England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

In the Family Court at Reading

Before Her Honour Judge Owens

9 ^th September 2015 to 10 ^th September 2015

Case No: RG15C00148

RBC v B

Mr A Vine, Counsel, for the Local Authority

Ms J Gilliatt, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother

Ms R Khan, Solicitor, for the Second Respondent Father

Ms D Routledge, Solicitor, for the Third Respondent acting through her Children’s Guardian

 

Introduction

 

I am dealing with applications for a care order and placement order in respect of F aged 7 months.

 

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from various witnesses.

 

Background and evidential summary

 

The Local Authority applied for a care order when F was born in February this year and an interim care order was granted on 9 ^th February 2015. F’s parents are VB and TR. TR has parental responsibility for F by virtue of a parental responsibility order. On 23 ^rd February 2015 the Court made a direction for residential assessment of F in the care of both her parents at Symbol Family Support Service. Whilst VB and TR were resident at Symbol, TR questioned whether he could be the father of F. As a result, DNA testing was ordered but the results are not known as he failed to comply with the direction. VB has been clear throughout that she believes TR to be F’s father and has not identified any alternative. As there is a parental responsibility order in his favour, this creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity which I find has not been rebutted at present. TR left Symbol on 12 ^th March 2015 following VB’s allegations that he had raped and assaulted her in the placement. He informed the Local Authority that he would not be participating in any further assessments. He has provided no instructions to his solicitor since April this year and has chosen not to attend this hearing. He has also disengaged from contact with F. Effectively he has disengaged from these proceedings therefore. Accordingly, I gave leave for his solicitor to withdraw.

 

Both VB and TR suffered traumatic, violent and sexually abusive childhoods and it is accepted by all parties that their own experiences of parenting, which caused them significant harm as children, has contributed to their difficulties as adults and their ability to provide F with good enough parenting.

 

Prior to F’s birth, the parents were unable to engage with the support and help offered to them. VB was referred to Children’s Services in September 2014 by the midwife who expressed concerns about VB’s ability to manage her anger and prioritise the needs of her unborn child. A later referral also expressed concern about her ability to care for herself and to care adequately for a vulnerable dependent baby. There were also referrals about the ongoing relationship between VB and TR and allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour, including rape, perpetrated by TR upon VB, a volatile relationship and incidents of domestic abuse. During the pregnancy the Local Authority became concerned about VB’s cognitive ability and litigation capacity and a pre-proceedings psychological assessment of her cognitive functioning was undertaken by Dr K Schnack. She concluded that VB lacked litigation capacity and raised significant concern about her ability to engage in any assessment process (C34 and C81). VB did not accept that she had difficulties in understanding the Local Authority concerns and advice given. Within the care proceedings, Dr G Flatman was directed to conduct a further capacity assessment. His conclusion was that VB had an IQ which brought her into the extremely low range of intellectual ability which is just inside the learning disability but that at a functional level she should not be considered as an adult with a learning disability. Her intellectual ability also did not preclude her from caring for F and understanding her needs. He also deemed her to have capacity to litigate (E46). The Court proceeded on the basis of this and the assessment by Symbol was informed by Dr Flatman’s report in relation to how those seeking to teach and develop VB’s parenting ability should approach the assessment. VB does not take issue with the approach adopted by Symbol, nor does she challenge the evidence of Dr Flatman. Her issue with the assessment by Symbol is that she does not accept that they have accurately recorded many of the key incidents relied upon in their final report for their conclusions.

 

Several reports have been filed from Symbol in the course of these proceedings (20 ^th February 2015 E3, 10 ^th March 2015 E23, 18 ^th March 2015 E26, 8 ^th April 2015 E48, 27 ^th April 2015 E50, 8 ^th May 2015 E59, 19 ^th May 2015 E112, 4 ^th June 2015 E120). Their interim report of 18 ^th March 2015 recommended that assessment should continue. The final report dated 8 ^th May 2015 identified that the parents were unable to care for F together but recommended that VB should move to a supported mother and baby placement and undertake a therapeutic programme for six to twelve months to address her own traumatic personal history (E89-90).

Following this final report, VB and F moved from the main house at Symbol to chalet accommodation there, accommodation which was still providing support but with a lower degree of supervision. It is not disputed that by 15 ^th May 2015 VB was in low mood, having thoughts about self-harm and suicide and, as a result, she and F moved back to the main house to ensure high supervision.

