Re Mm (A Child) (Long Term Fostering / Placement With Family Members) (Wishes and Feelings)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Pauffley |
| Judgment Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2697 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FC12C00009 |
| Date | 22 August 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 2697 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Pauffley
Case No: FC12C00009
Alistair Perkins for the London Borough of Sutton
Sylvester McIlwain for KK, the mother
Tom Dudley for the McKs, the maternal great aunt and uncle
Debbie Jacobs for the Children's Guardian, Karen Gorbutt
Hearing dates: 21 st and 22 nd August 2013
I direct that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment consists of 55 paragraphs. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Introduction
This has been the final part of care proceedings about a boy who is 7 years and four months old. In February this year at the end of a lengthy fact finding hearing, involving 6 children born to three mothers I commented that for MM and his younger brother JB, the local authority's plans were inchoate. In relation to MM, there was an ongoing assessment of MM's great aunt and uncle, TMcK and JMcK. Initial indications were said to be encouraging.
In February, Ms Gorbutt, the Children's Guardian was opposed to any permanency plan for MM which would have had the effect of taking him away from his current foster mother where he was making quite excellent progress. If he were to stay within his short term foster family, the indications at the February hearing, were that it would be on the basis of long term fostering under a care order. Understandably enough, given MM's age, the local authority was disinclined to pursue any such solution, for all of the usual reasons. If at all possible, as a matter of general principle, any young child who is not to return home should be provided with an alternative, legally secure family which will endure for the remainder of his minority and beyond.
At the end of the February hearing, I observed that for MM, I believed there to be no viable alternative to continued separation from his mother. All the signs were that when he was received into care, MM was traumatised. He has been completely opposed to any form of contact with her. There is no alternative to planning for MM on the basis that he cannot return to live with KK.
The July hearing at Reading
During the course of what had been intended to be the final 'welfare stage' of the care process, at Reading on 17 th, 18 th and 19 th July, there were a number of developments which made it quite impossible to conclude the proceedings for MM. The McKs, for whatever reason, had been largely left on the periphery rather than encouraged to participate in the hearing, notwithstanding one of the most favourable special guardianship assessments I have ever encountered. Moreover, it was only on the day the hearing was due to begin that the local authority arranged for them to take legal advice.
There had been suggestions, resulting from telephone conversations that the McKs would not want to oppose the local authority and the guardian who, at that time, were united in promoting a care plan for MM of long term fostering throughout the remainder of his minority in the home of his foster mother, SL.
On the second day, 18 th July, Mrs McK attended with Counsel, Mr Dudley. The independent author of the special guardianship report, Tina Ruffles, had been due to attend but was caught in traffic. It emerged during the course of 17 th / 18 th July that very significant parts of her report had not reached the local authority nor any other party because of an administrative error.
During the course of the hearing at Reading, I described in some detail the advantages, as I saw them, of MM being enabled to move permanently in to the home of Mr and Mrs McK. During the afternoon of 18 th July, there was a professionals' meeting attended by the allocated social worker, Mr Rowat, his team manager, Joanne Rabbitte, Tina Ruffles and Karen Gorbutt.
The proceedings for MM were adjourned to these two days in August to allow for the local authority to re-evaluate its proposals, to enable the McKs to participate in a series of meetings at which they would be able to fully discuss MM's emotional and other needs and for consideration to be given to the most appropriate orders in MM's welfare interests, if he were to move to the McKs' home.
Developments in the last month
When the hearing begun yesterday morning, it was immediately obvious that in the time available, the McKs had not been able to fully formulate their aspirations in terms of the order they would seek so as to secure MM's placement with them. As Mrs McK observed, her "head was spinning." During recent days they had moved from wishing to be special guardians, to supporting the local authority's plan leading to adoption and then, if I'm not mistaken, reverting to special guardianship because of the availability of support plans under such an order. They had received advice from their Solicitor, had considered the options with the local authority as well as with the guardian; and they did not know in which direction they should be heading.
This hearing
At the outset of this hearing, it seemed to me that the priority for MM was to arrive at a conclusion as to where and with whom he will be living for the rest of his childhood. He has been in interim care since his removal from his mother's home on 1 st February 2012. Moreover, since MM has become aware that thought is being given to him moving to live with his great aunt, uncle and their children, he has made clear his bemusement that the process is taking so long.
Since the hearing at Reading, as part of its assessment exercise, the local authority has arranged for MM to have additional, unsupervised and staying contact at the McK's home. So as to fulfil my responsibility to him, it was apparent that I should not delay further in making the all important decision as to whether he should be placed with the McKs. The time for consideration as to the framework of orders, so as to govern that placement, can well wait until the autumn, when court time will be available for resolution of any dispute.
Parties' positions
By the end of the court day yesterday, there was a unification of positions between the local authority, the mother and the McKs. All three invite me to sanction a revised care plan which would involve MM in moving to the home of the McKs at the beginning of half term in October, moving to his new school where one of the McK's sons is a pupil at the end of the half term holiday and, significantly, informing MM that these are the sure and certain decisions which have been made so that he can begin to adjust to them.
The mother's stance
Whereas it had been the mother's stated hope that MM would be able to return to live with her, it became very obvious when she gave her evidence that she recognises the realities. In response to one of Mr Mcllwain's first questions KK said that although she would have loved to see him come back to her, she "(does) understand that cannot happen." For the future, "it would all depend on him, how he feels and how his emotional needs develop."
KK's support for the McKs could not be more fulsome. She described how she loved them both, how they had been "more of a Mum and Dad" to her than her own parents and that TMcK is "an amazing, wonderful person who when she puts her mind to something, gets on and does it." KK said of Mrs McK that she is "a very strong woman who always ensures everyone else is put first and before herself." KK has "no doubts"; she knows the McKs would be "wonderful" for MM; and she has "no hesitation in saying he should move to live with them."
I was moved by the mother's ability to concentrate upon MM's needs and to fully support the McKs. I was in no doubt as to her sincerity. There was no sense in which I considered KK was only paying 'lip service' to the notion that MM should live with the McKs. She meant what she said and deserves full credit for that. I believe her when she said she would never do anything to undermine his placement, would make careful plans so as to avoid bumping in to him accidentally and would do all she could to avoid MM becoming emotionally distressed.
KK at this hearing, maybe because she's been in the presence of a much loved aunt and uncle, has been able to show another, very child focussed, side of herself. She was even able to contemplate MM being adopted by the McKs but expressed strong resistance to him being known other than as K or M, her own or his existing surname. Perhaps the mother is desperate for there to be some outward sign of MM's identity and biological roots — I know not.
The guardian's position
Ms Gorbutt does not agree with the general 'direction of travel' and suggests that instead of making final care orders on the basis of the local authority's revised care plan I should enable there to be further assessment by an organisation called 'Family Futures' because, as she said in evidence, "we do not have a full picture" of MM's needs.
Ms Gorbutt has "real concerns as to the trauma (MM) has suffered." She "cannot think of another case in which there has not been an expert assessment of need" before moving to permanency; and for her, "it's all about minimising trauma." It is the "risk of distress" which troubles Ms Gorbutt and MM, in her view, will "experience a move from his current carer as a loss."
Ms...
To continue reading
Request your trial