Warrington Borough Council v TN
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWFC 79 |
| Docket Number | Case No: LV20C01075 |
| Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Court | Family Court |
[2020] EWFC 79
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Sitting Remotely
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: LV20C01075
and
Ms Lisa Edmunds (instructed by Warrington Borough Council) for the Applicant
Ms Rachel Jones (instructed by Gittins McDonald Solicitors) for the First Respondent
Mr Gordon Semple (instructed by FDR Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Hearing date: 10 November 2020
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 25 November 2020.
INTRODUCTION
In this matter I am concerned with the welfare of JN who is aged 8 years old. She is represented by Mr Gordon Semple through her guardian, Ms Anglim. JN's mother is TN (hereafter ‘the mother’). The mother is represented by Ms Rachel Jones of counsel. JN's father is KC (hereafter ‘the father’). His current whereabouts are unknown. The parents are Lithuanian nationals. JN was born in the United Kingdom and has a British birth certificate. According to the mother, JN also has a Lithuanian birth certificate and passport.
JN has been accommodated by Warrington Borough Council since 3 March 2020 and these proceedings were commenced by the local authority on 31 March 2020, following which JN was made the subject of an interim care order which remains in force to date. The local authority is represented by Ms Lisa Edmunds of counsel. JN has been having telephone contact with her mother three times per week in circumstances that I will come to.
All parties are agreed that the threshold criteria under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are made out in this case. All parties are agreed that it is in JN's best interests to be reunited with her mother and for her to return with her mother to Lithuania upon her mother's deportation to that jurisdiction. All parties are agreed that the appropriate outcome in this case will, in due course, be that the court makes no order pursuant to the principle set out in s 1(5) of the Children Act 1989.
The parties now seek the approval of the court for the course of action they have agreed. I have had the benefit of reading the bundle in this matter and from short oral submissions from counsel.
BACKGROUND
By way of background, on 29 October 2019 the mother was convicted of three counts of arranging or facilitating travel of another with a view to exploitation (an offence sometimes known colloquially as ‘people trafficking’). On 27 November 2019 the National Probation Service contacted the local authority to notify it that the mother, who had care of JN, was at risk of a custodial sentence consequent upon her conviction.
Following the local authority becoming involved with JN as a child in need, further concerns were identified centring on JN having attended a number of different schools and of there being a significant gap in her education. In addition, on 24 February 2020 the mother fled to a domestic violence refuge after alleging that she had been the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her then partner, EP. EP also stood accused of offences related to people trafficking.
On 26 February 2020, ahead of her sentencing hearing, the mother provided advance consent to the accommodation of JN under the provisions of s 20 of the Children Act 1989. On 3 March 2020 the mother received a custodial sentence of 2 years and 4 months imprisonment. JN was placed in local authority foster care and has remained in foster care to date. As I have noted, care proceedings were commenced by the local authority on 31 March 2020.
The mother is now subject to a deportation order. Whilst the mother was scheduled to be deported on 30 October 2020, the Home Office has provided an assurance that the deportation will not take place until this court has determined whether it is in JN's best interests to return to Lithuania with her mother. If the court determines that this course of action is in JN's best interests, the Home Office has confirmed that JN will be able to return to Lithuania with her mother when her mother is deported from the United Kingdom.
Within this context, the mother has been the subject of a positive social work assessment. As a result of this, the local authority's care plan is one of rehabilitation of JN to the care of her mother. Within this context, the mother seeks the rehabilitation of JN to her care at the earliest opportunity. The Children's Guardian is also of the view that it is in JN's best interests to be rehabilitated to the care of her mother.
Within the foregoing context, the dispute between the parties prior to agreement being reached ahead of this hearing centred on the extent to which the English court should have before it confirmation of the steps that would be taken by the Lithuanian authorities to safeguard JN's welfare upon her return to Lithuania before the court could ratify the rehabilitation of JN to her mother's care ahead of the mother's deportation. Given the international issues involved, this matter was re-allocated to me on 15 October 2020.
Over the course of a number of hearings prior to 15 October 2020 the court made directions with a view to obtaining evidence from the Lithuanian authorities regarding the support that would be made available to the mother and JN were they to return to Lithuania. In response to these directions, the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service confirmed on a number of occasions the position under Lithuanian law and practice:
i) On 5 June 2020 the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service made clear that the family would be supervised on return to Lithuania by the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service if needed, that if needed the child would be provided with therapeutic services and that, if needed, the mother would be supported by Lithuanian social workers.
ii) On 13 August 2020 the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service again confirmed that “when competent United Kingdom authorities inform us about JN's and her mother's return to Lithuania, we will apply our territorial unit and ask them visit the family, check how mother ensure child's rights and best interests, determine what help the family needs. When the child returns to Lithuania, the competent authorities in Lithuania will take all measures to ensure the rights and best interests of the minor.”
iii) On 12 October 2020 the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service again confirmed that “As I mentioned in my previous emails, when the family returns to Lithuania, Local Authority's specialists will visit the family and evaluate what support and help are needed for the family. Our local authority cannot provides information on what assistance will be provided to the family, as the family is not in Lithuania. According to Lithuanian national law when the child returns to Lithuania, the competent authorities in Lithuania will take all measures to ensure the rights and best interests of the minor.”
iv) On 15 October 2020, and for the fourth time, the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service again confirmed that “when the exact date and time when the mother and the child will return to Lithuania will be known, we will ask our territorial unit to visit the place of residence of the family and check how the child's rights and best interests are ensured, but I cannot answer whether the visit will take place within 24 hours. However, we would ask our territorial unit to visit the family as soon as possible.”
Notwithstanding these repeated assurances by Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service, the first provided on 5 June 2020, setting out the approach to safeguarding under Lithuanian law and practice that would pertain were JN to be returned to Lithuania, ahead of the matter first coming before me on 22 October 2020 the Children's Guardian had concluded that she could not “support JN returning to the care of the mother unless and until a package of monitoring and support is available.”
This position was taken by the Children's Guardian despite the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service having repeatedly made clear that the safeguarding procedure in that jurisdiction would be applied to the family upon their return, namely that, upon the arrival of the mother and JN in Lithuania, the territorial unit would visit the family in order check how the mother ensured the child's rights and best interests, determine what help the family needed and that, if indicated following an assessment, (a) the family would be supervised by the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service, (b) JN would be provided with therapeutic services and (c) the mother would be supported by Lithuanian social workers. Notwithstanding this information, the Children's Guardian went so far as to describe the situation set out above as an “impasse”. The reality, however, was that the Lithuanian State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service had confirmed in clear terms that it would, if necessary, intervene appropriately in the family, in accordance with Lithuanian law and practice and based on assessment, once the mother and JN had arrived in Lithuania.
Within the foregoing context, when the matter came before me on 22 October 2020 I indicated to Mr Semple that the court considered that the Lithuanian authorities had provided sufficient information, that the English court had no jurisdiction to compel the Lithuanian...
To continue reading
Request your trial