 

Symbol provided an updating report on 4 ^th June 2015 which revised their recommendations in relation to VB. Their conclusion (E127) was that VB had been unable to consistently provide F with adequate parenting and was highly dependent upon the supervision and support of staff. They noted her ability to provide F with good, safe and warm parenting with low levels of direct staff support or intervention, but that she was sadly unable to sustain this level of parenting. VB does not accept this. She maintains that her parenting has been good enough and that there has not been the level of inconsistency which Symbol claim. She also told me in her evidence that the difficulties which she experienced in mid May this year were as a result of uncertainty about whether or not the Local Authority would agree with the recommendation for her to move to a mother and baby foster placement and that this was simply a “setback” rather than something more indicative of fundamental problems with her parenting.

 

The crux of this case is therefore her capacity as a parent and any risk of harm which she may pose to F in the future if her parenting capacity is not of a good enough standard.

 

In addition to the evidence from Symbol, which included my hearing from Jacqueline Stone of Symbol in the course of this final hearing, the bundle also contains the assessment of the current allocated social worker, SS. Her final statement is at C120-C127 and she also gave me evidence in this final hearing. Her conclusion, based on the assessments by Symbol and supervised contact to date, is that neither parent would be able to care for F and that F is likely to suffer significant harm if returned to the care of her mother.

 

The Guardian, in his final report dated 8 ^th September 2015 and in his evidence to me, is quite clear that F would be at risk of harm if she were returned to the care of her mother, because there is a gap in her parenting identified as a result of the Symbol assessment and that this gap cannot be bridged within F’s timescales.

 

Threshold

 

The Local Authority alleges that the criteria are met on the basis of risk of physical harm and emotional harm. On the basis of VB’s concessions on threshold, the vast majority of threshold is no longer in issue. The agreed threshold criteria are:

a)                   The past experiences of the parents as children and young people has adversely impacted upon their ability to undertake parenting tasks and to ensure the safety of their child either together or separately;

b)                   The mother does accept that she has difficulties that will impact upon her ability to carry out parental tasks and responsibilities;

c)                   Both parents are homeless;

d)                  The parents were residing in accommodation provided by Children’s Services. This accommodation was unkempt and dirty;

e)                   The parents’ personal hygiene is poor and they present in unclean clothing and smell;

f)                    The relationship between the parents features domestic abuse, allegations of rape and anger management issues. A child raised in such an environment will be exposed to frightening adult behaviour that will impact on her emotional development and place her at risk of physical harm;

g)                   Parents with the combination of issues and difficulties presented by these parents, either separately or together, will struggle to consistently meet the basic care needs of their child including warmth, shelter and adequate personal hygiene. A child raised in this environment will experience neglect, emotional harm and risk of physical harm.

h)                   Parents with the combination of issues and difficulties presented by these parents, either separately or together, will struggle to consistently meet their child’s developmental needs including emotional warmth, stimulation, guidance and boundaries and stability;

 

What is disputed in relation to threshold is whether or not there is a risk of future harm for F in the care of her mother based on the threshold criteria above.

 

Parties’ Positions

 

The Local Authority seeks a final care order and a placement order in relation to F, with the final care plan being for adoption with annual letterbox contact proposed between VB and F post adoption. In relation to post-adoption contact, the Local Authority raises a concern about photographs of F being automatically provided to VB as they fear that she will place them on social media and that this may risk the stability of any adoptive placement. The Local Authority now proposes that they will undertake a further piece of work with VB if care and placement orders are granted. This will enable a social worker to explore the risks with VB and to try to reach an agreement that any such photographs should not be placed on social media. The Local Authority is happy for a preamble to record this and both VB and the Guardian also accept this way forward.

 

VB seeks the return of F to her care and asks for her to be placed with her mother and assessed in a mother and baby foster care placement. Through her advocate, Ms Gilliatt, she argues that such assessment is necessary before adoption can be said to be the only remaining option for F.

 

The Guardian supports the Local Authority and has concluded that the orders sought are the only orders appropriate for F in her best interests.

 

Relevant legal considerations

 

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklists contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002, I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S and Re R.

 

 

 

 

Options in this case

 

All agree that there are only two options in this case: either for F to return to the care of her mother, or for care and placement orders with a plan of adoption to be made.

 

Findings

 

The disputed issue on threshold goes directly to the welfare issue in this case. The Local Authority and the Guardian submit that the evidence in this case, particularly the assessment by Symbol, demonstrates that there is a risk of future significant harm to F if she were to return to the care of her mother. VB argues that she needs to have the opportunity to demonstrate her capacity to parent F in a mother and baby foster care placement.

 

Dealing firstly with the factual disputes which VB raises about the incidents which Symbol rely upon to demonstrate their concerns about inconsistency in her ability to parent, I have considered the evidence very carefully. I have been mindful of the fact that on any factual dispute, it is for the party raising the allegations to prove them on balance of probability. In this case, this translates as the Local Authority must show on balance of probability that what Symbol have recorded is correct.

