Warwickshire County Council v The Mother
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lieven,Mrs Justice Lieven DBE |
| Judgment Date | 08 August 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2146 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CV22C50070 |
| Court | Family Division |
and
and
and
[2022] EWHC 2146 (Fam)
Mrs Justice Lieven
Case No: CV22C50070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Bridget Beresford (instructed by Warwickshire County Council) for the Applicants
Mr Simon Miller (instructed by Jackson West Solicitors) for the First Respondent
Ms Sarah Tyler (instructed by Venters Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Ms Jemma Izzard (of Wilson Browne Solicitors) for the Third Respondent
Ms Jennifer Wilson (of Penmans Solicitors) for the Fourth Respondent
Hearing dates: 18 July 2022
Approved Judgment
This judgment is being handed down in private on 8 August 2022. It consists of 104 paragraphs.
The Judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates, the solicitors instructing them, or persons (other than the parties, members of their extended families and their children) identified by name in the judgment itself, may be identified by name or location. In particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved. If reported, it shall be the duty of the Law Reporters to anonymise this judgment.
These are care proceedings brought by the Local Authority, Warwickshire County Council (‘LA’), in respect of two girls, ‘X’ aged 10, and ‘Z’ aged 12. The issue covered in this judgment is the consequences of parental alienation and whether an Interim Care Order (‘ICO’) in respect of Z should be continued in the light of her implacable hostility to her placement, and the highly detrimental impact that the interim care plan and her current situation is having on her welfare.
Bridget Beresford represented the LA, Simon Miller represented the Mother (‘Mother’), Sarah Tyler represented the Father (‘Father’), Jemma Izzard represented X through the Children's Guardian, and Jennifer Wilson represented Z.
The matter has come before me at three interlocutory hearings on 14 June 2022, 20 June 2022 and 18 July 2022. After hearing submissions on 18 July 2022, I reserved judgment. The position of the Father, the LA and the Guardian is that I should continue the ICO in respect of Z and not seek to vary her current placement in foster care. The position of Z, who is separately represented having been determined to be Gillick competent ( Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] UKHL 7) in respect of these proceedings, is that the ICO should be discharged, and she should be allowed to return to live with the Mother. The Mother supports this position.
The Background
The Mother and the Father separated in December 2016 after 8 years of marriage. The children, then aged 7 and 5, lived for a short period with the Father and then moved to live with the Mother whilst having regular contact with the Father. Both parents are now in new relationships. The Father's new partner (now fiancée) is A, who has a child, Y, who is 9 years old. The Mother's new partner (now wife), B, has two children.
The Father said that contact became increasingly haphazard over time. On 10 June 2019 the Father made a private law application for a Child Arrangement and Prohibited Steps Order to prevent the Mother from changing the children's school and a Specific Issues Order seeking permission for him to take the children on holiday.
On 19 June 2019 a referral was made by Dr Garala to Children's Services advising that Z reported having been punched in the vagina by the Father's new partner's son, Y, as well as being made to shower with Y, and Y screaming in the children's faces and hitting them. The referral also mentioned aggressive emails received from the Father's solicitor.
On 19 June 2019 all contact between the Father and X and Z ceased.
On 8 July 2019 the Mother made a private law application for a Child Arrangement and Prohibited Steps Order preventing Y from being present during the Father's contact pending further investigations by Family Information Services.
In November 2019 a section 7 report was completed by Cafcass; the report raised no safeguarding concerns that would warrant further prevention of contact for the Father with X and Z, and the report recommended that the family engage with therapy.
On 18 December 2019 the Father's application was refused and the Mother was ordered to continue to make X and Z available for supervised contact on alternative Saturdays.
On 21 February 2020 an Interim Contact Order was granted in respect of the Father having contact with X and Z every 2 weeks and equal shared time during school holidays.
On 26 February 2020 a referral was made by the GP, Dr Lidder, raising concerns that X had disclosed that the Father hit her, and she was scared to see him. The referral also stated that the Mother had mentioned inappropriate games played during shower time, with the Father watching X.
On 29 February the scheduled contact time with the Father did not happen as ordered. The contact was refused due to the Mother stating that the court did not order it and that her solicitor did not agree with the order going forward.
On 7 March 2020 scheduled contact took place as per the court order, however this was apparently resisted by the children, and it was only due to intervention from the LA, who became involved due to further allegations being made, that contact took place.
On 12 March 2020 Children's Services Initial Response Team were appointed to complete a Children's and Families Assessment. On 21 March 2020 the scheduled contact did not take place and on 27 March 2020 the Father filed an application to seek to enforce the Interim Contact Order. The contact scheduled for 4 April 2020 did not happen as ordered as contact was being refused due to Covid. However, an agreement was reached, with the support of the LA, to have 2.5 hours direct contact in a local park.
On 8 April the Children's and Families Assessment was completed. No safeguarding concerns were identified. It was felt that X and Z's wishes and feelings were being influenced by the Mother. X and Z had not had contact with the Father for approximately 8 months at this stage. The outcome of the assessment was for the family to be supported on a Child in Need plan (‘CIN’) to allow Children's Services to support X and Z and ensure that contact could continue in a safe and productive way.
In April and May there were a series of occasions when contact did not take place. On 13 May the matter returned to court. The Father stated that the Mother was blocking contact and was alienating X and Z against him. The Mother stated that contact failed to take place due to social services refusing contact, issues arising such as Covid, or because X and Z did not want to attend contact. The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing on the basis that, with the assistance of the LA, contact had now started.
On 19 May virtual contact took place which X did not want to attend. The scheduled weekend contact on 22 May to 24 May, where the Father was to pick up X and Z from school on the Friday and return them to the Mother at 6pm on Sunday, did not happen as per the court order; instead, X and Z were made available from 9.30am on Saturday 23 May until 6.30pm on Sunday 24 May. This was repeated for the court ordered weekend contact on 6 June 2020 when X and Z were made available from 9.30am on Saturday 6 June until 6.30pm on Sunday 7 June.
On 8 June 2020 Z shared concerns with Children's Services in relation to the contact with the Father. This included allegations of CCTV and Alexas in her bedroom watching her. Z also alleged that the Father had elbowed her during previous contacts.
On 16 June Z's school contacted Children's Services with concerns about Z's diminishing mental health and on the same date Children's Services provided Z with a virtual session to discuss coping mechanisms to reduce her anxiety and negative thoughts.
On 20 June the scheduled weekend contact did not happen as ordered, instead X and Z were made available to the Father from 9.30am on Saturday to 6.30pm on Sunday. This should have been a full weekend but instead it was a fourth single overnight contact due to “anxiety of the girls”. Also on 20 June, Children's Services had a discussion with Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (‘CAMHS’) as a result of Z disclosing suicidal thoughts. During this discussion, CAMHS advised that Z had called them from the Father's bedroom saying that if she was unable to go home, she would hang herself. CAMHS advised they would continue assessment if needed.
Z was closed to the CAMHS Crisis Team on 13 July 2020, however remained open to CAMHS as an agency. CAMHS advised Children's Services that a follow-up appointment had been provided to Z in June however this had not been attended, nor had they received any correspondence from the Mother in respect of this appointment.
On 26 August 2020 the allocated social worker, Laura Matts, completed a Statutory Child and Family Assessment. The outcome of the assessment was for X and Z to continue to have contact with the Father; for the Mother and the Father to continue to attend mediation in order to find child focused resolutions; X and Z to continue to attend counselling to get support with their emotions and mental health; for the Mother to develop a healthier relationship...
To continue reading
Request your trial