Manchester City Council v S
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
| Court | Family Division |
BRACEWELL, J
Children – care orders – Judge envisaging assessment with a view to possible rehabilitation of children and mother – access ordered – local authority failing to provide proper management – erroneously forming view that assessment had broken down – terminating access without consent of court – failing to make proper disclosure at hearing and misleading court – requirement of openness in interests of children.
In February 1989 two girls, then aged 11 and 9, were made wards of court. The matter came before Eastham, J in March 1989. He found that both children were suffering from psychiatric disorders which were a consequence of the mother's problems. The Judge made an interim care order and ordered supervised access in the discretion of the local authority. He envisaged the return of the children to the mother's care, conditional upon the mother taking appropriate advice and treatment. The children were placed in a residential home.
The matter came before Ewbank, J in February 1990. The children had made marginal progress. The local authority maintained that the children's problems were caused by the mother's psychiatric illness but the Judge accepted the evidence of a psychiatrist that the mother did not suffer from any form of schizophrenia or psychotic illness. He accepted that, as a black single parent, she had problems co-operating with white middle class figures of authority. She needed a great deal of help and had probably suffered from some sort of breakdown in the past. The doctor expressed the opinion that if the mother had supportive psychotherapy and stress management she would probably be able to look after the children. As a result, the Judge made a full care order. He gave leave to the local authority to identify suitable long-term foster parents but suspended placement pending a further hearing in order to give the mother an opportunity to take treatment. He ordered monthly access to the mother. Thereafter, the mother attended out-patient sessions with the psychiatrist. A programme was devised to work towards rehabilitation. Increased unsupervised access was recommended and took place on one occasion overnight towards the end of July 1990. However, in August 1990, the local authority decided that the programme of assessment had broken down. The mother disagreed and applied to de-ward the children. The local authority applied to terminate access. No court time was available for either application. The local authority, without any court sanction, terminated access. At a hearing in October 1990 access was reinstated by order of the court on a monthly basis; but delays in determining the future of the children continued by reason of lack of court time until the present hearing.
At the outset of the hearing the local authority opposed rehabilitation and proposed alternative long-term placement for the children. Late in the hearing, however, the local
authority conceded that the children's welfare demanded that they should return to the care of the mother. The circumstances were such that the Judge regarded it as appropriate to give a full judgment.
Held – (1) The mother was not suffering from any specific mental disorder. The issue was how her personality might or might not affect her ability to mother the children. If it did adversely affect her ability, then the issue was whether there was the capacity for change within the time-scale of the children's needs. The problems of the children were far from trivial when they were in the mother's care, and amply justified the intervention of the local authority. Although, at the outset, it appeared that the assessment had failed, as the case unfolded it became clear that situation was in fact very different. The staff at the residential home and the social services department were not really in favour of the assessment with a view to rehabilitation. They were quick to attribute difficult behaviour of the children to increased contact with the mother. There were also occasions when they interpreted matters against the mother, as a matter of criticism, when none was justified. A child psychiatrist involved in the assessment had been misled and the situation presented to him in a false light so that he came to the erroneous conclusion that the assessment had failed. When the inaccurate impression given to the doctor was corrected during the hearing, he was recalled and agreed that the assessment had not broken down. The essential facts, which only became clear during the hearing, included the positive aspects of the assessment; the strongly expressed wishes of the children to return to the mother; the mother's considerable progress in her ability to co- operate; the depth of the attachment between the mother and the children; the support now available from the mother's family; the final recommendation of two child psychiatrists; and the absence of any realistic alternative planning by the local authority for the children. Consequently, the care order would be revoked, care and control would be granted to the mother, and a supervision order to the local authority would be made with a condition that they allocate a black social worker.
(2) The case showed an alarming lack of management by the local authority. They failed to manage and plan for the children. It appeared that no one was in overall control of the case. Court orders and directions had not been given effect, and did not appear to have been explained by the legal advisers to the local authority or understood by the key social worker. No one explained to the children the result, significance, or consequences of events after February 1990. This was contrary to their welfare and to good social work practice. There was no open- mindedness by the staff at the residential home and the key social worker about events. There was a lack of effective communication between social workers and the residential home staff which resulted in a failure to consider appropriately the expressed wishes of the children.
(3) The local authority had failed to consider the effect of Re M (Social Work Records: Disclosure) [1990] FCR 485. Documents which were highly relevant to the considerations before the court were produced unwillingly and only after orders of the court. There were examples of the local authority misleading the court. There needed to be a detailed assessment within the social services department of the need to place cards face upwards in the interests of the children concerned.
(4) Delays in court listing and hearings had contributed to the difficulties in the case and had been detrimental to the welfare of the children. The case should have had a firm timetable after February 1990. It was an example of the need for court control envisaged by the Children Act 1989.
Ernest Ryder for the local authority.
Eleanor Platt, QC and Gillian Irving for the mother.
MRS JUSTICE BRACEWELL.In this case I propose to divide my judgment into two sections. I will deal first with the merits of the case in respect of the welfare of the two wards, who are the first and paramount consideration, and then I shall consider some concerns about the management of the wards by the local authority.
This case concerns two wards of court, namely R, who was born on 13 December 1978, who is 12 years old, and D, who was born on 16 December 1980, who is 10 years old. They are the daughters of the defendant. The children's father has not taken any part in these proceedings.
On 14 February 1990 the local authority were granted a full care order under s 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, the children having been made wards of court in February 1989. Ewbank, J in February 1990, gave leave to the local authority to identify suitable long-term foster parents, but suspended placement of the children pending a further hearing, in order to give the mother the opportunity to take treatment, and for Dr Thomas to file a report with a view to rehabilitation.
The Judge envisaged that the case would be resolved by May 1990. In the event, the assessment of the mother did not commence until the middle of May 1990, and various court delays in listing and lack of court time have resulted in lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pentium (BVI) Ltd Appellant v The Bank of Bermuda Ltd Respondent
... ... referred to a number of cases to support the drawing of the distinction, including Manchester and Oldham Bank Limited v W.A. Cook 4 where a bank manager had no authority to approve a loan but ... 17 Mr. Elkinson relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Morrell v Workers Savings & Loan Bank 8 that oral statements can vary a written bank mandate ... ...