 

It was conceded by VB in her evidence to me that Symbol approached her assessment from a positive and supportive perspective in relation to her potential ability to adequately parent F. She also does not take issue with the way in which they assessed her, which took into account the recommendations made by Dr Flatman about how best to do this. Until Symbol changed their recommendation to one where F was at risk of significant harm if placed with her mother, she does not take issue with their factual recording. Ms Stone impressed me as a genuine witness who, although she could not necessarily give direct evidence of all of the incidents with which VB takes issue, had sufficient personal knowledge of VB and her dealings with Symbol to be able to give clear evidence. It does seem to me that there is no reason for Symbol to have made up the incidents which are recorded in their later reports and that their versions (for example of the incident on 28 ^th April 2015 (E123) with regard to whether or not VB had sufficient formula for F) are more credible that the versions given by VB. Put bluntly, for VB’s evidence to be accurate, there has to have been wholesale mis-recording and misunderstanding of Symbol’s dealings with her and that is simply not credible. I therefore prefer the evidence of Ms Stone and the Symbol reports in this regard. I therefore find that VB’s parenting once she moved to the chalet accommodation at Symbol did become inconsistent and that she “regressed” in her parenting as Ms Stone described.

 

SS was also very clear that, in her professional opinion and having reviewed all of the evidence obtained prior to her taking over the case, VB is unable to consistently parent F to a good enough standard. She relies on the Symbol assessments for this but also relies on the contact notes since that assessment ended and her own observations. She also told me that the current foster carer has reported that F has had to be bathed and her clothes changed when she returns from contact because of VB’s poor personal hygiene. VB accepts that when she is homeless, her personal hygiene suffers and she is currently homeless. In relation to contact VB accepts that at times she has become frustrated and angry in contact and has also sworn. Ms Gilliatt asks me to accept that this is not in itself a serious concern.

 

I agree that if this was the sole issue, it would not be a significant concern. However, this has to be put in the context of the reports from Symbol and the concern about VB’s ability to put F’s emotional needs above her own. Her becoming frustrated, whilst perhaps understandable, does seem to me to be part of the same pattern of behaviour which Symbol recorded and which they note required direct intervention and support to identify F’s needs and deliver appropriate care. As is also noted by the Guardian at paragraph 15, VB “appeared to have been able to engage and work with professionals during the initial stages of the assessment process… However concerns soon began to arise when she and F moved to the more independent ‘chalet’ accommodation”. Her mood seems to influence the way in which she is able to meet F’s needs or not and there are countless incidents recorded in the Symbol reports detailing this. I am satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that the incidents detailed by Symbol are not simply a “setback” and represent an accurate and balanced assessment of her difficulties with providing good enough parenting consistently arising from her own emotional needs and difficulties.

 

I am asked by Ms Gilliatt to consider allowing VB an opportunity to care for F in a mother and baby foster placement. She argues that this needs to be done before adoption can be considered and all other options can be said to have been ruled out. As was pointed out by SS and the Guardian, the move to chalet accommodation at Symbol represented a move to less intensive support than that provided in the main house. Whilst neither argued that the chalet accommodation was exactly the same as a mother and baby foster placement, they did both suggest that it was analogous to it. Ms Stone was also very clear that the original recommendation for a mother and baby foster placement was before VB regressed in her parenting following the move to the chalet accommodation. It does seem to me that the evidence on this is quite clear. VB was able to parent to an adequate standard whilst in the highly supportive and supervised environment of the main house at Symbol. Almost as soon as she moves to the less supportive and supervised chalet accommodation, problems began to be apparent. I know that she said her issues arose at least in part because she was sharing the chalet accommodation with other couples, some of whom argued in her presence and that she only went to the main house to get away from this or to seek appropriate help. However, whilst that may be her perception, the Symbol reports document a rather different picture of her struggling to remain with F on her own in the chalet and being reluctant to return to the chalet when encouraged to do so. At E127 the updating report from Symbol records “during the period of time reported on VB’s parenting of F has been seen to be inconsistent and highly dependent on her mood and the supervision and support of the staff team. Whilst VB has continued to demonstrate that on some days she is able to provide F with good, safe and warm parenting with low levels of direct staff support and intervention, VB has sadly been unable to sustain this level of parenting and has continued to require high levels of support and intervention to ensure that F’s wellbeing is maintained and her care needs met”.

