X Council v B (emergency protection orders)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Munby |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: LA03C00014 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 16 August 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam)
The Honourable Mr Justice Munby
In the Matter of the B Children
Case No: LA03C00014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
LIVERPOOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
(In Private)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Ernest Ryder QC and Ms Alison Woodward for the local authority
Ms Margaret de Haas QC and Ms Frances Heaton for the mother
Ms Jane Cross for the father
Ms Gail Owen for the eldest child D
Ms Eleanor Hamilton QC and Mr Adam Wilson for the younger children J and W
Ms Julia Cheetham for the maternal grandparents
Hearing dates : 1 and 20 October 2003 and 3 November 2003
Ms Alison Woodward for the local authority
Ms Frances Heaton for the mother
Ms Jane Cross for the father
Mr Adam Wilson for the younger children J and W
Hearing date : 13 May 2004
This judgment was handed down in private but the judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported in the form in which it here appears.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Mr Justice Munby:
These are care proceedings relating to three brothers: D born on 19 November 1987, J born on 20 April 1992 and W born on 1 February 1998. They have an older sister N who was born on 18 February 1985.
The family has been known to the local authority and has had extensive involvement with social services since 1988. In recent years the family has endured significant levels of stress and distress. N is seriously ill with an incurable disease which is usually terminal. D has experienced behavioural problems and has been diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit disorder and conduct disorder. J has been diagnosed as suffering from chronic motor or vocal tic disorder. By the time the proceedings commenced in January 2003 it was the local authority's case that, although the stresses in the family will have contributed to the quality of the parents' care of the children, D and J had suffered significant emotional harm and all three children were likely to suffer significant physical and emotional harm by reason of the parents', and in particular the mother's, extreme and histrionic reaction to family events: for example, their inappropriate management of medication, their recurring failure to seek and follow up appropriate medical advice, their decisions to disengage from medical services and failure to engage with offers of behavioural therapies, and the mother's inability to give accurate information regarding the children's symptoms and medication – the local authority suggested that she was exaggerating or even fabricating the children's symptoms.
The parents deny, and have always denied, all the allegations made by the local authority, save that they (and D) acknowledge the significance of the effect that N's circumstances has had upon the family.
I must return in due course to describe the events of late 2002 and early 2003 in a little more detail, but for the moment it suffices to record that a strategy meeting was held on 15 November 2002 and that on 16 January 2003 a pre-arranged joint visit was made by two social workers to the family home. According to the local authority the mother refused to discuss the matter, demanded that the social workers leave and said “over my dead body” at the suggestion that the children be taken into local authority foster care. This crisis, as it was perceived by the local authority, precipitated the proceedings.
The proceedings were commenced by an application for emergency protection orders (“EPOs”) in relation to all four children issued the same day, 16 January 2003. EPOs in respect of the four children, to last until 24 January 2003, were made by the family proceedings court (“FPC”) at an ex parte hearing on 17 January 2003. N refused to be placed in care but D agreed and was placed, together with J and W, with emergency foster carers the same day, 17 January 2003. N remained at home being looked after by her parents. On 20 January 2003 the parents applied for the discharge of the EPOs. The same day the local authority applied for care orders in respect of D, J and W. At a hearing in the FPC on 21 January 2003 the parents agreed to withdraw their application to discharge the EPOs. Interim care orders for 28 days in respect of D, J and W were made by consent and the proceedings were transferred by the FPC to the care centre. On 23 January 2003 the proceedings were transferred by the Circuit Judge to the High Court. On 28 January 2003 a children's guardian was appointed. On 31 January 2003 Bennett J gave directions including, importantly, a direction that the matter was to be listed for a contested interim care order hearing on 11 March 2003. On 28 February 2003 the three children were placed with their maternal grandparents; that, as I understand it, obviated the need for the contested interim care order hearing. On 16 April 2003, due to her worsening condition, N was admitted to the relevant NHS trust, where she remains permanently accommodated (having been detained since 6 May 2003 in accordance with section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983). On 26 June 2003, and against the wishes of the local authority, D returned to the care of his parents. By then he was, of course, 15 1/2 years old and there was probably little in practical terms that the local authority could do. Since then the proceedings in substance have continued only in respect of J and W.
In accordance with previous case management directions an experts' meeting took place on 15 September 2003, and an advocates' meeting (by video link) on 23 September 2003, preparatory to a directions hearing which took place (also by video link) before me on 1 October 2003. I conducted a further hearing (again by video link) on 20 October 2003. The final hearing took place on 3 November 2003. It had been fixed to last for 12 days; in the event it took less than a day. The case was not, of course, subject to the Protocol (see Practice Direction (Care Cases: Judicial Continuity and Judicial Case Management) [2003] 2 FLR 719), which came into force only on the day of the final hearing, but it was conducted in its latter stages very much in accordance with the spirit of the Protocol. A lengthy final hearing was avoided, very largely as a result of what turned out to be the productive meetings first of the experts and then of the advocates. Very significant amounts of time, and substantial amounts of public money, were saved by the use of video conferencing facilities.
