The Prospective Adopters v FB (First Respondent) JK (Second Respondent) The Local Authority (Third Respondent) CB (Fourth Respondent) Child E (by his Guardian, MM) (Fifth Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Moor |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 297 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 05 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: XXXX |
[2015] EWHC 297 (Fam)
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Swansea Civil Justice Centre
Mr Justice Moor
Case No: XXXX
and
and
and
and
Mr Graham Jones for the Applicant
Mr David Blake for the First Respondent
Ms Alison Donovan for the Second Respondent
Ms Kay Waldron for the Third Respondent
Mr Philip Harris-Jenkins for the Fourth Respondent
Mr David Prosser for the Fifth Respondent
Hearing dates: 2nd to 5th February 2015
I have been hearing an application for an adoption order in relation to 'E' who was born in January 2013 and is therefore two years of age. The Applicants are the proposed adoptive parents. It is a confidential serial number adoption and their identities are unknown to the birth parents.
The First Respondent, FB is E's mother (hereafter "the Mother"). She was given permission to oppose the application by HHJ Garland Thomas on 2nd September 2014. Her case is that E should be returned to her care. If I am against her as to the adoption application, she seeks direct contact to E on what has been described to me as a "shared care" basis.
The Second Respondent, JK is E's father (hereafter "the Father"). He too opposes the adoption. He seeks contact to E. I should, however, note that he supported the placement order when it was made by HHJ Edwards on 27th September 2013.
The Third Respondent is the Local Authority (hereafter "the Local Authority") which was the Local Authority in the original care proceedings. It supports the adoption application as does E's Guardian.
The Fourth Respondent is CB (hereafter "C"). She is E's half-sister. She was born in 1997 and is therefore 17 years of age. I joined her as a party on 27th November 2014. She opposes the adoption application.
The parents
The Father is aged 50. He is a recovering heroin addict who has also had alcohol abuse issues. He has a significant criminal record, mostly for dishonesty although there have been offences related to domestic violence. E is his only child.
The Mother is aged 45. She is a recovering alcoholic, who has also abused illicit drugs in the past. A report on her by Lisa Wolfe, a clinical psychologist, dated 28th November 2013 found that she had an insecure avoidant attachment style caused by a physically abusive childhood. She lacks a blueprint to have a functional male relationship. She has been poor at self-monitoring her feelings. Although she does not accept this, it appears that she has not had a relationship with a male that has not been abusive in one way or another.
The children
The Mother has five children in total. The eldest, AB is independent and studying at college. Her father is W. He has no involvement with her.
The second is BB. His father is X. He also has no involvement with BB. BB was born is aged 20. He is studying at university.
It has to be said that it is a remarkable testament to both BB and AB that they have achieved so much notwithstanding all that has happened in their lives.
CB is the third child. Her father is Y. He too has no involvement with CB. As I have already noted, she is aged 17. She is attending a college and is a talented artist. She has been described as being a troubled young lady. Lisa Wolfe diagnosed a social anxiety disorder and an avoidant attachment style. The Mother says she is about to be diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, but that seems to have been a long process that has not reached a conclusion. CB lives with her Mother although the Local Authority has a supervision order which expired yesterday, 4th February. Given her age, it cannot be renewed.
The fourth child is DB. Her father is Z. She is aged 11. She also lives with her Mother. She was also subject to the supervision order which expired on 4th February. The Local Authority does not intend to seek to have it renewed although she remains a child in need.
DB seems to be remarkably well adapted. The Mother seeks credit for that but I do not consider she is entitled to credit. I find that it is just very fortunate that DB has proved so resilient notwithstanding everything she has been through.
E is therefore the fifth child. As I have also already noted, he was born in early 2013 and is just two years old.
Local Authority involvement
There has been Local Authority involvement with the family for around sixteen years, since AB was aged ten. It started when the family were living in another part of the country when the Mother was drunk in charge of the children. When AB was aged 12, she was found on the streets by the Police at 4.55 am and had to be returned home.
