[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> DV (Adoption or Rehabilitation) [2016] EWFC B12 (04 March 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B12.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B12

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT LEYLAND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002

		Lancastergate Leyland Preston PR25 2EX
		4th March 2016

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGGAN:

1. Over the last couple of days, I have conducted the final hearing of the Local Authority's application for care and placement orders. The child with whom I am concerned is A who was born in 2013. He has been in foster care since October 2015. It was from his mother's care in Blackburn that the child was removed and she seeks his return. The father is separated from the mother but he supports the mother's resistance to a placement order. The Children's Guardian supports the local authority.
2. The relationship between the mother and father was a turbulent and violent one. The starting point has to be that it is essential that the mother maintains the separation and protects the child from that turbulent relationship. The mother has in the past failed to maintain the separation. Only the latest example was when the mother invited the father to stay in October 2015. That was the trigger for proceedings and led to the child's removal to foster care.
3. The issue at the outset of the case was whether the mother's chronic inability to break away from the father continued to be the dominant feature in the case. In fact, that issue has scarcely featured in argument. The evidence indicates that the mother has achieved a remarkable degree of success on this issue. Instead, the Local Authority relies on related decisions by which the mother engaged in other risky adult sexual relationships around Christmas 2015. They contend that the proper conclusion is that the child is not safe with the mother. It is argued that all possible support and training for the mother did not prevent the decision to enter these relationships so the mother needs therapy. Therapy is expected to take so long that the child cannot wait and should be placed for adoption. My analysis reaches a different conclusion. I reject the plan for placement for adoption and prefer a plan which has as its objective the return of the child to the mother's care.
4. The Local Authority has assembled all the relevant material in a bundle with which I am very familiar. I have also heard oral evidence from the social worker, the mother, her support worker, and the children's guardian.
5. The Local Authority brings the case and bears the burden of proving its allegations. The allegations must be proved on the balance of probabilities. The threshold facts have been reduced into a document which I accept. The care plan is for adoption, so the Local Authority applies for a placement order. I make the welfare of the child throughout his lifetime my paramount concern and I have at the forefront of my mind the checklists under both the 1989 and particularly the 2002 Acts. The Local Authority must persuade me to dispense with parental consent on the statutory ground that the welfare of the child requires (in the sense that it demands) placement for adoption. Adoption must be necessary and proportionate. Adoption should only be the outcome in exceptional circumstances where overriding requirements pertaining to the welfare of the child mean that nothing else will do. I recognise the emphasis placed on welfare throughout lifetime.
6. It is important to record just how depressing is the history in this case. The mother herself was a victim of abuse as a child. The consequence has been that she became vulnerable to violent and abusive relationships. Her relationship with the father began in 2011 and was clearly a period of violence and turbulence. At the birth of the child in 2013, mother and child went to a mother and baby foster placement without the father. The mother duly engaged in the courses that were placed at her disposal in accordance with Local Authority supervision. Mother and child then moved on to the mother's own home where there was an agreement that father should be excluded.
7. Unhappily, in spring 2015 the relationship between mother and father resumed and this was discovered by Social Services in May 2015. The mother re-engaged in the relevant courses and a favourable assessment of the mother's position emerged in September 2015. The recommendation was that the mother should retain the child and professionals expressed themselves quietly confident that she would not resume her relationship with the father. The reality is that there was no other significant cause for concern. Then, as now, the mother was well able to meet the needs of the child and provide emotional warmth. The mother's contact is good. The child is excited to see the mother. Periods of contact are successful and I am told that, until the child became accustomed to the partings, he became upset at the end of contact sessions. This is not a case with any attachment problems. Indeed, this is an advanced child who the professionals are happy to acknowledge is a tribute to the care received from his mother.
8. In October 2015, the mother received messages from the father offering presents for the child. The mother persuaded herself this was a sign that the father had changed and she invited him to visit to see the child. The father behaved himself during this visit, so she invited him to stay one night. She explains that she told him that she could not and would not resume her relationship with him and that an argument ensued. Mother contacted Social Services and revealed what she had done. There is some evidence that the father was threatening to report what had happened to Social Services himself, but in evidence I was particularly impressed by the mother's account when she explained that she contacted Social Services in order to break his hold over her. Not surprisingly, when Social Services discovered what had happened, this was treated as the last straw, these proceedings were commenced, and the child went to foster care.
9. There is clear evidence how well the mother has progressed since that time. This first separation between mother and child has obviously had its mark. She now has new property where she feels safe. She has engaged with the Wish Centre and I have heard from a very impressive support worker with whom the mother has a close working relationship. The worker explained to me that the mother has repeated their programmes, she is a strong member of their groups, and the worker is able to identify definite change since the child was removed. The mother, she tells me, has become more emotionally mature. She is no longer pre-occupied with the relationship with the father. Indeed, he is rarely mentioned.
10. In evidence, the mother told me that, after wrestling with this for a long period of time, she has now reached a position where she has no feelings for the father and I have no difficulty in accepting this evidence from her. There is, in fact, nothing to suggest that the mother has slipped back, as she has in the past, into a renewed relationship with the father. It is important for me that during a time of crisis at around Christmas to which I will return shortly, the mother did not resort to the father as she surely would in the past.
