Ma (Appellant) London Borough of Camden (1st Respondent) R B. (2nd Respondent) T & O A-B (Children through their Guardian, Mark Kalinauckas) (3rd and 4th Respondents)

Hearing date: 26 th September 2012

Introduction

This is an appeal, brought with the permission of Ward LJ, against the rejection by His Honour Judge Brasse on 17 August 2012 of the appellant's application to revoke placement orders made pursuant to section 24 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 by the same judge in September 2011.

The appeal concerns the future of two young boys, TA-B (born 20 June 2006, so aged 6) and OA-B (born 27 December 2007, so aged 4 ³/₄). Both children were taken into the care of the London Borough of Camden (the local authority) in April 2010 and have been in foster care ever since. Care proceedings were commenced and, at a five day hearing in January 2011, Judge Brasse determined that the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 had been satisfied in respect of both children. In September 2011, after a welfare hearing also lasting five days, Judge Brasse made care orders and placement orders in respect of both children. Both parents were parties to those proceedings. Neither parent appealed the order. The local authority then attempted to place the children for adoption and on 29 April 2012 informed the father that they had selected a couple as prospective adopters and that the couple were two homosexual men. Five days later, the mother applied to the judge for revocation of the placement orders. The father did not join in the application. After a two day hearing in August 2012, the mother's application was rejected but placement was stayed pending a possible appeal. The mother appealed promptly; permission was granted and the stay extended pending the outcome of the appeal, which was heard on 24 September 2012.

That account of the proceedings conceals a sad human story which I shall now set out. The history will be based on the judge's findings in his various judgments. At the time it was given, much of the evidence was hotly disputed but the facts are now very largely common ground.

The factual background

The father and mother met each other at a detoxification centre in 2002. The father, born in 1970, had a poor educational background and misused alcohol and drugs from an early age. In some respects, the mother had had a good influence upon the father as, after they began to live together, she had encouraged him to find work and to gain experience in the building trade in which he became quite successful. He has never conquered his dependence on alcohol but he has some insight into it.

The mother had a very successful early life. Born in 1964, she did well at school and qualified as an accountant. In that capacity she worked very hard and was successful. However, it seems that she was vulnerable to the stressful circumstances of her work. Her general practitioner records reveal that, during the 1990s, she was drinking to excess. In 2001, she suffered a serious sexual assault and began drinking more heavily. In December 2002 she was admitted to the detoxification centre for a period of three months. I understand that the couple began to live together after their respective discharges from the centre. By October 2003, the mother had relapsed and was drinking heavily again.

After the birth of the first child T in June 2006, the health visitors, police and eventually social services became concerned about the couples' ability to care for the baby properly on account of their drinking habits. On a day in September 2006, the mother asked the health visitor to attend the house. The health visitor was so concerned about the mother's report that the father was drinking and being violent that she called the police. The police attended and found both parents were under the influence of alcohol. During that autumn there were a number of incidents in which there was concern about physical violence and about both parents drinking while in charge of the baby. Following an incident on 31 ^st December 2006, when both parents were drunk, the baby was taken into overnight care.

During the next few months there were many occasions when the parents were thought to be under the influence of alcohol, when there was domestic violence and life in the home was chaotic. In May 2007, T was taken into protective care and placed with foster parents. Proceedings were begun in the Family Proceedings Court. T remained with foster parents until December 2007. The second child O was born that month. The parents had separated by then and T was allowed home to his mother. The father returned to live with the mother and children in June 2008. The substantive court hearing did not take place until November 2008. Then, the magistrates found that the threshold criteria had been satisfied in respect of events in May 2007 but that the parents were making progress. The current evidence suggested that the mother was capable of providing good care when she was sober. The magistrates made a supervision order for 12 months. It appears that the supervision was effective and, twelve months later, the local authority closed the case.

Unfortunately, it appears that, once supervision had ceased, the couple began to have problems again. In February and March 2010 there were incidents of quarrelling and violence which appear to have stemmed from the father being drunk. On two occasions he went to hospital seeking detoxification; he was aggressive and abusive to staff. Then in April 2010, there was an event which led directly to the children being taken into care.

The details of what occurred were hotly contested at the threshold hearing in January 2011, but the judge found that, on 24 April 2010, the mother took the children to visit her elderly parents, who had never seen the children before. Mother was drunk and incapable of looking after the children. She was seen staggering in the road. The grandparents refused to let the mother into the house. A neighbour called the police as the children were wandering in the road outside the grandparents' house; they were also in a dirty condition. The mother was detained at the police station and arrangements were made for the care of the children. The judge's findings of fact in respect of this issue at the hearing in January 2011 were particularly important because the mother had consistently denied being drunk, had given a number of inconsistent accounts of what had occurred and had accused the police of harassment and of fabricating evidence against her. The mother also asserted that she did not have a drink problem when it was patently obvious that she did. She herself now accepts that that was so. In effect, her evidence demonstrated that she was out of touch with reality and was capable of telling a pack of lies. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the judge appears to have accepted that, when sober, the mother was capable of caring for the children both physically and emotionally.

By the time of the hearing in January 2011, the parents had separated again. The judge's conclusion in respect of the father at the end of that hearing was that he had a very serious alcohol problem about which he was frank and open. He was also fairly frank about the past incidents of violence. The judge acknowledged that he was very fond of the children and had both respect and affection for the mother. However he could not control his drinking.

In respect of the mother, the judge found that she had a drink problem about which she was in denial. He held that, in April 2010, the children were at risk of suffering significant harm due to serious deficiencies in the care given by the parents. Both parents drank to excess and when drunk were liable to quarrel and fight verbally and physically in front of the children. When drunk they were not capable of meeting the children's emotional or psychological needs. The drink problems were of long-standing. The main difference between them was that the father acknowledged his problems whereas the mother denied them.

By the time of the welfare hearing, a great deal more was known about the couple and the children in that there had been several professional assessments and expert reports had been obtained. Of particular importance was a report from Dr Neil Boast, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, who had examined the mother. Also, the parents' interactions with the children had been observed during supervised contact sessions and their relationships with the children had been assessed. The local authority sought care orders and placement orders in respect of both children. The mother sought the return of the children to her. Her case was that she did not have a drink problem and the children should be returned to her without delay. Allegations that she did not relate well to the children and did not understand that her behaviour was damaging to them were fabricated and malicious. The father supported her stance, seeking only contact for...