Prospective Adopters v Brighton & Hove City Council (1st Respondent) Father (2nd Respondent) Mother (3rd Respondent) W (A Child) (by her children's guardian) (4th Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Ms Justice Russell DBE |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: UQ12C00161/SD14C00594 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 22 July 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ADOPTION APPLICATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002
AND IN THE MATTER OF W (A Girl)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Justice Russell
Case No: UQ12C00161/SD14C00594
In re W (Adoption application: Reunification with Family of Origin)
Madeleine Reardon (instructed by Osbornes Solicitors) for the Applicants
Andrew Bagchi QC (instructed by the City Council) for the 1 st Respondent
Janet Bazley QC & Chris Barnes (instructed by Harney and Wells Solicitors) for the 2nd Respondent
Catherine Jenkins ( instructed by Howlett Clarke Solicitors) for the 3 rd Respondent
Jonathan Bennett (instructed by Railtons Solicitors) for the 4 th Respondent
Hearing dates: 18 th May to 22 nd May 2015
Introduction
This case concerns a little girl (W) born in November 2012 and who is now 2 years and 7 months old. The child was placed for adoption by Brighton and Hove City Council following public law proceedings in which she was made subject to care and placement orders in September 2013. The application before me is for an adoption order under the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act (ACA) 2002 s 46. The application is made by Mr and Mrs A with whom W was placed 16 months prior to the hearing of this application. In December 2014 the child's father was granted permission by the circuit judge in Brighton to oppose the making of an adoption order under s 47 (5) of ACA and it was that application which was listed before me on the 18 th May 2015. However on the 6 th of May 2015 the Court of Appeal allowed appeals by the 2 nd Respondent ("the father") in this case against care and placement orders made in Brighton County Court on the 19 th September 2013 in respect of his daughter W, reported as Re H (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 583.
The father is the father of four children including W who is the youngest; X, a girl, who was born in 2003 (now 11 years old), Y, a boy, who born in 2007 (now 8 years old) and Z, a boy born in 2009 (now 6 years old). The children are full siblings; the children of the 3 rd Respondent ("the mother"). X, Y and Z all live with their father who has a residence order in his favour, and they were made subject to year long supervision orders in September 2013 (now no longer in force).
As a result of the placement order W (then 14 months old) was placed with the Applicants as prospective adopters. This placement order has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. W had been removed from her father's care when just over 4 weeks old and placed in foster care where she remained until placed with the Applicants in January 2014. At the hearing before District Judge Gamba in September 2013 evidence was heard and a judgment given but, unfortunately the district judge failed to set out in the judgment precisely how he had found the threshold criteria pursuant to s 31 of the Children Act (CA) 1989 were met and did not begin to carry out an analysis of the options regarding W's placement; this latter flaw was the basis of the successful appeal.
It falls to this court to decide whether the welfare of this child is best met by reunification with her birth family to be cared for by her father and to grow up with her siblings or by remaining with, and being adopted by, the Applicants under the provisions of the ACA and the welfare checklist set out in s 1 with particular reference to s 1(2) and (4). The history of W's placement will be set out in detail below and it is of relevance not only because it forms part of the background to the case as a whole but because it will be of relevance to W herself as it is part of her individual background and will form part of her understanding of herself and her identity as she grows up and for the rest of her life.
Family background and history of social services involvement
W was born in November 2012 the youngest of four siblings whose mother ("the mother") suffers poor mental health for which she receives psychiatric treatment, and which, at times, makes it impossible for her to care safely for her children. In turn this affected the father and his ability to care for the children, although it must be recognised that at the times when the mother was well there have not been any concerns about the family and until 2011 there was no substantial concerns recorded by any child protection agencies; the three children were all healthy, attending school and nursery and growing up within their family.
Both the mother and the father had had difficult upbringings and what was described by the local authority as "complex" childhood and family histories. The father had suffered abuse within his own family and was estranged from his mother and two elder siblings. The mother's father did not have contact with her from an early age and her mother died when she was only 12; she lived with an elder sibling and then in foster care. The mother has had long-standing problems with her mental health since she was an adolescent; she has extensive contact with Mental Health Services since 2008. The mother has been thoroughly assessed on more than one occasion, including for the hearing which took place in September 2013. She had previously been diagnosed as suffering from a recurrent depressive disorder and treated for depression. The report contained the diagnosis of an emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) or a diagnosis of a mixed personality disorder with EUPD and Anakastic traits. As is apparent from the documents filed in this case the mother's mental state fluctuates with marked improvement when she takes anti-depressive medication and she is not under stress. The children X, Y and Z all enjoy seeing their mother and, when she is well, they have very happy, stimulating and enjoyable contact with her.
The father had a troubled childhood. He was open in describing this to the social worker who carried out a parenting assessment completed in October 2012. It is abundantly clear that that assessment by Beverley Hendry formed the basis of the local authority's approach towards this family. I shall return to this later in this judgment as it still apparently colours their view of the father. The father's father was a violent, abusive and controlling man; who physically and sexually abused his wife and his children. There was ineffective intervention by social services and other agencies (the children were not sent to school) and it was not until he was 16 and their neighbour intervened that the local authority took action. After his father was forced to leave the family had to move on several occasions when he attempted to find their location. To his credit the father was able to educate himself and despite inevitable gaps in his knowledge he went to college and gained GCSEs. He has been in work in the past and would like to start working in the future.
The mother had self-reported regarding her concerns about the effect of her illness on her family in 2005. The family were referred to social services by the school in 2008 in January and again in April. The father briefly left and returned to the family home in early 2011 because of the mother's behaviour brought about by her condition which included mood swings, deliberate self harm, impulses to harm her children, difficulties controlling anger and violence towards her partner (as described by the psychiatrist who wrote a report in March 2013).
In March 2011 the mother again self-reported about her concerns regarding her anger and that she was frightened of her feelings and of harming the children. She left the family home to stay with friends; she evidently has had insight into her own condition for some time. The relationship between the parents became more difficult as the mother's mental health deteriorated during 2011. It is not necessary for me to set down everything that has been recorded, but there were several hospital admissions including for overdoses, alcohol abuse, incidents of the mother self-harming and short periods of separation. The father remained committed to the mother and to his relationship with her despite the difficulties and the increasing involvement of social services as a result of reports by him, by the mother and by the children's school and nursery as the children had complained about their mother's behaviour at home. In September 2011 the children were made the subjects of Child Protection Plans under the category of emotional abuse. The mother's mental health continued to deteriorate and the father was advised by the local authority that the children should not be left in the sole care of their mother and that it would be better for the children if the couple lived separately.
In November and December 2011 the hospital admissions and attendances at A & E by the mother increased substantially with repeated overdoses and further self-harming. This continued into 2012 when the mother was also subject of detentions by the police under s138 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 and was assessed in hospital under the MHA. The school mentor contacted social services about her concerns regarding the eldest child (X). The father agreed with the local authority that the mother would only see the children on set days supervised by him. In March it was reported by a mid-wife that the mother was pregnant (with W). The parents had a written agreement that the mother would have supervised contact with the children in their home; however by July the mother returned to the family home with social services...
To continue reading
Request your trial