 

I am also concerned about VB’s ability to work co-operatively with professionals in the future. Whilst she has clearly been able to work with Symbol on many levels and has also been able to have a very difficult conversation with the current social worker, her views about the Local Authority in general are very negative and her continued anger about this has clearly manifested itself in contact sessions in August. She told me that she did not see the need for Local Authority involvement and wanted to go to a mother and baby foster placement to prove that there was nothing wrong with her parenting. This does not demonstrate any insight into the concerns of the Local Authority about future risk of harm to F and makes it very difficult for them to work with her to address these concerns. This harks back to the assessment by Dr Schnack dated 18 ^th February 2015 which noted her inability to acknowledge or recognise the Local Authority concerns (C81). When pressed in the witness box by Ms Routledge for the Guardian, VB was unable to identify what help she needed with regard to her parenting and what she would therefore gain from a mother and baby foster placement.

 

It is also accepted by VB that she would benefit from some form of therapeutic input as was originally identified by Symbol. However, as was noted by Mr Vine for the Local Authority in closing, I have no details about what sort of therapeutic input may benefit her nor any clear indication of timescales that may be involved. However, it does seem a reasonable and commonsense conclusion to draw from the papers that, as her issues are long-standing and arise from very traumatic circumstances in her childhood, any therapy to tackle this is going to be challenging for her personally and would not take place in a short timescale.

 

I find, on balance of probabilities, that VB does pose a risk of future significant harm to F if she were returned to her care. This risk of harm would arise from VB having to put her own emotional needs first (as she did when at Symbol, and during contact since when she has become angry and frustrated with the Local Authority). It also arises from VB being unable to consistently parent F to a good enough standard. That she is at times capable of adequate parenting is not disputed, the issue is whether or not she is consistent and I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that she is not able to consistently maintain good enough parenting. This in turn exposes F to the risk of her physical and emotional needs not being met by VB without VB having such high levels of support as to make it unreasonable to expect this to be provided in the long term.

 

The next question is whether any form of support would enable her to address that inconsistency and ensure that F’s physical and emotional needs are met in the future. The option which Ms Gilliatt puts forward on her behalf is a mother and baby foster placement. The Local Authority and Guardian argue that this is not necessary given the problems in the chalet accommodation at Symbol. Sadly, I am forced to conclude that placement in a mother and baby foster placement would not add necessary evidence for me to determine this case. I am satisfied that the Symbol assessment included a move to less supportive and supervised living in a manner which was analogous to a mother and baby foster placement and that this move demonstrated VB’s inability to parent F to a consistently good enough standard without high levels of support. Such high levels of support as were required do go beyond what a mother and baby foster placement would offer, on the evidence of the Guardian and SS. Whilst I have no doubt that VB clearly loves F and desperately wants to care for her, I find that she is unable to meet F’s needs and care for her on a permanent basis and a move to a mother and baby foster placement would simply be setting her up to fail again and delay any decision to a timescale that is inappropriate for F.

 

As the Guardian notes at paragraph 18 of his final report, F is a very young baby who needs a permanent placement identified for her as soon as possible. There are no other realistic alternatives for her in terms of permanent care as there are no alternative family or other carers in this case. Long term fostering is not appropriate given her age, as the Guardian and SS have noted in their final evidence. I am therefore satisfied that all other realistic options have been considered and I am left with only one remaining option for F which is that of adoption.

 

Conclusions

 

Given my findings, I am forced to conclude that adoption is in F’s best interests and therefore will make a final care order and approve the care plan. I am also satisfied that her welfare requires that I dispense with the consent of her parents to the making of a placement order and will grant a placement order.

 

In relation to contact, there is an issue about the frequency and form of the proposed post-adoption contact in the final care plan. The Local Authority proposes indirect letterbox contact once a year and has agreed to some work with VB in relation to the possible exchange of photographs and that a preamble to the order can address this. VB would like more frequent contact than that which is proposed. The Guardian’s opinion is that once a year letterbox contact is in F’s best interests and agrees with the proposed preamble about work with VB in relation to photographs potentially being exchanged. Given what I heard from SS about the research information from Berkshire Adoption Services about the impact upon children of parents failing to engage with contact if it is more than once a year, and the need to ensure a stable and secure adoptive placement for F, I am satisfied that once a year letterbox contact is in F’s best interests. I am also satisfied that the proposed preamble to the order recording the intention of the Local Authority to undertake work with VB to explore the possibility of photographs being exchanged is appropriate and in F’s best interests. It enables the risks of photographs appearing on social media to be explored with VB so that she can better understand why this might not be appropriate and might enable her to reach an agreement with the Local Authority so that she can safely receive photographs of F and F, when she is older, will know that her mother received these.

 

There shall be no order for costs save for a detailed assessment of the publicly funded parties costs.