In 2002, the Mother's then partner, Z was the perpetrator of domestic violence against the Mother. There were at least two incidents. On one occasion, BB had to go out onto the street to shout for help at 11 pm because he was so distressed and concerned for the Mother. He was aged seven at the time.
Regrettably, the children witnessed the domestic violence. In August 2005, a car was set alight in the family's front garden and petrol was thrown at the house. Z's sons were implicated along with another attack on the family home. The Mother then separated from Z briefly. In March 2006, Z himself damaged the front door.
The family was forced to flee. In September 2006, the Mother and the four eldest children moved to a refuge in another region of the country. Almost immediately, there was an anonymous referral alleging that the Mother was drunk in charge of the children. Z followed the family. Domestic abuse and alcoholism continued to the undoubted detriment of all the children.
Indeed, it is clear that the Mother has had serious alcohol problems on and off over approximately a sixteen year period. She has regularly sought professional help. She has remained free of alcohol for significant periods but the evidence until 2013 was that, very regrettably, she always eventually lapsed back into drinking again notwithstanding the professional help she had been getting.
In July 2008, the Police removed DB and CB to a place of safety. They remained in foster care for nearly six months. The Mother told me she began to seek help from a drug an alcohol support agency in 2007. This has continued in one form or another ever since. I consider this important in the context of the evidence I have heard in relation to this application.
The Mother made a real effort to sort herself out and get the children returned. This was to her considerable credit. In December 2008, DB and CB were rehabilitated to her but she soon relapsed into alcohol misuse. That is not to her credit and is again something I will need to consider carefully. I am told that she had two separate relapses but the file was closed.
In 2010, the Mother commenced a relationship with the Father. The Mother was undoubtedly still getting help from a drug an alcohol support agency around this time. On 5th August 2011, the Father made threats against both the Mother and a drug an alcohol support agency worker. In November 2011, AB rang the Police to tell them that CB was very distressed as her Mother and the Father were arguing. The Father was threatening to blow up the Mother's house. Later in November 2011, he told his GP that he had assaulted the Mother. In January 2012, the case was reopened as CB was suicidal. The Mother's alcohol misuse was an issue again. The Father was told to leave the home and an agreement was reached that he would not return. It was signed in March 2012 and stipulated that the Mother was to have no contact with the Father.
By the end of March 2012, the agreement had been broken. Two weeks later, the Father assaulted the Mother in the home but the Mother failed to report this to the Police. In late April 2012, the Police removed the Father from the home after yet another incident of domestic violence. In mid May 2012, the Father was telling third parties that the relationship was ongoing. The Father was removed again by the Police later in May 2012.
In April 2012, the Mother became pregnant with E. The Mother told HHJ Edwards, who heard the care proceedings, that this was a one-off sexual encounter based on sympathy. She told me exactly the same but I note that Judge Edwards rejected that evidence.
In May 2012, the Father assaulted the Mother. It appears that he punched her in the face and the stomach, when he learned of her pregnancy, threatening to "kick the baby out of her". BB rang the Police. The Father admitted an assault but denied the Mother's account, saying he pushed a pasty into her mouth. Judge Edwards found the incident to have occurred as described by the Mother. In July 2012, he was sentenced to four months in custody suspended for two years for the assault and was given an indefinite restraining order preventing contact with the Mother.
Notwithstanding the restraining order, in August 2012, the Mother and Father were seen together by the Father's Probation Officer. The Father said they were in regular contact. The Mother accepted that she would meet him twice a week and described these as "ad hoc" meetings in the community. HHJ Edwards rejected her evidence and found that the relationship was continuing albeit in a more surreptitious manner.
In April 2013, a further agreement was reached with the Local Authority that E would remain with her but on the basis that she was to have no contact with the Father or his family. Women's Aid raised concerns about the Mother's level of engagement in April and it was clear that the Father considered the relationship was ongoing at the time. Indeed, they were seen together at a Bus Stop in June 2013...
To continue reading
Request your trial