Western Health and Social Services Trustv L and M (Care Order: Drift)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIMag 3 |
| Date | 04 August 2010 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIMag 3
Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
04/08/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Judgment of Omagh Family Proceedings Court
WESTERN HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUST
V
L and M
(Care Order: Drift)
1. All information which might tend to identify the family
concerned has been removed from this text, in order to protect
the rights of the family and of the children concerned. Where
names are still used, they are not the person’s real name. This
judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in
any report no person may be identified by name or location,
other than as disclosed in this text, and in particular the
anonymity of the subject children and of their parents must be
strictly preserved.
2. Peter was born in July 2006, his brother Brian in 2008. Their
parents are the Respondents, Mr. M and Ms L. Care proceedings
were initiated on foot of an Application dated 3rd September
2008, almost 2 years ago, when the boys were 2 years old and 2
months old, respectively. We set out here our reasons for
concluding that a Care Order is the only appropriate way in
which to provide for their best interests.
3. That it should have taken almost 2 years to reach a final Hearing
on the matter can be no source of satisfaction to anyone involved.
And that is before one allows for the delays occasioned by any
Appeal. As will become clear, it is even more disquieting, in
view of the gravity of serial concerns which the Trust was
required to address, that an initial 2 years were to pass, the first 2
years of Peter’s life, without an application for parental
responsibility for the purpose of bringing forward a plan for
permanency with Peter safely out of harm's way. The evidence
before the court suggests that the time it took to see Peter brought
to safety has left him with significant emotional and
psychological consequences which may follow him for the rest of
his life.
4. It must of course never be forgotten that those consequences arise
from the inadequate parenting they received from Mr. M and Ms.
L. The primary responsibility is not in question. Nonetheless,
The Children (NI) Order 1995 was only the latest in a series of
legislative formulations intended by public representatives to
hone a system of public services and adjudication processes
whereby children found to be at risk of significant harm would
be protected from their birth parents and afforded their own
chance at a stable and contented life. Where, for example, an
infant is grabbed by his father, in flight for his life down a street,
with armed relatives out for him, the community is entitled to
expect that some agency will step in and pluck the infant from
such a chaotic lifestyle. But not in this case. The incident in
question happened on or about 18th December 2007. Peter was
not actually to be removed from his birth family until 18th
February 2009.
5. Professor John Triseliotis provided a Report dated 30th April
2010. To describe the Professor’s Report as useful would be an
understatement. In these preliminary observations, though, I
simply wish to quote the following passages, illuminating the
situation in which Peter now finds himself;
From page 17:
Based on the carer's accounts, and from what I observed
especially during contact with his parents the next day, he comes
across as a troubled and rather anxious child, but not a
troublesome one. His rather exaggerated reactions to separations
point to significant underlying insecurities.
The circumstances suggest that [Peter] brought with him
uncertainty, mistrust and anxieties that have not yet healed [He
was by then in foster care for more than a year]. The fragmented
form of parenting he is reported to have experienced when living
at home seems to have taken its toll. Although only hypothetical,
any attachments he had formed to his parents would have been
fragmented and insecure with [Peter] presenting as uncertain
about his feelings, restless and anxious. Foster care offered him
the stability and security he had previously missed but on
present evidence strong attachments have not yet been forged
with his carer. They appear, however, to be in the process of
strengthening. His apparent awareness that his parents are
desperate to have him back, and his placement is uncertain, may
be holding him back from a fuller commitment.
From page 22;
[Peter] was fine and he talked to his parents and accepted their
endearments, but significant emotional connectedness was
missing from most of their encounters. Although he came across
as restless and rather tense and anxious, I did not detect any
"fear" of his father.
My overall view is that currently [Peter] is not strongly attached
to anyone.
6. How then does a child end up in such a dismal position - a child,
above all, with no attachment to anyone? And what does it bode
for the future, both for him and for the community? This
judgment can only address the first of these issues.
7. In its Statement One, dated 4th August 2008, the Trust detailed
the protracted history which had led it to resolve to seek joint
parental responsibility, with a view to formulating a permanency
plan. The Statement included considerable details of both the
historic and extant concerns.
8. Ms L, the respondent mother, first moved from Town A to Town
B in April 2006, along with her two daughters, Theresa and Sara.
Those children, then aged 15 and 12 respectively, were already
on the Child Protection Register of another Trust, first for a year
from September 2001 and then from April 2005 until the matter
was, in effect, taken over by a Trust which is now part of the
Western Health and Social Care Trust. The grounds for
registration since 2001 were those of potential neglect and
suspected emotional abuse, arising from the relationship between
Ms. L and their father Mr. Y. This was reported to have been
characterised by domestic violence and alcohol misuse. When
the receiving Trust resolved to enter the names of both daughters
on the Child Protection Register in May 2006 it was considered
that there had been minimal change in the risks of significant
To continue reading
Request your trial