A Local Authority v The Mother
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Owens |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWFC 91 |
| Court | Family Court |
| Docket Number | CASE NO: OX22C50074 |
and
and
[2023] EWFC 91
HER HONOUR JUDGE Owens
CASE NO: OX22C50074
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT OXFORD
Representation:
For the Applicant: Mr Perry
For the mother, First Respondent: Mr Walthall
For the father, Second Respondent: Miss Sparrow
For A, Third Respondent acting through their Children's Guardian: Dr Gatland
This judgment is being handed down [in private] on 12 th June 2023. It consists of 29 pages and has been signed and dated by the Judge. The Judge has given permission for the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the child and the members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.
INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND EVIDENTIAL SUMMARY
These proceedings concern A, who is 12 years old and will be 13 at the end of August this year. A's mother is the first respondent, and A's father is the second respondent.
I wish to say at the outset that it is abundantly clear to me that A loves both the mother and the father and that they in turn love A. Both the mother and the father have clearly worked hard within these proceedings, and I appreciate that this is because they are prioritising A's welfare. I also appreciate that neither of them will have found either the proceedings or the assessments and engagement with professionals to be easy.
Until 9 th May 2022, A had been living with the father, though prior to this A had moved between both the mother and the father at times. On 9 th May 2022 A moved to live with the mother and has remained there since. A wants to continue to live with the mother but to spend time with the father. All parties agree with this overall outcome for A.
The family has been known to social services since November 2016.
The applicant Local Authority (A Local Authority) commenced the Public Law Outline pre proceedings process in August 2021. Relevant aspects of the issues as far as this final hearing is concerned included the mother's alcohol misuse, instability in living arrangements for A with multiple moves between the parents, poor school attendance, and the impact upon A of parental acrimony.
The Local Authority applied for a supervision order or care order on 19 th May 2022.
Both parents have been subject to parenting assessments in the proceedings and have engaged with the proceedings, as well as the Local Authority and professionals around A. The outcome of both parenting assessments is positive.
There was a pre-proceedings psychological assessment of the father which made some recommendations around communication with, and provision of support to, the father in light of the father's vulnerabilities (E1–E55). There were also two addendum reports by that psychologist to address clarification questions during these proceedings (E73–E74 and E77–E84).
This was the final hearing, during the course of which I heard evidence from the former allocated social worker and a team manager, and submissions on behalf of all the parties. I have also considered the evidence supplied in the bundle, though note that this did not include two recordings exhibited to the father's final statement, but which are in a format which is not accessible on judicial or court equipment and which have not been provided in a format that can be viewed by me despite alerting the father's solicitors to this prior to the start of the hearing. However, it is not clear that either recording is relevant evidence required to determine the remaining issues in this case, something that I will return to later in this judgment when clarifying the scope of this final hearing and the various case management decisions which have led up to it.
It was not necessary to hear evidence from the father, despite the father wanting to give evidence because the father has filed evidence and no party sought to question the father about that. It is clear (and has been from the outset) that the father feels very strongly that the father has been treated unfairly by various public bodies. However, as I will cover later in this judgment, those issues are Human Rights Act and discrimination issues which I do not have jurisdiction to determine. The issues in this final hearing were not issues of fact finding that would require evidence from the father, the burden of proof in relation to threshold is in fact on the Local Authority not the father, and the question of whether largely accepted facts meet threshold is a submissions point. Miss Sparrow submitted in closing that somehow it had been suggested by some that the father was being unreasonable in challenging aspects of whether threshold was met and whether the proposed supervision order support plan was adequate. I have never suggested that and made the point that it was for the court to determine the scope of the final hearing and that, for A, accepting that threshold was crossed solely on the basis of the mother's alcohol use was not necessarily sufficient to enable the court to determine any risk of future harm to A and hence what support either parent may need to mitigate this.
This had been listed as an attended hearing with permission to the mother to attend remotely as a special measure in light of the allegation of parental acrimony. However, on the afternoon of the last working day before this hearing was due to commence, the court received an application to permit the father to attend wholly remotely from the father's solicitor's offices with counsel for the father present at the same location. It is not clear why such an application was left until the last minute, nor why there was a sudden change in the father being able to cope with a remote hearing. Previously the father had been very clear that the father could not cope with a remote hearing. However, no party had any objection and Miss Sparrow for the father was very clear that the father had given instructions and Miss Sparrow was satisfied that the father would be able to participate effectively if remotely connected. On that basis, I permitted the father and Miss Sparrow to participate remotely. At the conclusion of day one, the Local Authority and the other parties also sought to participate remotely, which assisted with availability of the previously allocated social worker who was one of the witnesses required to give evidence. Given the narrow scope of the issues in this final hearing, that the father was participating remotely and had no objection to others doing the same, I granted that request and continued with the remainder of the hearing as wholly remote.
I mentioned case management and the relevant issues in this case above. This case has taken over the statutory 26 weeks, partly because of the positive progress being made by both parents in working with professionals, but partly also because of the need to carefully ensure that the father's vulnerabilities were catered for and to give the father a proper opportunity to obtain legal representation. Thus I have directed wholly attended hearings at the request of the father in the early stages when the courts were still grappling with the aftermath of Covid 19 and struggling to accommodate a surge in workload in limited physical courtrooms. Hearings have been listed for far longer than is standard in public law proceedings to allow for the extra time that the father has been assessed as requiring to process information, as well as to accommodate the fact that the father can become overwhelmed and upset in hearings, resulting in outbursts and hasty retreats from the courtroom. Inevitably given the strength of sense of grievance that the father has, additional time to keep the focus of the proceedings on A was also required, and the impact on the mother who has also been visibly distressed in hearings at times when the father has become upset has also had to be allowed for. Initially the father was a litigant in person and the potential for an independent intermediary was also explored at my direction to try to assist the father and in light of what was then known about the father's needs, though this has not been pursued by those who represent the father.
I have taken the time to produce an anonymised written judgment in this case, despite the narrow focus of the final hearing itself, because of the needs of the father so that there can be time for the father's solicitors to go through the draft written judgment carefully (and have allowed far longer than the 1 hour for this that Miss Sparrow requested as I have allowed 2 weeks for consideration of the draft judgment). It has also enabled me to deliver what I hope is a clear written judgment on the two case management aspects that were dealt with at the outset of the final hearing. Perhaps most importantly, this judgment is potentially then available for A to read when A is old enough and gives me an opportunity to repeat that, although some aspects of the judgment necessarily refer to issues raised by the father, overall A has been and remains my paramount concern and even in dealing with the issues that the father raises this...
To continue reading
Request your trial