West Northamptonshire Council (acting via Northamptonshire Children's Trust) v KA (Mother)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lieven,Mrs Justice Lieven DBE |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 79 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: NN21C00086 |
and
and
[2024] EWHC 79 (Fam)
Mrs Justice Lieven
Case No: NN21C00086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Samantha Dunn (instructed by Northamptonshire Children's Trust) for the Applicant
Mr Rob Pettitt (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the First Respondent
Ms Clare Meredith (instructed by Dodds Solicitors) for the Second Respondent
Mr Ben Harling (instructed by HLA Family Law) for the Third Respondent
Hearing dates: 14 December 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 19 January 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail.
This judgment is being handed down in private on 19 January 2024. It consists of 50 paragraphs. The judge does not give leave for it to be reported until it has been anonymised by counsel and approved by the judge.
This case concerns a 2.5 year old girl, X. The case has a most unhappy procedural history and is now in week 127. This is particularly unfortunate given that the Local Authority (“LA”) application is for a care and placement order, and the applications were made almost immediately after the child's birth. This delay has been highly detrimental to X's best interests, whether or not the orders sought are ultimately made.
The matter was listed before me, as the Family Presider for the Midlands, to consider whether a costs order should be made against an intermediary, Ms Z, for the wasted costs of a 5 day final hearing that had to be adjourned; and whether I should vary the order appointing a deaf intermediary for the Mother during the final hearing. For reasons that I set out below I did not make any costs order against Ms Z, and I have decided not to vary the order for the appointment of an intermediary. However, I will set out some guidance on the use of intermediaries in the Family Court, particularly given the apparent paucity of such guidance and the differences that seem to now arise between the practice in the Family Court and that in the criminal courts.
Given the issues that arise in this judgment, and the fact that the final hearing is listed to finally go ahead in January 2024, I will keep the recitation of the background of the case short. X was born in early July 2021. The applications for care and placement orders were made on 22 May 2023. The Mother (“M”) is the First Respondent, and the Father (“F”) is the Second Respondent.
The LA were represented by Samantha Dunn, M was represented by Rob Pettitt, F was represented by Clare Meredith and the Children's Guardian was represented by Ben Harling.
The threshold pleaded is based on the risk to X from the M's relationships featuring domestic abuse, the M's unstable mental health, and the M's alleged inability to recognise dangerous and risky situations. All of these matters are said to place X at risk of significant harm. The M had an earlier child with a different father, who was subject to public law proceedings and was placed with his paternal grandparents under a Special Guardianship Order (“SGO”). The threshold findings in that case included that the child and M had been living in an abusive household; that the M could not prioritise the child's needs; and the M's poor mental health and self-harm.
The M then had a second child who is subject to an SGO to a family friend. The threshold findings were effectively the same as with the first child and very similar to that set out in the current proceedings.
The M is profoundly deaf.
An Interim Care Order (“ICO”) was granted on 9 July 2021 but the Court did not sanction interim separation. An assessment at [the placement] began on 22 July 2021. DNA testing in August 2021 confirmed the Second Respondent as X's F, and he was joined as a party. The time at [the placement] was extended and there is a recital to a court order dated 23 November 2021 that records:
“AND UPON [the placement] advising the following:
In a nutshell, [M] can meet a range of [X's] needs really well but she will need support and continued monitoring in the community. Our concerns primarily focus on the potential for [M] to gravitate towards risky relationships and conflict. Therefore, an extension of one month of her placement at [the placement] will allow us to complete additional work around protection, it would allow her time to sort out her property and would encompass a transition towards life in the community. We would recommend during this time too that the local authority considers the nature of the support her family will offer her, as well as the exploration of services available to support [M] specifically with her deafness (devices will be needed to aid her with her care of [X]).”
The LA then recommended that M and X move to a supported living provision at W Placement and it is recorded that she initially settled well. In January 2022 a parenting assessment was completed of the F, which was negative. The LA were ordered to carry out an “in house” parenting assessment of the M by 13 January 2022 with an Issues Resolutions Hearing (“IRH”) listed for 13 April 2022.