By the date of the hearing on 20 October 2003 all the parties and the experts were agreed that the best interests of the children would be safeguarded by their return to the care of their parents, that is, in D's case, the continuation of the status quo. It was also clear that such a decision would accord with the wishes and feelings of the children. The experts recommended that a package of protective steps was necessary that would include an agreed key social worker for the family, identified medical personnel (GPs and specialists) to be involved in all treatment decisions, prescriptions, reviews and correspondence about the same, and a psychological assessment for J to consider ending his Prozac medication. The local authority was additionally recommending a protocol for the administration of all medication for each child and agreements relating to education and the sharing of information between education, health care and social care agencies. The detailed terms of a 'contract' had been agreed between the parents and the local authority with the involvement of health service bodies and the relevant education resources.
There was, nonetheless, no agreement between the parents and the local authority either as to the existence of the threshold facts or as to the need for full care orders:
i) The local authority's case was that there should be care orders in respect of J and W and that if the rehabilitation and protection packages were successful the parents would be encouraged to apply for the discharge of the orders in due course. So far as D was concerned, bearing in mind that he was independently seeking his own medical advice and would be 16 shortly after the final hearing, the local authority was content, if the younger children were protected by care orders, to seek no order in respect of D.
ii) The parents' case was that if the court was to find the threshold proved and/or was to decide that orders were necessary they would have been adjudged to be abusers and therefore would not put themselves forward as carers, preferring the maternal grandparents to exercise that care in their stead.
Out of this seemingly irreconcilable conflict a possible compromise nonetheless emerged. Accordingly, the issue of principle for determination at the hearing on 20 October 2003 was whether exceptionally, in the circumstance that everyone agreed that the children should return home, the management of the rehabilitation should be achieved by the continuation of the interim care orders which had been in place since January 2003.
The local authority's case before me on 20 October 2003 was compellingly deployed by Mr Ernest Ryder QC (as he then was) and Ms Alison Woodward, for whose assistance I am most grateful. In summary they sought to persuade me that it was right, and in each of the children's best interests, to work in partnership with the family in circumstances where all were agreed that rehabilitation of the children home was the best option and where agreement had been reached as to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Llbc v Tg, Jg and Tr [Fd]
...Re S (Ex parte orders) [2001] 1 WLR 211, [2001] 1 FLR 308, W v H (Ex parte injunctions) [2001] 1 All ER 300 (by analogy X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341 and Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 701) and......
-
First Global Bank Ltd v Rohan Rose, Anthony Lewis, Theodore Levy and Mobil Import/Export Company Ltd
...or other great urgency, and even then it should normally be possible to give some kind of albeit informal notice: X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam) . [2005] 1 FLR 341, at para [53]. 64. Secondly, those who seek relief ex parte are under a duty to make full ......
-
Re A (A Child)(Deprivation of Liberty); C (Vulnerable Adult)(Deprivation of Liberty)
...such seeming heavy-handedness is not easy to justify and can too often turn out to be completely counter-productive: cf X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341, at para [93]. I agree in every respect and would wish to associate myself with what ......
-
Re W (A Child) (non-accidental injury: expert evidence); sub nom Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v GW and PW
...be used to manage the rehabilitation and that would be both necessary and proportionate (following the exceptional course described in X Council v. B [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341 per Munby J. at paras [7] to [17] albeit in different circumstances) viii) Far from describing the ......
-
Essential Daily Guidance for Proceedings Concerning Children
...the case under review day 58 Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam). 59 X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 341. by day so as to ensure that parent and child are separated for no longer than is necessary to secure the child’s sa......
-
The State as Parent: The Reluctant Parent? The Problems of Parents of Last Resort
...no reasonable judge could have made the decision: G. v. G. [1985] F.L.R. 894HL.125 X. County Council v. B (Emergency Protection Order) [2005] 1 F.L.R. 341; Re X.(Emergency Protection Order) [2006] EWHC 510, and see Masson et al., op. cit., n.2, pp. 11±12.126 LM.v.Medway Council [2007] EWCA ......
-
Urgent Care Removals and Access to Children’s Courts: An Analysis of the Implications of C v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng
...Ch ildren Amended i n GN R497 in GG 35476 of 29-06-2012 383 See also Zaal (2012) THRHR 174 84 Gilliat (2008) Family L aw Week 285 [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam)86 [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam) 87 X Council v B (Eme rgency Protecti on Orders) [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam) para 57 88 C v Gauteng Depa rtment of Heal......