Re Mr (A Child)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Pauffley |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1156 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 07 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: MW11C00114 |
[2013] EWHC 1156 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Pauffley
Case No: MW11C00114
Camille Habboo for the Applicant local authority
Alison Ball QC and Philip Squire for the mother, KH (formerly KR)
Jacqueline Wehrle for the father, NR
Anna McKenna for the children's guardian Miss Camilla Doolin
Hearing dates: 22 nd and 23 rd April 2013
This judgment is being handed down in private on 7 May 2013. It consists of 60 paragraphs and has been signed and dated by the judge. 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 and key issue
This has been the second and final stage of care proceedings which were commenced as long ago as December 201They relate to MR, born at the end of October that year, so that he is aged 18 months. He sustained life threatening injuries when only a month old. Since his discharge from hospital in early February 2012, he has lived with foster parents. His mother, KH, has not seen him since 12 th October 2012; the last contact between him and his father, NR, was on 24 th October that year.
The key issue at this hearing is as to whether I should resolve the local authority's applications by making care and placement orders or instead embark upon a process of the kind suggested by Miss Ball QC and Mr Squire so as to evaluate whether rehabilitation between MR and his mother is a viable option.
Essential background
The essential background is set out within the opening paragraphs of the judgment I gave on 16 th November 2012. The purpose of that 7 day hearing was to investigate the circumstances in which MR came to be so gravely injured and to make findings as necessary about the role of the parents in the circumstances leading up to his admission to hospital.
Key events since the fact finding hearing
In the immediate aftermath of the judgment, Mr Squire, the mother's Counsel, indicated that she did not invite me to make any order for the resumption of contact or for any further assessment of the mother. Her parents, the maternal grandparents, were prioritising the need to look after their daughter, provide her with a home and give her the emotional support she required after the hearing. The mother's sister, CH and her husband AH, were put forward by the mother as the individuals who should be assessed as a potential long term prospect for MR.
The final part of the proceedings had been listed for three days in mid December. Most regrettably, as it turned out, two of the those three days were vacated at the end of the November hearing primarily because it was thought that the proceedings might and probably would be resolved consensually as the result of a positive assessment of the maternal aunt and uncle.
However, after a period of initial assessment which went well and having had a period in which to reflect upon the contents of my judgment as well as to consider the impact of looking after MR long term, Mr and Mrs H decided to withdraw from the process, a matter which has caused the mother a great deal of anguish.
On 7 th December 2012, the local authority's care plan for MR to be adopted was endorsed by the Independent Reviewing Officer at a LAC review.
On 12 th December 2012, as the result of the maternal aunt's and uncle's decision, Mr Squire made an unsuccessful application for further assessment of his client by a Systemic Psychodynamic Family Therapist, Carol Edwards. The case was listed for final hearing on 22 nd and 23 rd April 2013.
On 8 th January 2013, the father visited the offices of Social Services and made clear that he was not in a position to contest the plan for adoption. He recognised that in all probability, MR would be adopted. Miss Wehrle's carefully drafted position statement for this hearing reflects his stance.
On 11 th January, during the course of a meeting at which the mother was described as extremely angry, she told Miss Dungate, the allocated social worker, that her sister was "dead" to her following her decision to withdraw as a long term carer for MR. According to the mother's evidence at this hearing, she did not speak to CH for three months but since about March of this year they have been reconciled.
The father's criminal trial at Maidstone Crown Court on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent began on 18 th January. The mother who described herself in evidence as "the main prosecution witness" says she gave evidence for three days. On 4 th February, the father was convicted and sentenced to a 10 year term of imprisonment.
The local authority's final care plan of adoption which is fully supported by Max's guardian, Camilla Doolin, was endorsed by the Agency Decision Maker on 22 nd February.
Towards the end of March, the mother's lawyers initiated an application for permission to appeal both the fact finding judgment and also the 12 th December order declining the mother a further assessment. The application for permission was refused on the papers by MacFarlane LJ on 12 th April 2013 who observed that the process "is one single hearing with the potential for change and development in the evidence and the judicial view as the hearing progresses." He also related that his refusal of permission "does not prejudice the mother's ability to seek to raise some or all of the matters currently raised if, following an opportunity to take the points of clarification and / or argument in front of Pauffley J, the mother wishes to seek permission to appeal the judge's final determination."
This hearing
On the first day of this hearing, having afforded the mother's legal team some time to construct a draft document, I was confronted with a list of questions by Miss Ball and Mr Squire entitled "Request for Clarification." I then proceeded to hear the oral evidence of Ms Dungate, the allocated social worker, the mother, KH (she has reverted to using her maiden name) and then Miss Doolin, MR's guardian.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Miss Ball suggested I should provide my written responses to her clarification questions before I heard submissions as to how the 'welfare' stage of the process should be resolved. Miss Ball argued it would be illogical for her to be required to make her submissions before she knew how I had answered her questions. Miss Ball said she would be able to provide written submissions as to the outcome of the welfare stage very quickly after delivery of my answers. I was pressed to fall in with her request.
I did not to accede to that proposal and indicated to Miss Ball that she should make her submissions on the basis of the facts found against her client last November. After all, the mother's evidence in response to the November findings at this hearing had been more or less identical to that given at the hearing in December. It is as clear now as it has been all along that the mother does not accept the various significant criticisms of her contained within the November judgment. I saw no reason to defer hearing submissions until after the provision of my answers to Miss Ball's questions. It would have been both inconvenient and creative of further delay.
Moreover, as Miss Habboo correctly identified, the two processes are distinct and separate. The Request for Clarification is so as to assist the mother in her proposed appeal. The judgment resulting from the late April hearing is the last part of the care proceedings when decisions are made about MR's welfare needs.
The mother's proposals
I turn to consider the mother's proposals as to how the case should proceed. In summary, Miss Ball and Mr Squire suggest there should be some form of combined assessment of the mother to evaluate risk (perhaps), her emotional and psychological functioning as well as parenting capacity. A quantity of material has been supplied from Parenting Profiles Ltd., and also Nigel Blagg Associates (Adult and Child Psychology Expert Witnesses) with the names and curriculum vitaes of a number of psychologists who, it is suggested, might be suitable to evaluate the prospects for rehabilitation. At the same time, or it could be a sequential exercise, the mother's team suggests involving an expert such as Dr Berelowitz to advise in the vexed area of contact, how if at all it might be successfully re-started and what might be done to improve the circumstances for the child.
A little later in her submissions, Miss Ball accepted on behalf of her client that in reality she cannot ask for a risk assessment because the mother does not accept she presents any kind of a risk. Miss Ball accepts that KH's position is very clearly the same as it was at the November and December hearings. She is adamant that she has not lied, did not fail to protect MR and will not admit to something she maintains is not true. So, says Miss Ball, her client is caught in a terrible bind.
Miss Ball submits that this is not the right time to close the door, that the local authority's care plan for adoption represents "the most draconian outcome" for this child and that, as yet, all avenues towards rehabilitation have not been explored. This child, argues Miss Ball, deserves the opportunity for full exploration of the mother's capability to look after him particularly given that she has a very supportive family.
It is also relevant, so Miss Ball submits, that before the events of 1 st December 2011, there were no...
To continue reading
Request your trial