Re B and Others (Children)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Hudson |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1967 (Fam) |
| Date | 22 May 2015 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: UJ13C90006 |
[2015] EWHC 1967 (Fam)
IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 3LA
Her Honour Judge Hudson
Case No: UJ13C90006
In the Matter of the Children Act 1989
And in the Matter of: B & Ors (Children)
Counsel for the Local Authority: Miss Sarah Woolrich
Counsel for the Mother: Miss Clare Gibson
Counsel for the Father: Mr Geoff Hunter
Solicitor for the Child: Mr Andrew Wilkinson
Hearing dates: 18 th– 20 th May 2015
Introduction
I give judgment at the conclusion of care proceedings concerning three children: a girl, Ro (born on 27 th January 2001, aged 14); and two boys, Rh (born on 21 st September 2006, aged 8) and C (born on 30 th November 2008, aged 6). They are the three children of the relationship between M and F, which ended in 2009. Unhappily, these care proceedings were issued as long ago as 26 th November 2013. They came before me for the first time on 10 th February 2015, when the final hearing was listed. Unfortunately, no judge was available to hear the case then. I therefore listed the case on the first available date for final hearing, which was 18 th May 2015.
The three children are subject to interim care orders, which were made on 22 nd May 2014. Ro is living in a small residential unit at Residential Unit A. Rh and C are placed separately in foster care.
In October 2014, the Local Authority served its final care plans. The care plan for Ro provided for her to remain placed at Residential Unit A, subject to a final care order, with on-going contact with her family. In respect of the boys, the Local Authority care plans proposed special guardianship orders in favour of their paternal aunt (PA) and her partner, following the completion of positive special guardianship assessments.
In her statement dated 30 th October 2014 and a further statement dated 29 th January 2015, M set out her case for the return of all three children to her care. She now accepts that since October 2014 she has been involved in another relationship. She and her partner, BM, are expecting a baby, due to be born in August 2015. M indicated her intention to seek the return of the children to the joint care of herself and BM, with support from her parents, MGM and MGF.
In the light of serious allegations of sexual abuse made by M's sister, MA, against MGF, he was joined to the proceedings as an intervener to allow these allegations to be determined. MGF has engaged in the proceedings and, in fact, sought to put forward a case to care for the children himself in the event that the children were not to be returned to their mother. In a statement dated 6 th February 2015, MGM put herself forward as a carer for Ro should the children not return to M's care. Since October 2014, F has accepted the children could not realistically be placed in his care. He supports the placement options within the birth family.
The final hearing was therefore expected to determine a range of factual issues to inform the welfare decision making. These factual issues included the relationship between M and F, their care of the children, the allegations of sexual abuse against MGF, M's failure to protect the children from the risk posed by MGF and her failure to cooperate with professionals.
Recent Developments
In the days before the final hearing was listed to commence, a number of important documents were served. On 15 th May 2015, counsel for MGF served a position statement which confirmed that MGF no longer put himself forward as a carer for the children and, if they were not to be returned to M's care, supported the Local Authority's plans for the children, but sought some form of contact.
The Local Authority's case summary for the final hearing was served the day before the final hearing was listed to commence. The Local Authority had then reviewed the entirety of the disclosure relating to the findings sought against the maternal grandfather, some of which had been received late in the day. For reasons I will return to shortly in a little more detail, the Local Authority indicated it no longer sought to pursue findings of sexual abuse against MGF.
The Final Hearing
On the first day of the final hearing, I was told that M was considering her position. Having done so, I was told she was no longer seeking the return of the children to her care and was not opposing the placement of the boys with PA, subject to special guardianship orders. In the case of Ro, however, she did not support her continuing placement at Residential Unit A, but proposed that Ro should be placed with MGM.
The children's guardian for the three children is Nicola Murphy. Her final analysis was completed on 6 th November 2014, six months ago. In her final analysis, she indicated her support for the Local Authority's plans for the children. Her position has remained unchanged in the light of events since then.
The arrangements for the children's contact with the birth family are agreed. It is agreed that all contact will be supervised although, in the case of MGM's contact with Ro should Ro not be placed with her, the Local Authority accepts they should consider a relaxation of the arrangements for that contact if it continues to go well.
It is agreed that threshold criteria are established. I was provided with a document agreed between the parties containing threshold findings as agreed between the Local Authority, M and F.
In those changed circumstances, the sole welfare issue for my determination at this hearing was therefore whether Ro should move to the care of MGM or whether she should remain in her placement at Residential Unit A. In these circumstances, I did not consider it either necessary or proportionate to investigate the other factual issues. I had myself had the opportunity of reviewing the evidence relating to the allegations made by MA against MGF, in the context of the position of the parties in the case and the placement options for the children. The evidential difficulties relating to MA's allegations were highlighted in a helpful document prepared by Miss Woolrich, for the Local Authority, following full disclosure by the police. I was also alive to the vulnerability of MA herself, although medical evidence had confirmed she was fit to give evidence if required to do so. In the light of the position of the parties, I concurred with their view that it was not necessary and would not be proportionate in these circumstances to investigate and seek to determine these allegations.
During the course of the hearing, I therefore heard evidence from the Local Authority social worker, Viorel Duman, from MGM and from the children's guardian. MGM is not currently a party to these proceedings. She has, however, had access to all of the relevant case papers. In circumstances in which M's case was to support Ro's placement with MGM, Miss Gibson (representing M) effectively put the case on behalf of MGM. I am grateful to Miss Gibson for that, as — I know — is MGM.
In the light of this limited but nonetheless important issue in dispute between the parties, this judgment can be relatively short.
Background
M is now aged 32. F is 39. M is the second of four children from the marriage of MGM and MGF. MA is M's older sister. MA was born in 1981; M was born the following year in 1982. There was Local Authority involvement with the family when the children were young. MA was placed in foster care when she was aged 3. In 1984, a final care order was made in respect of MA and a supervision order was made in respect of M. M was never removed from her parents' care. In 1986, MA first made allegations of a sexual nature against MGF. Investigations were inconclusive.
M's relationship with F was volatile and included episodes of domestic abuse. Ro was born in 2001. From an early age, Ro was cared for by MGM and MGF, who obtained a residence order in respect of her on 22 nd May 2003. Ro later returned to M's care (although when this happened is unclear). Rh was born in 2006, followed by C in 2008. M and F separated in 2009, with the children remaining in their mother's care. In 2012, the Local Authority became aware that MA was distributing leaflets in the area in which the maternal family live (and the children attended school) alleging that MGF was a paedophile. She made a complaint to the police, alleging serious sexual abuse by him during her childhood. He was arrested and was duly charged with two offences of buggery and two offences of indecency with a child. MA also made allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour by MGF to Ro and that Ro's behaviour was sexualised.
M and MGM have always been resolute in their support for MGF's denial of these allegations. The Local Authority was understandably concerned to ensure the children were protected from any risk of harm from MGF in the light of those allegations. The Local Authority therefore formulated a written agreement, which was signed by M on 31 st May 2013, in which she gave her agreement that she would not allow MGF unsupervised contact with the children or allow him to visit the family home. The children were, however, accommodated by the Local Authority and placed in foster care on 7 th June 2013, following a strategy meeting which considered information indicating that M had not adhered to the working agreement.
In July 2013, Rh, then aged 6, made allegations of a sexual nature against MGF concerning his step-siblings and implicated his mother as knowing of the events. Contact was suspended for a period, but reinstated...
To continue reading
Request your trial