A Local Authority v M
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 19 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA20P01898 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 19 October 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Sitting Remotely
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: MA20P01898
and
and
Mr Fergal Allen (instructed by a Local Authority) for the Applicant
The First Respondent appeared in person
The Second Respondent did not appear having not been given notice
Ms Willis (instructed by Bromleys) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 5 October 2020
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.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter I am concerned with the welfare of B, who is 17 years of age. B was born biologically female but now identifies as male. His interests are represented by his Children's Guardian.
In these proceedings the local authority seeks relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of B, namely a declaration authorising the deprivation of B's liberty. B's mother is M. She appears before the court in person. At this hearing the local authority applies for an order permitting it to dispense with service of the proceedings on the father of B. It remains unclear whether the father has parental responsibility for B, he not being named on B's birth certificate but having been described in previous proceedings as having parental responsibility for B.
In cases where an application is made not to serve a parent who would otherwise be served with the proceedings, consideration should be given to inviting the Attorney General to intervene in respect of the application in circumstances where the party concerned is not, for obvious reasons, before the court to argue the contrary case. The local authority has, accordingly, notified the Attorney General of these proceedings and of the application to dispense with service on the father. The Attorney General has indicated by correspondence that she does not wish to intervene in the proceedings.
In this case, each of the parties before the court submits that the father should not be served with notice of the proceedings. However, given the import of an order dispensing with service on a parent in proceedings of this nature, and the fact that the father is not before the court, it is appropriate for me to give a short, reasoned judgment explaining the basis for the order dispensing with service that I am satisfied should be made in this case.
BACKGROUND
Regrettably, B has been the subject of significant litigation during his life. He has been the subject of three sets of private law proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989 and the subject of one set of public law proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. B was made the subject of a final care order in 2015 and was placed in foster care. In addition, B and his mother have the protection of a non-molestation order against the father without limit of time.
The local authority's application for an order dispensing with service on the father is supported by a statement from the allocated social worker dated 14 September 2020. That statement makes clear that the circumstances in which the foregoing extensive litigation arose have been very difficult indeed for B.
The relationship between his parents was characterised by domestic abuse, including threats to kill made by the father towards the mother and physical violence towards B and his sibling. The mother also alleges that the father sexually abused B's sibling. Within this context, the mother had to move home with the children a total of over forty times to avoid harassment by the father and changed her and the children's names on no less than three occasions.
In 2012 a MARAC assessment deemed the mother and the children to be a high risk of harm from the father. Later that year, a finding of fact hearing in the second set of private law proceedings found the allegations of domestic abuse against the father proved and concluded that B had witnessed the father being violent to the mother. Within this context, the father's application for contact was refused. In 2014 the mother alleged twice that the father had raped her and later alleged that the father had forced her into prostitution and had acted as her pimp.
Within the foregoing context, care proceedings were commenced in 2014. The court initially acceded to an application to dispense with service on the father of the care proceedings but the father later became a party to those proceedings having been notified of them by the mother. In those proceedings, the father strenuously disputed the allegations summarised above. Within the care proceedings B indicated clearly to the allocated social worker that he did not wish his father to know anything about him and did not want to see his father.
B has had no contact with the father since the care proceedings concluded and has not expressed any interest in having contact with him. In December last year, B began to allege that, when at home, he and his sibling had witnessed adults being brought to the family home by the father and harmed by him with extreme violence. B further intimated that his father had killed people.
In April of this year the father contacted the local authority to request contact with B and his sibling, again taking the opportunity to deny the allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. The social worker received advice from the social work team and a psychologist at the hospital to which B was then admitted that contact with his father would place B at risk of harm with respect to his emotional wellbeing and stability. At this time B continued to allege that his father had perpetrated violence against strangers and against his mother and stated a wish to kill his father and sever his genitals. Within this context, the local authority took the decision not to inform B that his father was seeking contact. The father has made no further efforts to pursue contact with B or his sibling.
Since October 2017 B has increasingly laboured under difficulties with his mental health, in addition to difficulties with drugs and becoming involved in criminal activity. Within this context, B has been the subject of hospital admissions pursuant to ss. 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 from August 2019. B has displayed highly emotionally dysregulated behaviour, often in response to challenges within his family relationships. This behaviour has included ligaturing, head banging, setting fire to his clothes causing significant burns, secreting, and using a wide variety of items including his fingernails to cut at his neck, arms, legs and stomach, picking at wounds habitually, serious intentional overdoses where he has then refused treatment, standing on tram tracks, motorway bridges and reservations, running in front of cars and submerging himself completely and fully clothed in the bath. In October 2019 B was diagnosed with an attachment disorder, developmental trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder.
In May 2020, following a period in which there was considerable debate amongst professionals about whether B continued to fulfil the criteria for continued hospitalisation under the Mental Health Act 1983, transition planning commenced for B upon doctors advising that he no longer required admission to hospital. Very regrettably, the transition planning did not proceed smoothly and B was discharged sooner than intended. His mental health again deteriorated and he had incidents of overdose and self-harm. On 4 August 2020 B was detained under s. 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 having threatened to stab staff, self-harmed and reported an intentional paracetamol overdose. Whilst that detention came to end on 17 August 2020, B remained in hospital whilst a further transition to a community therapeutic placement was sought.
Upon a placement being identified, the local authority issued proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction in circumstances where they considered that the placement would involve a deprivation of B's liberty. In light of the regime to which B was to be subject at his community therapeutic placement on 7 September 2020 I granted leave to the local authority to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and declared that it was lawful and in B's best interests for him to be deprived of his liberty. At that urgent hearing, I also listed the matter for a further hearing to consider the application to dispense with service of the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction on the father.
Following the declarations made by the court, on 7 September 2020 B made a successful transition to a community therapeutic placement and has made what has been rightly described as “exceptional” progress since moving to the placement. This progress continues, with B having accessed virtual learning, completed a CV and expressed a wish to seek employment.
With respect to B's views on the instant application, on 8 September 2020 B informed the social worker that he does not want his father to be informed of these proceedings. He expressed anxiety about the impact of such a step on his mother's mental health and as to the risk of harm he perceived his family would be exposed to should his father be given notice. B continued to state that he wants to harm or kill the father. The mother informed the social worker that she fears that notice to the father will cause the father again to seek to contact her and the children and once again perpetrate a campaign of intimidation and violence against them. The social worker believes that the mother will have shared these concerns with B having regard to the social workers experience of the mother's conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v ML & Anor
...way. Held, dismissing the local authority’s applications— (1) This court accepted that its statement in A Local Authority v M and others [2020] 4 WLR 157, to the effect that, where an application was made not to serve a parent with proceedings, consideration should be given to inviting the ......
-
SV (a minor) and PV and A health and Social Care Trust and The Department of Finance
...term. This issue has arisen in other circumstances that have been referred to us. [51] In In re A Local Authority v M and others [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam) MacDonald J had to deal with a case where a 17-year-old was subject to a deprivation of liberty application and there was an application no......
-
SV (A MINOR), FV (A MINOR), GV (A MINOR) and PV and A Health and Social Care Trust and The Department of Finance and A Health and Social Care Trust and PV and SV, FV & GV (Minors) acting by the Official Solicitor as Guardian Ad Litem
...duties are a statutory recognition of the need appropriately to fetter the corporate parent” [para 27] [105] In A Local Authority v M [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam) MacDonald J recognised the procedural aspects of the article 8 rights of parents which he held required the involvement of parents at ......