A Local Authority v J and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Keehan |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 10 (Fam) |
| Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: BM15C00211 |
[2017] EWHC 10 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Keehan
Case No: BM15C00211
Ms. Cabeza (instructed by Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
First Respondent was not present and was not represented.
Second Respondent appeared in Person.
Ms. Franklin appeared on behalf of the Children's Guardian.
Hearing dates: 31st January & 1st Febraury
Judgment Approved
INTRODUCTION
I am concerned with two children, P, who was born on 10 th April 2009 and is seven years of age, and M, who was born on 26 th March 2011 and is five years of age. Their mother is the first respondent, J. Their father is the second respondent, Y. He has appeared in person.
At this hearing, the Local Authority seeks a placement order in respect of both children. This application is opposed by the mother and the father, but is supported by the children's guardian.
The mother lives in Singapore with the parent's third child, a baby girl. The mother left the jurisdiction when 38 weeks pregnant in order to avoid the unborn child being removed into foster care at birth. Save for filing a witness statement dated 27 th January 2017 and a closing statement dated 31 st January 2017, she has played no role in these proceedings and has not attended court.
Applications for care orders and placement orders were listed before Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon in February 2016. On 18 th February, Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon handed down judgment. She made care orders and placement orders in respect of both children and made findings of fact against the mother and the father.
On 27 th October 2016, the Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal against the making of placement orders. The court set aside these orders, restored the placement order proceedings and remitted them for rehearing.
It is important to note, that on the basis that the father did not pursue his appeal against the care orders, that appeal was dismissed and there being no challenge brought against the findings of fact made by the judge, they stand.
The father asserted during this hearing that his then barrister misrepresented his case to the Court of Appeal insofar as the father did wish to challenge the making of care orders and did not and does not accept the findings of fact made by Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon. I told the father that these matters were for the Court of Appeal and not for this court to entertain and that I was bound by the order and judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In its judgment of 8 th November 2016, the Court of Appeal explained that it allowed the appeal because the judge, at first instance, had failed to consider the option of long-term foster care when undertaking the welfare evaluation.
Further to opposing the placement application, the father made an oral application at the start of this hearing to discharge the care orders. I decided that I could only entertain that application on the basis that there had been a material change in the circumstances of the parents and/or of the children between the hearing before the Court of Appeal on 27 th October to date.
BACKGROUND
The relevant chronology of events is set out in paras.3–17 of the judgment of King LJ which reads as follows:
"The mother and the father are both of south-Indian origin, although the mother also has a Singaporean identity card. The couple came to the United Kingdom in or around 2004. The mother entered the country legitimately but subsequently over-stayed and there is no record at all of the father's entry into this country.
Applications made by the parents for leave to remain were refused in December 2013. The parents and their two young children, therefore, lived under the radar of the authorities and as a consequence of their illegal status, were not entitled to state benefits.
It appears that the father had, however, been in work and the children did not adversely come to the attention of social services until after the father lost his job in 2013.
Following his employment, the family survived on a bank loan but by April 2014, they were destitute. The family was referred to the Local Authority by the Children Society. By then, P was five and M was three.
The Local Authority carried out an initial assessment and the children were made subject to a child in need plan and financial support was provided to the family. Almost immediately, the parents were in conflict with the Local Authority, believing, as they did, that it was the Local Authority's responsibility wholly to provide for the family. The father's extreme behaviour was exhibited as early as 14 th May 2014 when he threatened to jump into the river off a bridge together with the children if a new house and financial assistance to the level he sought was not provided.
Between the referral in April 2014 and August 2015, the Local Authority attempted to work with the parents. As at this stage there were no concerns about the parents' general abilities to provide the children with good enough care, and it was anticipated that a reasonable working relationship could be achieved. Not only did this prove not to be the case, but the parents used their children as a means to put pressure on the Local Authority to give them more money with wholly callous disregard for their emotional wellbeing.
The judge's judgment sets out the background and makes extensive findings of fact. The parents' strategies, amongst other things, included using the children directly to demand money, as well as keeping them off school and even hiding them in cupboards in order to prevent social workers from seeing or talking to the children. The most serious matter occurred in 2015 when the parents coached M to make, what are now accepted to be, wholly false allegations of physical and sexual abuse directed at the school and social workers. This, inevitably, resulted in a full investigation and the involvement of the police, including the arrangement of an intimate child protection medical for M, although the parents, in fact, failed to take her to the appointment.
The father maintained these very serious allegations at trial, although he now accepts the finding made by the judge that the allegations were wholly fabricated. Mr. Amin on behalf of the father in accepting this to be the case, says that the parents were motivated by a misguided notion that such allegations would help them to achieve their aim of somehow stopping the professionals at the children's school from asking about the welfare of the children.
By May 2015, there were, understandably, very serious concerns about the children. Not only were the social workers unable to see the children at home, but P's attendance at school was falling away, his behaviour was deteriorating, and M had been removed from nursery.
On 28 th May 2015, the parents attempted to abscond to Glasgow, although when social services in Glasgow made it clear they would not be providing financial assistance, the family returned to Birmingham.
Care proceedings were finally issued on 12 th August 2015 and an interim care order made, due to the risk of the family absconding, and on 18 th August the children were removed from the parents' care.
The children were placed with a culturally appropriate foster carer with whom they have lived ever since and who has offered them a permanent home in the event that it is decided that the children's best interest lie in them remaining in long-term foster placement.
The Local Authority's view is that the children suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence of being made the puppets of, in particular the father, in his war of attrition with the Local Authority. The Local Authority wished to facilitate regular contact, but as is often the case, asked the parents to sign a contact agreement whereby they would agree not to make inappropriate remarks about the professionals in front of the children, that they would not discuss the case with the children and would not speak to the children about returning home.
The parents refused then and have continued to refuse to sign such an agreement. Their position has been, to sign it would be a breach of their human right to free speech or freedom of expression. The trial judge was satisfied that not only had the father been given sensible and appropriate legal advice as to the importance of contact with the children by his own legal team but also that His Honour Judge Plunkett, who case-managed the case throughout, had implored the parents to sign the agreement to enable contact to take place.
The parents remained resolute and as a consequence, when the matter came on for trial in February 2016, these children, who had lived with their parents until the making of the interim care order, had had no contact, direct or indirect, for six months. When the matter came before this court, that period of time had extended to 14 months.
In a statement dated 29 th June 2015, the then lead social worker, Mr. Birkenhead, put as the first realistic option for the future care of the children as being placed with the parents under a full care order, with the second realistic option being long-term foster care. Within that statement, he set out the advantages as he saw them to a long-term foster placement. He explained that efforts from the Local Authority would continue in seeking to engage the parents in a more positive and meaningful manner and should that be achieved, then consideration could again be given to the possibility of the children returning to the care of the parents.
What is clear from the evidence is that the Local Authority, for a significant period of time, had anticipated that the children would in due course be rehabilitated to the parents. To this end,...
To continue reading
Request your trial