Re C (A Minor) (Care: Balancing Exercise)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
THORPE, J
Children – abuse – inadequate parenting – very young parents – five children – children sexually abused – children beyond control of mother – care order made – children irrevocably inalternative care – sixth child born – wardship proceedings begun immediately – balancing exercise – whether sixth child should be exposed to risk of repetition of abuse and inadequate parenting – value of expert evidence – finely balanced issue – case adjourned for expert assessment.
Children – sexual abuse – Cleveland Report guidelines not followed – excessive interviewing of children with leading and ambiguous questions – interviews relied on not video recorded – hazards of interviewing young children and children with limited understanding and powers of expression – failure to adopt best practice to be weighed against assessment of oral evidence of witnesses.
The parents cohabited from 1981 but did not marry. When they began to live together the mother was aged 18 and the father 16. The mother had a child, the "first child", of whom the father was not the father. That child was born in 1980. During the period of their cohabitation, the parents had five children: the second child was born in 1983, the third in 1986, the fourth in 1987, the fifth in 1989, and the sixth in 1991.
In January 1982 the first child sustained a fractured wrist. This was then accepted as accidental. In February 1982 (within a month) the first child was admitted to hospital with multiple bruising and with relatively gross injuries to his penis. He was removed from the parents and a care order made. The child was returned to the parents in July 1982 and in 1984 the care order was discharged and a supervision order substituted.
During the period of 1982 to 1988, as the family grew, the parenting became chaotic. Clinic appointments were not kept and the children did not receive their immunisations. The mother was unable to control the children. The first child was dirty and enuretic. He smelled of urine and was very hungry at school. The first and third children had poor school attendance. The fourth child failed to thrive through missed night feeds. Aid and support was offered but refused by the mother. There was evidence of physical abuse additional to the injuries the first child had received in 1982. There was also evidence of emotional abuse.
In December 1988 the first child was examined by a community paediatrician because of his enuresis. The doctor was of opinion that the child had been sexually abused. The child was taken into care under an interim order.
In February 1989 the second, third and fourth children were medically examined. The opinion of the paediatrician was that the second and third children had been sexually abused and that the fourth child showed signs of deprivation and possible sexual abuse. In March 1989 these children were taken into care under interim orders.
In April 1989 the mother gave birth to the fifth child. She stated she did not want the child and this child, too, was received into care.
Between December 1988 and April 1989 the first to third children were interviewed on a number of occasions. The interviews were generally inclusive but evidence began to emerge that the abuse had probably occurred outside the family home. However, in June 1989 the first and third children told the proprietor of the children's home where they were living that they had been abused by the father. The third child (then aged 3) was further interviewed and began to identify the father as the abuser. Arrangements were made for further medical examinations. The first child refused to be examined but the doctor described him as an extremely frightened and emotionally disturbed child. The doctor found physical signs of sexual abuse of the second to fourth children. The children were further interviewed on several occasions.
In July 1989 the first and second children told the guardian ad litem that they had been abused by the father.
In November 1989 care orders were made in respect of all five children and they were placed in permanent alternative care.
The sixth child was born on 24 April 1991. On 25 April wardship proceedings were begun in respect of that child. An order was made by consent giving interim care of the child to the local authority with leave to place the child in a specialist unit with the mother. The mother was reluctant to be separated from the father but reluctantly agreed and on 10 May went to the unit with the baby. But on 21 May she decided to return to the father and left the baby at the unit. The baby was placed with foster parents and arrangements made for access by the parents. The local authority applied for a care order in respect of the child. The parents applied that the child be placed in their care.
Held – (1) The hearing had concentrated very much on whether the father had sexually abused the elder children. But the main issue was the standards of parenting generally. The guidelines set out in the Cleveland Report had not been followed in that there had been too many interviews of the children and none of the interviews relied on had been video recorded. With such plain departures from good practice, very great importance attached to the oral evidence of the witnesses. In this case, the social worker principally involved with the children showed herself to be extremely fair-minded and careful in her approach to the case. Although, on paper, the interviews seem to carry considerable danger of distortion or suggestion, justified criticisms of those interviews were outweighed by the wisdom, moderation, sensitivity, and experience of the social worker. Similarly, the report and evidence of the guardian ad litem was a comprehensive assessment of the situation by a person with very great experience. The evidence of the parents, on the other hand, was not convincing. It was not disputed that the children had been sexually abused. However, although there was a manifest possibility that the children had been sexually abused both outside the family and by the father, it would be wrong to make a specific finding that the father had abused the children. But it would be equally wrong to ignore the risk the father might pose to the sixth child: observations of Butler-Sloss, LJ in Re W (Minors) (Wardship: Evidence) [1990] FCR 286 at p 310A followed. Further, there was a catalogue of inadequate parenting of the elder children; there was evidence of physical abuse; and evidence of emotional abuse. The totality of the evidence established the local authority's case.
(2) The issue was whether the parents' performance in respect of the five elder children was so inadequate that it would be inappropriate to expose the sixth child to the risk of repetition. That involved a balancing exercise. The balance was a fine one. Expert evidence of experienced child psychiatrists and developmental paediatricians would have been particularly valuable. The decision was not so plain that the past record outweighed the mitigating circumstances that could be urged for the parents. They were very young when they embarked on family life and the accepted failures were almost inevitable given the scale of the family with which they had
burdened themselves. In the circumstances, the chances for natural parenting, although slender, deserved further investigation by an independent expert. The case would therefore be adjourned for this to take place and the case restored in April or May 1992.
Caroline Budden for the local authority.
Elizabeth Brann for the first defendant.
Jeremy Posnansky for the second defendant.
MR JUSTICE THORPE.I give this judgment in open court, but obviously the confidentiality of the parties is to be maintained. I will refer to them throughout by initials, if necessary.
The case is brought in wardship by the plaintiffs. It is to decide the future of a child, C, born on 24 April 1991. She is the last born child of the defendant parents, who are not married but who have cohabited as man and wife for at least a decade now.
The mother is 29 years of age and the father 27. They have four older children born to their relationship. Moving from youngest upwards, A (who was born in 1989), T, (born in 1987), N (born in 1986) and M (born in 1983). In addition, there is one child born to the mother, W (born in 1980). The defendant father is not the father of W. He is the child of a named individual with whom the mother had a relationship. The relationship ended when she was approximately six months' pregnant, and was swiftly followed by the flowering of the relationship between the defendants. They had been at school together and the father moved in to cohabitation with the mother and W in about March 1981, when W was about 6 months of age.
It is very important, in my judgment, to note that at that date the defendant father was only approximately 16¼ years of age himself. He had left school apparently in about May 1980, when he was approximately 15½ years of age. He had left school with no qualifications and his career thereafter seems to have been largely dependent upon support from his own family. His father is a cook, as are all his older brothers, and a job was found for him cooking in a restaurant which belonged to one of his older brothers.
The records show that in early January 1982 W was admitted to the casualty department at a local hospital suffering from a fractured wrist. At the time the explanation furnished was that he had hurt himself when jumping off his bed. Subsequently, and in evidence in these proceedings, it was said that he had slipped off the banisters or fallen on the stairs. The explanation was, at the time, accepted and no particular concern seems to have been raised by that episode.
But on 5 February of that year (ie within the month) he was admitted to hospital with multiple bruising, and significantly with relatively gross injuries to his penis. Non-accidental injury was inevitably...
To continue reading
Request your trial