grandmother advised she could not discuss the allegations as she had been advised not to do so. This prevented a risk assessment being completed and led the applicant to conclude the grandmother could not safely supervise contact. Instead, the contact would need to move into a supervised setting. The father opposed the same and applied for the arrangements to continue. In the interim the applicant planned for and offered supervised contact. The father refused to attend / claimed he could not attend due to mental health issues.
) On 9 March 2022 I heard these competing arguments. By this time there was an updating risk assessment of the paternal grandmother. This continued to raise concerns as to her ability to safely supervise contact. I determined contact should proceed within a contact centre with professional supervisors. The father continued to refuse to attend contact at a centre. I should note the current expert evidence is supportive of this decision-making concluding that pending a reduction in risk levels with respect to the father it would be unsafe for family members to supervise contact.
) At the end of September 2022, the father applied to re-start contact within a contact centre. This was opposed by the professionals in the light of the findings and in the absence of a risk assessment. I shared these concerns and refused the application. As a result, contact with the father has not taken place since about November 2021. It is questionable as to whether the child maintains a meaningful memory of the father at this time.
) Notwithstanding the above I have been told there has been an element of indirect contact in that the father has passed gifts (and possibly cards) for the child via a member of the mother's family. It is accepted the parents remain separated and are not in contact. The mother has relocated into a third-party local authority area and her address and location is confidential. The father is living at home with his parents and adult siblings.
Legal principles
) My decision-making proceeds on the basis that the child's welfare is my paramount consideration. I have regard to the welfare checklist found in section 1(3) Children Act 1989. I also have in mind the right of the family members to respect for their private family life as enshrined in Article 8 ECHR. Any interference must be judged proportionate, necessary, reasonable and lawful.
) A significant component of this judgment concerns the suggestion that I should order there to be no contact between the father and child. This engages the principles and case law set out in the paragraphs below.
) The curtailment of a relationship between parent and child amounts to a most significant interference in a parent's right to an ongoing relationship with that child (and vice versa). Such an interference requires a particularly high level of justification.
) Section 1(2A) Children Act 1989 creates a rebuttable presumption that contact with a parent will likely be in the welfare interests of a child and will advance the welfare of that child. To reach a conclusion that a relationship should not be developed or maintained requires the Court to identify clear and...
To continue reading
Request your trial