Re W-Z (Children) (Welfare Decision)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Willans |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWFC 94 |
| Court | Family Court |
| Docket Number | Case No: ZW21C00348 |
[2023] EWFC 94
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Willans
Case No: ZW21C00348
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BARNET
St Marys Court,
Regents Park Road,
London N3 1BQ
Richard O'Sullivan (instructed by HB Public Law) for the Applicant
Sarah McMeechan (instructed by Machins Solicitors) for the First Respondent
Baldip Singh (instructed by AC Gilead Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Kate Hudson (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Third-Sixth Respondents
Hearing dates: 16–19, 22–24 May and 19 June 2023
On 12 December 2022 I handed down judgment following a fact find hearing. The judgment can be found within the National Archives Case law with neutral citation [2022] EWFC 193. In that judgment I made three findings:
i) the mother had caused a significant number of bony fractures to Y
ii) the father was domestically violent to the mother
iii) the mother concealed being pregnant with Z.
Following that hearing I gave case management directions. The key directions were for a psychological assessment of the parents; an ISW assessment and directions for final evidence. To avoid further delay in a case which commenced in late 2021 I fixed both an IRH and this final hearing.
Compromise could not be found at IRH and I am now asked to make final welfare decisions for each of the children. The applicant argues a plan for adoption. The parents resist this and seek rehabilitation into the father's care.
I have considered the documents in the bundle, the submissions made on behalf of each party and the live evidence of Laura Patterson (Family Finding Social Worker); Ms LC (independent social worker (“ISW”); Dr Jonathan Dowd (consultant forensic psychologist (“Psychologist”); Ms Sheree McPhail (the allocated social worker; the mother; the father, and Ms Jessie Rowland (the guardian).
I use labels for the parents (mother and father) and abbreviations for the children (X, Y, Z and W) to preserve anonymity. The parents are from country AA. I do not name the ISW as she is a national of the same country and naming her would likely reveal their country of origin.
This final hearing proceeded on an attended basis with the parents assisted by AA speaking interpreters throughout. The evidence of the ISW and Psychologist was taken remotely as were the submissions. Judgment was reserved.
Background
The background to this case can be found in my fact finding judgment.
Updating information
The parents were asked to respond to my findings. The mother responded: “I will not be challenging the Judge's decision…[T]he Judge has made his decision and I accept the findings. I did conceal my pregnancy…and in respect of the domestic abuse…I accept what the Judge has said. It's been very difficult…to process the Judge's decision about [Y], but I'm not going to challenge what the Judge has decided.”
The father responded: “ I accept the Court Judgment…I also agree to the finding that domestic violence was present in the parental relationship, a level of controlling behaviour and abusive to the mother…[W]e had verbal arguments but we never had this in presence [sic] of the children. There was no physical violence. [Re the finding of mother being responsible for the fractures] I agree with his finding…[A]lthough the Judgment…had stated that my wife is considered to be likely responsible for the fractures…[I] have never witnessed my wife handled my son in a wrong way.”.
The Psychologist met with the parents. The mother told the expert that her relationship with the father was ‘entirely positive and that at no time had it featured violence’. The father confirmed the mother was ‘influenced…to make untrue allegations of violence against him’. The expert expressed the view that the parents ‘ reject [the] findings of fact in their entirety’ with the only deviation being that the mother may have caused injuries to Y when dressing or bathing him. The father considered the hospital staff and doctors had caused the majority of the injuries and then conspired to place blame on the parents. The parents discussed the findings with the ISW. The father made clear he was not in agreement with the findings as to the cause of the fractures and considered these were caused by medical practitioners. With regard to the domestic violence he ‘categorically denied’ there were any concerns in the parental relationship and maintained the account given by the parents at the fact finding. The mother disputed the finding made against her as to the fractures.
It transpired the mother had once again fallen pregnant with W. At the time of the fact finding she was about 20-weeks pregnant but both parents concealed this from the court notwithstanding at that very same time the court was considering whether or not the pregnancy with Z had been concealed. She gave birth prematurely at about 34 weeks in February 2023. No ante-natal care was sought or received. It took the hospital to inform the applicant whereupon the applicant and police intervened and the child was removed into the care of the applicant. Initial appointments were held with both Psychologist and ISW without this fact being disclosed. Indeed the Psychologist's interview with the father was interrupted by the attendance of the applicant and police to remove the child.
One day before the final hearing the mother applied to vacate the final hearing. She had not filed final evidence but was said to have given instructions as to a previously undisclosed accident which might explain the injuries. She sought an adjournment to file a full statement and for this position to be put to the final hearing experts. I refused the request. My reasons can be found in an ex tempore judgment but in essence I pointed out the application should have been a request to reopen fact finding (which it was not); that in any event the explanation could not explain all the injuries which were contained within two mutually exclusive time frames, and; it would be inappropriate to take these points to the experts prior to the Court having considered the account and accepted or rejected it.
The mother subsequently filed her statement (“the admission statement”). In it she disclosed:
i) There had been an accidental fall on 7 July 2021 when she tripped over medical equipment whilst holding Y and had fallen on him. She told the father about this on the day W was born (Feb 2023);
ii) On 8 July 2021 she became angry with Y and shook him before throwing him to the floor with some force. The floor was described as a hard parquet floor. Y cried out loudly but in time calmed. He appeared to have no injuries and no medical support was sought. The father was not told;
iii) Around 30 July – 1 August 2021 she argued with the father on the phone but he hung up on her. This left her angry and she picked Y up and squeezed him hard to stop him crying. She neither reported this to medical professionals or the father;
iv) On 9 August 2021 whilst feeling under pressure she called the police making false allegations against the father. These are the findings subject to the fact finding. Prior to their arrival she responded to Y screaming by again throwing him onto the hard floor.
The father first mentioned the accidental fall in his statement filed just prior to the final hearing. The mother claims to have reported the balance of her admissions to the father on the day prior to filing the admission statement. The mother now accepts full responsibility for the injuries. The parents no longer hold onto the suggestion of medical malpractice or conspiracy. The mother maintains the domestic abuse allegations were fabricated.
Parties positions
The applicant proposes a plan of adoption. It would wish to place all four children together but makes alternative proposals if this is not possible. The applicants case is based on support from all the professional witnesses and contends there is no basis for safely working with either parent in the light of their dishonesty and unwillingness to engage with professionals on a frank basis.
The mother proposes the children are placed in the sole care of the father and she will leave until such time as she has successfully undertaken protective work so as to meet the concerns in the case. By submissions her proposal was that she would return to AA pending any therapy being offered. She accepted she was not in a position to offer care to the children but argued the father could.
The father's proposed to care for the children alone under a transition plan under which the children would over several months be rehabilitated into his care. He accepted it would not be appropriate for the children to all return immediately. He saw this taking place over a number of months.
The children's guardian agreed with the applicant as to the necessary orders in the case. She pointed to the parents dishonesty and the manner in which the parents case was still evolving at the time of the final hearing. She did not consider the children could safely return to the care of their parents. She supported placement of all four children together but supported adoption even were this to lead to some separation of the children.
Law
The children's individual welfare is my paramount concern. I am concerned with their welfare throughout their lives and I will refer to the welfare checklist found in section 1(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
There is no more significant a decision for a court to be asked to make than to place a child for adoption contrary to the wishes of his/her parents. It is the most serious of interferences in private family life and requires a very high level of justification. It must be shown to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial