Salford City Council v W
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1689 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA20P02172/NR18C01387 |
| Court | Family Division |
[2021] EWHC 1689 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Sitting Remotely
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: MA20P02172/NR18C01387
and
and
and
and
and
Ms Ruth Cabeza (instructed by Salford City Council) for the Applicant
Ms Niamh Ross (instructed by Fosters Solicitors) for the First Respondent
The Second Respondent did not appear and was not represented
Ms Elizabeth Isaacs QC and Ms Yvonne Healing (instructed by Kenneth Bush Solicitors) for the Third and Fourth Respondents
Ms Rachael Heppenstall (instructed by Alfred Newton Solicitors) for the Fifth to Ninth Respondents
Ms Gemma Taylor QC (instructed by Suffolk County Council) for the First Intervenor
Ms Soria Kajue (instructed by Norfolk County Council) for the Second Intervenor
Hearing dates: 10 May 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be at 10.30am on 24 June 2021.
This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given permission for this anonymised version of the judgment (and any of the facts and matters contained in it) to be published on condition always that the names and the addresses of the parties and the children must not be published. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and addresses of the parties and the children will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter I am concerned with B, born in July 2009 and now aged 11, D, born in October 2012 and now aged 8, C, born in May 2011 and now aged 10, E, born in September 2014 and now aged 6 and F, born in April 2016 and now aged 5. The children are represented at this hearing through their Children's Guardian, by Ms Rachael Heppenstall of counsel.
On 19 January 2021 I handed down my first judgment in this matter, published with the neutral citation Salford CC v W and Ors (Religion and Declaration of Looked After Status) [2021] EWHC 61 (Fam), in which, in addition to determining an issue concerning the religious upbringing of the children, I decided, for the reasons set out in that judgment at paragraphs [86] to [94], that this court has jurisdiction under its inherent jurisdiction (as subsumed and incorporated into s.19 of the Senior Courts Act 1981) to grant a freestanding declaration as to the children's legal status. I further decided that, in the particular circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out in the judgment, it was appropriate for this court to exercise that jurisdiction and determine the application made by the maternal aunt and putative special guardian of the children, Mrs Z, for a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court regarding the children's legal status for the purposes of Part III of the Children Act 1989, notwithstanding that that application is made without claim for any other remedy consequent upon that declaration. This judgment should be read with my first judgment in this matter.
Within this context, the relevant local authorities having been given permission to intervene on the question of the children's legal status, I am now required to decide whether with B, D, C, E and F are, or have been at any point, ‘looked after’ for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 and, if so satisfied, to make a declaration to that effect.
The local authority now having conduct of the care proceedings in respect of the children is Salford City Council, represented by Ms Ruth Cabeza of counsel. The mother of the children is represented by Ms Niamh Ross of counsel. The children's father is X. He does not appear before the court and is not represented. The children's putative special guardians, Mrs Z and her husband, Mr Y, are represented by Ms Elizabeth Isaacs of Queen's Counsel and Ms Yvonne Healing of counsel. Suffolk County Council intervenes in these proceedings on the question of the children's legal status for the purposes of Part III of the Children Act 1989 and is represented by Ms Gemma Taylor of Queen's Counsel. Norfolk County Council likewise intervenes in these proceedings on the same question and is represented by Ms Soria Kajue of counsel. The Court has the benefit of an agreed chronology.
Mrs Z and Mr Y contend that the children were ‘looked after’ for the purposes of Part III of the Children Act 1989 and, thus, that one or more of the local authorities before the court is under an obligation to pay remuneration to Mrs Z and Mr Y as former local authority foster carers pursuant to r. 7 of the Special Guardianship Regulations 2005. That position is supported by the children's mother. Each of the local authorities, Salford City Council, Suffolk County Council and Norfolk County Council deny that the children were ‘looked after’ for the purposes of the 1989 Act. The Children's Guardian contends that the children were ‘looked after’ for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 but posits a different date on which that legal status arose to that contended for by Mrs Z and Mr Y.
The children have been in the care of Mrs Z and Mr Y since 25 June 2017. All parties agree that the placement with Mrs Z and Mr Y should continue and that the final order that best meets each of the children's welfare is a special guardianship order in favour of Mrs Z and Mr Y.
BACKGROUND
The broad background to this matter is set out in my previous judgment. As I have noted, the mother of the children is W (hereafter, ‘the mother’). The mother is of Romany heritage and of Welsh descent. The father, X (hereafter, ‘the father’), is of South African heritage. For the purposes of the decision this court now has to make, the following matters of background are particularly relevant.
The family first came to the attention of children's services in Suffolk in August 2009. This followed a referral from the police concerning a disagreement that had taken place between the parents. In August 2012 further referrals were received by Suffolk from the Health Visiting Service, the Youth Support Service and the 12+ Integrated Team, which team reported the family to be homeless. An initial assessment was opened by Suffolk on 14 August 2012 but the case was closed one month later. Thereafter, the involvement of Suffolk with the children continued on and off over an extended period up to and after 25 June 2017.
On 11 September 2013 the mother and children were again reported to be homeless. On that date, Suffolk opened an initial assessment. On 16 September 2013 Suffolk allocated the mother and B, C and D temporary accommodation. The initial assessment opened on 11 September 2013 and was discontinued on 26 September 2013.
Suffolk undertook a further assessment of the mother in June 2014 following a referral from the midwifery service in the context of concerns regarding the mother's mental health and provision of food, clothes and heating for the children. No further action was taken on the grounds that Suffolk considered the children not to be at risk and the case was closed on 19 June 2014. One day later, a further referral was received from the Health Visiting Service with respect to the mother's preparedness for her new baby. This appears to have led to another assessment being commenced on 11 August 2014. A Child in Need meeting was convened on 18 September 2014. The mother was described as being unable to understand the needs of the children. On 2 October 2014 B, D, C were made the subject of ‘Children in Need’ (hereafter CIN) plans by Suffolk. E was born on 27 October 2014 and the CIN plans were continued with respect to all four children on 2 October 2014. Suffolk closed the case on 22 January 2015.
A further referral was received from the midwifery service in October 2015 and, following the birth of F on 28 April 2016, Suffolk commenced a further statutory assessment of the children on 12 May 2016. On 13 July 2016 the assessment recommended that there be ‘Team Around the Child’ intervention (which approach involved voluntary engagement with Early Help services). A further assessment was commenced on 24 October 2016 following a MASH referral asserting that the mother had reported lifting F by the arm from her cot, and who would thereafter not stop crying. The case was again closed with a recommendation that the mother engage with a Parenting Centre and attend a parenting course.
On 10 April 2017 E, then aged 2 years old, was found by police to be wandering half a mile away from the family home. No substantive action appears to have been taken by Suffolk in response to this incident. On 28 April 2017 a referral was made to Suffolk by the NSPCC regarding anonymous concerns that had been received concerning the alleged neglect of the children, their lack of supervision, a report of a baby being slapped, drug use and the children being left with an eight year old babysitter and alone in the family home with unknown men. Within this context, on 28 April 2017 Suffolk commenced a further assessment of the children.
Social work intervention in the family continued in April and May 2017....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Joanne Patton) v HM Assistant Coroner for Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire
...after child to be examined by healthcare professionals before a placement or review of their case. 56 Reliance was also placed on Salford City Council v W [2021] EWHC 1689 (Fam), where MacDonald J set out the correct approach to section 20, in summary, thus: (i) The court's task is to take......