The LA sought an extension of time to file the assessment due to difficulties in completing the sessions with M due to the availability of British Sign Language (“BSL”) interpreters, and M expressing concerns about these sessions being supported remotely and wanting them to be in person.
On 5 February 2022, M left W Placement with X and travelled to Portsmouth to stay with a friend and his family. Within the records from W Placement, M had raised that she was feeling isolated and missed her friends, particularly the deaf community.
M's friend ‘T’ was part of the deaf community but also someone whom M had alleged, on 14 December 2021, had raped her on a night out on 11 December 2021.
M and X were located at 1am on 6 February 2022 by the police after she and X failed to return to W Placement and were refusing to engage with staff checks.
As a consequence, X was police protected and was placed in an emergency placement. The next day X moved to foster carers.
The matter came back before the Court on 15 March 2022. It was clear that the IRH would not be effective and court time was identified to deal with the issue of interim placement on 13 April 2022.
Prior to that hearing, the LA filed its parenting assessment, which is dated 7 April 2022. It was undertaken by the allocated social worker, Vera Koroye and a student social worker. The assessment concluded that M was not able to meet X's needs.
At the hearing on 13 April 2022 the Court sanctioned the continued separation of M and X. M's application for residential assessment was dismissed.
A Further Case Management Hearing (“FCMH”) was listed on 6 May 2022 to consider M's application for an Independent Social Worker (“ISW”) assessment and re-timetabling. On 6 May 2022 M sought permission to instruct Dr Andrew Cornes, Deaf Expert, psychologist and trained social worker, or Suzanne Robinson/Andrew Beckwith, ISW. The LA and the Guardian did not support M's application for a specialist parenting assessment but did not oppose M's application for an intermediary. After hearing submissions, the Court granted the application for an expert intermediary but rejected the application for a specialist parenting assessment.
It was ordered, to remedy any perceived deficits in the process, that the LA would ‘re-do’ the 5 sessions, that had previously been completed without a BSL interpreter, with one present. The addendum assessment was due to be filed and served on 10 June 2022.
This was the first time, in these proceedings, that M pursued an application for a deaf intermediary assessment. The intermediary assessment was completed and is dated 6 June 2022.
M appealed the decision to refuse the instruction of a specialist parenting assessment. Permission to appeal out of time was granted on all Grounds by Macur LJ on 17 August 2022. The parties then requested that the appeal be allowed on paper and that the order be varied, the appeal not being opposed by the LA or Guardian.
Following the appeal of the M, the case was re-timetabled with a direction for there to be an assessment of M undertaken by Dr Cornes. Dr Cornes identified the requirement for an updating cognitive assessment to be undertaken by a deaf specialist. Dr O'Rourke was directed to complete an updating cognitive assessment of M. This assessment is dated 31 October 2022.
Dr O'Rourke opined, in summary:
a. M does not have a Learning Disability;
b. M's functioning is in the low average range;
c. All information needs to be translated into BSL;
d. M has the ability to learn and understand;
e. M's failure to make changes are not as a result of her not understanding, but due to the M's struggles to comply with teaching when her own needs become overwhelming;
f. Legal jargon/ legal concepts need to be broken down and explained to M;
g. M would benefit from a Deaf intermediary.
Dr Cornes was directed to complete his parenting assessment of M and file by 12 December 2022. However, Dr Cornes did not comply with this direction, providing several reasons for the delay.
On 14 February 2023 the Court directed an extension of time for Dr Cornes to file and serve his assessment of M by 10 March 2023. Dr Cornes' assessment was filed on 2 March 2023. The assessment raises clear gaps in M's parenting and that she does not understand the risks raised by the LA. Despite the concerns, Dr Cornes recommends that he could put in a bespoke parenting programme to assist X in returning to M's care....
To continue reading
Request your trial