Northamptonshire County Council v M and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Francis |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 997 (Fam) |
| Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: MK16C80022 |
[2017] EWHC 997 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Birmingham Family Court
33 Bull Street
Birmingham B4 6DS
Mr Justice Francis
Case No: MK16C80022
Mr P Horrocks (instructed by LGSS Law) appeared on behalf of the applicant
Miss A McKenna (instructed by Northants Family Law) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
Mrs J Pinkham (instructed by Atherton Godfrey Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
Miss L Cavanagh (instructed by Penmans Solicitors LLP) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent, by his Children's Guardian
Ms P Van Spall (instructed by Borneo Martell Turner Coulston LLP) appeared on behalf of the Fourth and Fifth Respondents
These proceedings, brought by an application dated 5 th April 2016, concern A. The case concluded late on Friday 20 th January, leaving insufficient time for preparation and delivery of a full Judgment. However, the parties all invited me to indicate my decision that day, which I did. I ordered that A be placed with his grandmother and her partner SG. Furthermore, I made it clear that I would be making a special guardianship order in favour of the maternal grandmother and SG. When indicating my decision I gave short reasons and I now set out my full Judgment.
In this Judgment I shall refer to the parties as follows:
(a) Northamptonshire County Council: "the local authority";
(b) M: "the mother";
(c) F: "the father";
(d) Lynda Beat: "the Guardian";
(e) GM: "the grandmother";
(f) The grandmother's partner Mr SG: "SG".
Also before the court are Human Rights Act claims brought respectively by the mother, the father and A (through his Guardian) against the local authority. It was agreed from the outset of the hearing that I would not determine these Human Rights Act claims at this stage of the proceedings, primarily because there was insufficient court time and it was, properly, the view of all that I must first determine fundamental welfare issues in relation to A. Moreover, and in any event, the court will not yet be in a position to determine what, if any, loss A has suffered. I make clear from the outset, however, that I find the local authority to have been in egregious breach of its duties towards the mother, the father and A and I am completely satisfied that many (if not all) of the pleaded claims against the local authority or breaches of article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and article 8 (right to family life) are made out. Only speculation, which is of course always to be avoided, could fuel consideration of what orders the court might have made had proper and timely steps been taken by this local authority in relation to A's welfare.
The history
A was born in the early summer of 2012 and is accordingly four and a half years old. His mother is M, who lives in Northamptonshire, as does his grandmother. The grandmother has lived with SG since 2011 who, although not a blood relative to A, is in effect his maternal grandfather. A's father is F who lives in Doncaster near his parents. The father has parental responsibility.
Very sadly, and through no fault of any family members, uncertainty has shrouded almost all of A's young life. What is agreed is that this uncertainty must now end. A was placed into the care of his grandmother and SG at the end of August 2013 and yet the local authority did not issue care proceedings until mid-February 2016. In the intervening period, some nine or ten different social workers have been involved in this case. The circumstances in which A came to be placed with the grandmother are troubling. Whilst this court has nothing but praise for the grandmother and SG for the care that they have provided to A, the fact is that the legality of the placement is in serious doubt. A had no independent reviewing officer between August 2013 and January 2014, even though he was a Looked After Child. The local authority took a major role in making arrangements for A to be moved to his grandmother and it seems certain that it was exercising its powers and duties as a public authority, and in this regard I have been referred to the case of London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] 1 FLR 2181. Indeed, in the local authority's initial statement it was actually admitted and averred that they placed A with the maternal grandparents as carers.
The family had first become known to social care back in 2012 following a referral from a health visitor who was worried about the mother, who she felt was vulnerable and lacking insight into the risk of meeting men on the Internet. The health visitor felt that the mother was too trusting of the men that she was meeting on social media to the extent that she was inviting them home and allowing them to have contact with A, without being assessed. A was only nine weeks old when these concerns were first raised with social care. Furthermore, the health visitor felt that although the mother was A's sole carer, she was only managing this with a lot of support from her parents (by which I think we should take to mean her mother and SG). The mother was provided with support via a common assessment framework where she was referred to various agencies for support around her parenting and lifestyle choices. It was said at the time that she did not engage with the support offered such as Home Start and nor did she attend team family meetings. Given where we now are, there is limited merit in analysing these historical issues which the local authority has not pursued at this hearing.
At a strategy meeting, followed by a child protection conference, on the 24 th September 2013, A was made the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect. The statement of H C (referred to at this hearing as "H") dated 13 th January 2016 records that the mother was described by "various professionals" as a very vulnerable, needy, naive and immature adult. That statement also records that on 10 th October 2013, the mother signed a section 20 statement, "thereby formalising the arrangement for A remaining with maternal grandparents". It is this section 20 statement that is said to have legitimised A's placement with the maternal grandparents. Despite holding parental responsibility for A, the father was never asked to sign a section 20 statement, nor was he advised of his rights, or that he should seek legal representation.
I refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in London Borough of Hackney v Williams [2017] EWCA Civ 26 and in particular to the judgment, at paragraph 34, of the President of the Queen's Division, Sir Brian Leveson, when he said:
"The 1989 Act contains coercive powers but section 20 is not intended to and does not create powers of compulsion: it falls within Part III of the Act, the essence of which is an emphasis on the fact that the assumption of responsibility for care and the provision of accommodation in these circumstances is voluntary. As it is at the centre of this appeal, it is appropriate to set this provision out in full:
(1) Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of —
(a) there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
(b) his being lost or having been abandoned; or
(c) the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care.
(2) Where a local authority provide accommodation under subsection (1) for a child who is ordinarily resident in the area of another local authority, that other local authority may take over the provision of accommodation for the child within —
(a) three months of being notified in writing that the child is being provided with accommodation; or
(b) such other longer period as may be prescribed.
(3) Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who has reached the age of sixteen and whose welfare the authority consider is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation.
(4) A local authority may provide accommodation for any child within their area (even though a person who has parental responsibility for him is able to provide him with accommodation) if they consider that to do so would safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
(5) A local authority may provide accommodation for any person who has reached the age of sixteen but is under twenty-one in any community home which takes children who have reached the age of sixteen if they consider that to do so would safeguard or promote his welfare.
(6) Before providing accommodation under this section, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare —
(a) ascertain the child's wishes [and feelings] regarding the provision of accommodation; and
(b) give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes [and feelings] of the child as they have been able to ascertain.
(7) A local authority may not provide accommodation under this section for any child if any person who —
(a) has parental responsibility for him; and
(b) is willing and able to —
(i) provide accommodation for him; or
(ii) arrange for accommodation to be provided for him, objects.
(8) Any person who has parental responsibility for a child may at any time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northamptonshire County Council and another v Lord Chancellor (via the Legal Aid Agency)
...claim: procedure), Re: Practice Note [2017] EWHC 450 (Fam), [2017] 1 WLR 3451, [2017] 2 FLR 1609. Northamptonshire County Council v M [2017] EWHC 997 (Fam), [2017] 2 FLR Following the parties’ agreement that the parents’ application for declaratory relief (in connection with their claims fo......