Re M
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hayden |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3758 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No. IL12C00117 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 07 November 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 3758 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Hayden
Case No. IL12C00117
APPEARANCES
Ms. Briggs appeared on behalf of the Local Authority.
Ms. Probingher appeared on behalf of the Mother. (SM)
Ms. Bisbey appeared on behalf of the Father, LM.
Ms. Kirby appeared on behalf of Father, (SN).
Ms. Bradley appeared on behalf of JM.
Ms. Brooks appeared on behalf of the Maternal Grandparents (RM & AM).
Ms. Fotrell appeared on behalf of the Guardian.
I am concerned in this case with four children: AMN, who is eight years of age, having been born on [a date in] 2005; RMN, who is aged five, having been born on [a date in] 2008; JMM, who is three, having been born on [a date in] 2009; and EMM who is 25 months of age, having been born on [a date in] 2011. SM is the mother of all four children. LM is the father to JMM and EMM. SN is the father to AMN and RMN. Both fathers are represented in these proceedings, as too are the maternal grandparents, RM and AM. Their son, JM (also known as SC, but to whom I shall refer as "JM" throughout this hearing) is represented by counsel, Ms. Bradley. He has not attended at court and is not fit to do so.
The children's mother, SM, experienced an unhappy childhood which has been the focus of much scrutiny during the course of this hearing, and in respect of which I will make findings later in this judgment. SM has always recognised that she is unable to care for her children and has effectively consigned each of them to her parents' care, either from birth or certainly from very early in their lives.
In respect of EMM, the youngest child, SM has never lived with him. EMM was born at the North Middlesex Hospital. On 18 th July 2011, he was discharged, and an agreement was made with the mother that she would live with EMM at her parents' home. In the event, the mother chose to go to be with her partner, LM, and EMM went to live with his grandparents, joining his sibling JMM, and his half-siblings AMN and RMN. That arrangement came about therefore, in effect, by default in the sense that it had never been the subject of any professional assessment.
In those months after EMM's discharge de facto into his grandparents' care, it was clear, or at least it certainly ought to have been, that he and his siblings were living in circumstances that really required careful professional evaluation. It was evident that the mother had longstanding emotional and mental health difficulties. LM, her partner, had been convicted of a sexual assault on a 13-year old girl. There were, I remind myself, at that time concerns that LM may have also acted in a sexually inappropriate way to other younger girls. Those allegations have not been pursued by the Local Authority. Later, when I come to evaluate the issues of sexual abuse in this case, I will disregard those allegations altogether. I will do so because they have nil evidential value in that context. However, as allegations surrounding the family, they ought, in my view, to have, matters that I have referred to, triggered a high level of proactive social work involvement.
If that picture in and of itself were not worrying enough, there was another striking concern. AM and RM, the maternal grandparents, had three other children: AM, to whom I will return in detail in due course, and twin boys, RM and JM. The twins had celebrated their 18 th birthday by a macabre killing. Involved with a third man, they had gone to the home of an aged, extended family member, their sister's grandmother, entered her home and, in a joint enterprise, killed her by strangulation. They were later seen on closed circuit television laughing and joking as they divided the spoils of her meager belongings amongst themselves. Following a trial in which all three were convicted of manslaughter, the twins received sentences of 12 years' imprisonment. Reports describe them as having learning difficulties and personality disorders.
Having been convicted on 14 th July 2006, they became eligible for release on licence by September 2011. No doubt the Parole Board had far more information at its disposal when determining the boys' individual suitability for release, but it is profoundly concerning that JM wrote a letter to his parents as late as 10 th April 2011, in which he said as follows:
"If I am supposed to get out, they better get me to hospital quick cos, as I said on the phone, I know I will kill someone when I'm out unless I get help."
In custody, as I alluded to earlier, JM had changed his name to SC. As he later confirmed to a psychiatrist, S referred to "shadow people", who are, apparently, dark entities with malevolent intentions. C apparently relates to a popular film about a detective who battles dark and supernatural forces. In any event, both twins were released on parole on 9 th September 2011. They were considered to be "high risk" in the community and needing constant supervision. By the conditions of their licence, the brothers were prevented from seeing each other — a condition which had its roots in violent arguments which had taken place between the two when in custody together. They were excluded from the local area of Enfield, and they were to remain on licence for an extended period.
Knowing what they did directly about the risk JM posed, the thoughts he had been having and, as SM told me in evidence, her own concerns about her personal safety, (JM having threatened her verbally on the telephone), one might reasonably have expected the grandparents to be supportive of these Home Office terms. In fact they were vociferously and volubly opposed to what they perceived as the injustice of them. The maternal grandfather told a Hackney social worker that the probation services were biased against his sons, in consequence of "the high level of publicity that had surrounded the case". Despite the fact that there were four children under age eight years living at their home, they apparently wanted the boys to come home, particularly over the Christmas period.
What was emerging clearly was a troubling inability on behalf of the maternal grandparents to focus on the children's needs. An indication that this might well have been a problem in the past with their own children ought at the very least to have been signalled by the fact that their eldest daughter, AM, and, as I understand it, the twins (although information is contradictory) had each spent some time in Local Authority care. There were clear warning signs that the maternal grandparents' attitude to sexual abuse of minors was problematic. Notwithstanding LM'S conviction for a sexual offence against a minor, neither grandparent believed him to present a risk of any kind, and liberal periods of overnight contact were being encouraged between LM and his son, JMM.
Against this backdrop, it is, to say the least, profoundly depressing that the Social Services' response appears to have been, at best, minimal. For months three local authorities — Hackney, Enfield and Haringey — jostled amongst themselves as to who had responsibility to lead child protective measures. It follows that without a lead there can scarcely be focus. Quite how significant that failure was will become clear when I come to determine the disputed allegations in this case. By my calculation, at least six months were lost on this issue. I can see there are many reasons why Local Authorities in this climate might wish to avoid the burden of responsibility for a case like this. It inevitably absorbs already stretched resources, both financial and in terms of personnel. I have not permitted court time to be deflected into an investigation as to whether any particular Authority was acting unreasonably or was wrong in law. There have been too many other pressing issues in this case directly concerned with the welfare of the children now that need to be considered as a priority. I do not therefore condemn any one of those Local Authorities, but I do send this signal: that if Local Authorities seek to evade responsibility for child protection to avoid costs, they are likely to face liability in negligence, administrative law and under human rights legislation. As the family courts embrace the opportunities and advantages that greater transparency may bring, Local Authorities who behave in that way will not be able to avail themselves of the cloak of anonymity under which, in the past, they might have found refuge.
There followed in due course a number of separate investigations. A section 7 report was prepared, and two section 37 reports. Ms. Briggs, counsel on behalf of the Local Authority, has told me on a number of occasions during the course of this hearing that she has used her best endeavours to track down that section 7 report. It finally emerged some time this morning, I have had a chance to read through it and will refer to it.
Many of the issues that I have just set out were known to the authors of these reports. They concluded, however, that the children should remain with their grandparents. Quoting from the second of the two reports, which I take to have been prepared sometime in early May or late April 2012 (for, like so many other documents presented in this case, it is undated) the author concludes as follows:
"There are some issues arising from recent interventions in both psychiatry, probation and social services in relation to how disturbed the grandparents' own children, RM, S and SM present as. These adults have made significant allegations in relation to the treatment that they received at the hands of their parents and parents'...
To continue reading
Request your trial