Re X (A child: Emergency protection orders)
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Mr Justice McFarlane |
Judgment Date | 16 March 2006 |
Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam) |
Court | Family Division |
Date | 16 March 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 510 (Fam)
Mr Justice Mcfarlane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Background
In January and February 2006 I conducted a three week hearing of a case in which a local authority sought a care order with respect to a 9 year old girl (who I will refer to as X). The local authority had been aware of the girl, who was displaying some modest behavioural difficulties, for some months. The girl's mother had expressly sought the help of the social services and child health services. Professional concern about X was such that two Child Protection Case Conferences had been held, and a low level of intervention by way of a referral to the local Child Guidance Unit and some further assessment work had been recommended. The child's name had been entered onto the local Child Protection Register in the category of 'emotional harm'.
On the 23 rd November 2004 there was a further case conference to review the progress of the work. Those at the meeting remained concerned about the child's emotional well being. The local authority was to hold a legal planning meeting within the following five days to consider whether care proceedings should be issued. A psychiatric assessment of the mother, which was in the process of being set up, was to proceed; as was a further psychological assessment of the child. At the time that the meeting concluded there was no suggestion from the social workers, or any other professional attending the case conference, that the child should be removed from her parents' care – either immediately or at all.
Within two hours of the case conference concluding, however, the social work team leader was giving evidence before a bench of lay justices in support of an application for an Emergency Protection Order ('EPO'). That application was made without any notice to the parents. The justices granted an EPO. At that time the mother and child were at a local hospital, to which the mother had taken the child for a check up because the child was complaining of abdominal pain. The social workers, accompanied by four uniformed police officers, attended the hospital and removed the child from her mother's care. She was placed in foster care, in which state she remained (with a number of changes of carers) for the following 14 months under a series of interim care orders.
In the course of the hearing I investigated how such a Draconian order came to be granted in a case which, up until that time, had been one where low level intervention by way of assessment and counselling had been the agreed plan. As a result of that investigation I have found significant flaws in the manner in which the system operated by the social services and the family justice system itself impacted upon this family. There is in my view a public interest in wide publicity being given to what took place in this case in the hope that lessons may be learned to ensure that what befell this family is not repeated elsewhere.
In order to maintain the focus upon the circumstances surrounding the EPO, and in order to preserve the confidentiality of the family's circumstances, the full judgment in the case, which runs to over 300 paragraphs, is not being released for publication or law reporting. I therefore propose to do no more than summarise the factual background in very short terms.
The facts of this case have led me to produce a judgment which is highly critical of the social workers and the social services department who became involved with this family. I wish to record at the outset of this reported version of the judgment that, in my experience, failures of this degree are rare indeed. The ordinary experience of the family courts is of social workers and social services departments whose professional work is both valuable and appropriately targeted to meeting the particular needs of children and their families. Often that work is undertaken within the context of limited resources and consequential stress upon the social services organisation and the individuals who work within it.
Summary of history
Prior to the commencement of the proceedings X, an only child, had always lived at home with her parents. Concern about her behaviour at home and at school had led her mother to seek professional assistance. This led to a recommendation from a child and adolescent psychotherapist that the girl would benefit from some ongoing psychological support. The psychologist also referred the case to the social services because she was concerned about X who seemed very scared, insecure, withdrawn and frightened. She was also concerned about how well the father's mental illness was controlled and about issues regarding sexual abuse arising from the mother's own childhood and a sexual incident that had occurred with the girl and a young cousin some years earlier.
An initial case conference took place in March 2004. A range of assessments were recommended. It was also recommended that psychotherapy counselling services should be provided to the child and her mother by the Child Guidance Unit as soon as possible. The child's name was entered on the local Child Protection Register in the category 'emotional abuse'. It is to be noted that the government guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children" defines "emotional abuse" as being "the persistent emotional ill treatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent effects on the child's emotional development".
By the time of the next case conference in June 2004, few if any of the planned interventions and assessments had taken place. Reports from the school and the health authorities indicated improvement in the child's behaviour and general health. The Child Protection Registration was continued and the planned intervention remained largely unchanged.
Prior to the final case conference, the local authority held a legal planning meeting to consider the prospect of court proceedings. The notes of the legal planning meeting in part record the following: 'No neglect issues ? home and care good. Mother and child have good relationship. Detrimental to move'. The notes also record: 'SS view mother ill / factitious illness. Suspicion ? multiple personality disorder'. The meeting concluded that care proceedings should not be issued at that stage.
At the case conference, despite the legal planning meeting having been told of the social worker's view being that this was a case of factitious or fabricated illness, no reference was made to any such condition. There was however a contribution by the father's community psychiatric nurse ['CPN']. The father had for a number of years suffered from a schizo-affective disorder. His condition had been moderated in recent years by regular medication. At the conclusion of the hearing I found as a fact that the CPN told the case conference that, if X was taken into care, the father might possibly commit suicide as he was so close to his daughter and that was what kept him going mentally. The CPN's contribution is neither recorded nor referred to in the official minutes of the meeting. The social workers assert that the CPN asked for his advice to be treated as confidential (he denies making this request). The result was that there is no official record (either minutes or on the social work file) of this important information. From the parents point of view, there is not even a record that confidential information was given to the meeting.
The case conference concluded, as I have described, with a continuation of the previous plan, but with the recommendation that the local authority should hold a legal planning meeting to consider possible care proceedings.
At the end of the case conference, the social worker received information from a nurse at the local hospital to the effect that the mother was at the hospital requesting that X be seen by a doctor for stomach pain, despite the fact that the triage nurse had assessed her and considered that there was no problem.
The social worker and her Team Manager considered this new development and determined that there was a need for X to be removed immediately from her parents' care under an EPO. This decision was communicated to the conference chair, who was apparently still in the building, and to the relevant social services service manager. Both of these individuals apparently approved the proposed course of action, although neither was tasked with making a formal decision upon it.
The application for an EPO was made without notice to the parents. The justices heard evidence from the team manager and granted the order that afternoon. Thereafter the social workers attended at the hospital with four uniformed police officers and removed X from her mother's care. She was placed in an emergency foster placement.
Care proceedings were then commenced. At that time the local authority asserted that the child was being emotionally abused. The social services' stated concerns for the child's wellbeing were wide ranging and included:
a) Possible sexual abuse;
b) Unhealthy beliefs within the family regarding spirits and ghosts;
c) Symptoms of illness being fabricated or induced in the child;
d) The mother's anxiety about the child being bullied at school, where the school have found no evidence of this; and
e) The father's history of mental ill-health.
A central plank of the social services case was that this was a case of fabricated or induced illness (previously referred to a Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy). This was clearly the factor that was uppermost in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Re K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity)
...a local authority is not identified, even where it has been the subject of stringent judicial criticism. A recent example is Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 701. But current practice shows that local authorities involved in care cases are increasingly......
-
Manchester City Council v (1) G (2) E (by The Official Solicitor) (3) F
... ... [2010] EWHC 621 (Fam) IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Baker Case No: 11774770 ... therapist as developmentally equivalent to an 18–24 month old child. In oral evidence, E's paediatrician described how the difficulties ... He therefore moved to a residential unit at the V Unit, an emergency respite unit. E found it very difficult to settle in at this unit and ... The need if any for orders authorising deprivation of liberty shall be considered by the court at the ... ...
-
Re A (A Child)(Deprivation of Liberty); C (Vulnerable Adult)(Deprivation of Liberty)
...protection order; as to which see X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341, and Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 701. That said, there will, of course, be cases in the adult jurisdiction where, just as in th......
-
B v A
...[2000] 3 FCR 481(by analogy X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341 and Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam)) and in the Court of Appeal Moat Housing v Harris [2005] 2 FLR 551 in particular at paragraphs 63 to 69, and see also the notes to CPR Part 2......
-
Essential Daily Guidance for Proceedings Concerning Children
...necessary: the local authority has a continuing duty to keep the case under review day 58 Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam). 59 X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341. by day so as to ensure that parent and child are separ......
-
Urgent Care Removals and Access to Children’s Courts: An Analysis of the Implications of C v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng
...GN R497 in GG 35476 of 29-06-2012 383 See also Zaal (2012) THRHR 174 84 Gilliat (2008) Family L aw Week 285 [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam)86 [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam) 87 X Council v B (Eme rgency Protecti on Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam) para 57 88 C v Gauteng Depa rtment of Health an d Social Develop......
-
Emergency Protection Orders
...(and see para 5.4.3). Cases such as P, C and S v UK (Application No 56547/00) [2002] 2 FLR 631 and Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 701 should be considered, in the latter of which McFarlane J stressed that an emergency protection order is a draconian a......