11. The Local Authority repeatedly use a phrase critical of the mother when they say that she has engaged in 'disguised compliance'. It may be that their terminology is loose, but I find that it is not supported by any recent evidence. Indeed, the social worker is happy to praise the mother's engagement and was positively enthusiastic about the counselling which was underway. Certainly, the children's guardian was rejecting of the criticism implicit in the phrase 'disguised compliance'. The guardian told me that the mother now recognised the need for change, she wanted to change, she had fully engaged with everything that had been offered, and she was in the process of change. However the guardian believes that the mother needs therapy of an unknown type and duration. The guardian is driven to that conclusion by what she describes as the current lifestyle choices of the mother which the guardian says persuade her that the child would be unsafe in the mother's care.
12. The blemish in the mother's recent presentation takes the form of transitory relationships which she has had with a number of different men. December is the period of heightened concern because in that month, there were a series of three sexual relationships. The first two involved young men whom the mother knew. She had socialised with them before and knew something about them. Perhaps as a result, no harm came of those encounters. The significant encounter involves the third man and occurred on Christmas Day 2015. There was then a drunken sexual escapade in the mother's home with a man that she did not know whom she had picked up on Facebook. It turned out that this was a man with a family and a criminal record. Mother explains that she was very low about Christmas time. She was spending Christmas, of course, without her child. The world was celebrating at a time when she was alone and she felt the need for company, any company. We now know that mother's contraception let her down and she became pregnant and the man became aggressive. The mother then acted in an impressive way. From the witness box, she impressed when she explained that she was not prepared to put up with that kind of thing anymore and so she firmly terminated her relationship with this man. The support worker is able to corroborate the latter part of the account having seen the relevant exchanges.
13. It is necessary to analyse this period. The mother had attended all the courses about domestic abuse. These courses had given training as to how abusive relationships can be avoided. Nevertheless, the mother placed herself at risk. These episodes, of course, attract moral criticism, but they are only harmful for a child if there is a child involved and clearly there was no child involved in December 2015. The mother insists that this behaviour would not have arisen if she had her child at home. She points out that she never had strange men at home when the child was in her care and I accept her evidence on this point. It is argued that December represents a part of a pattern of unthinking unsafe behaviour, but for me the correct approach is an analysis of the likelihood of harm to the child.
14. Firstly in relation to the father, I see no real likelihood that the mother is going to reconcile with the father now so there is no real likelihood of harm from that source. So far as strange men are concerned, I accept the mother's point that she would behave differently with a child at home. The support worker has an important, many times weekly working relationship with the mother. The social worker was happy to concede that her rapport with the mother will be closer than her own. The social worker had not had the opportunity for deep discussions with the mother since December. The support worker spoke of the mother now being focused on the child. The professionals have spoken of rehabilitation in this case as representing high risk. Their view was based on their perception of the likelihood of the child being exposed by the mother to relationships with strange men. That is not my finding and, accordingly, I do not accept the label of 'high risk'.
15. Additional factors arose from the events of December. The mother is pregnant. There seems to be a degree of professional optimism that the mother will be able to achieve change within the timescales of the new baby. Of course, caring for the new baby will represent an additional burden for the mother, but childcare skills are not in doubt in the case of this mother. The new baby has a father, but I am not persuaded that there is a real risk of disruption from him. Indeed, the evidence suggests disinterest on his part and disapproval from his family unit.
16. I heard a great deal about the Facebook activity of the mother posting comments about the paternity of the new baby. She dropped her guard so far as concealment of her whereabouts is concerned, but these are not points which, for me, attract significant weight in the exercise on which I am engaged.
17. The relevant checklist items seem to be these. The effect on the child of ceasing to be a member of the birth family would be detrimental. The relationship with the mother is good, important, and valuable. It is a relationship which can continue subject to the question of whether the mother is able to meet the child's needs. She is capable of meeting his general needs. The question mark concerns her ability to meet his need for safety. The risk of harm if returned to the mother's care is, for me, not unacceptably high.
18. I turn to consider the advantages and disadvantages of what are the two realistic options; firstly, adoption. This is a healthy young child who will undoubtedly find adopters without difficulty. He is past the important second birthday mark, so it would be more challenging for him to settle and make new relationships, although there are no disordered attachments in this case. He knows and loves his mother. It will be tough for him to lose her and a real loss to his emotional wellbeing. There is a sibling on its way. If the sibling remains with the mother, through adoption this child would lose the opportunity of a relationship with his sibling. Adoption would be safe and permanent, but it would involve a loss of the birth family which should only be permitted if overriding requirements of welfare demand it.
19. If I reject the placement order application, I need a revised care plan from the Local Authority. The second realistic option is a care order with a plan containing the objective of rehabilitation to the mother's care. This would proceed at a pace and by a mechanism which the Local Authority would determine, guided by all the necessary professional support. It is increasingly common ground that the mother would benefit from therapy and I would expect that this should feature as part of the Local Authority's plan. The guardian considers therapy to be essential for this mother. This is based on the guardian's interpretation of the December encounters which, for the guardian, create an unacceptable risk to the safety of the child. I do not accept that assessment of risk, but for me therapy might well help the mother to overcome the problems from the past, although not essential for the child's safety.
20. This is the context in which I would expect the Local Authority to arrange psychological assessment in order to guide their approach to this process. I have, of course, considered whether I should adjourn this final hearing and commission a psychological assessment for the court. A psychological assessment was not raised at the case management stages of this case. Indeed, there never has been a formal application. The issue was raised orally at the pre-hearing review three weeks ago, but psychological assessment was then incompatible with this final hearing proceeding in its present slot. I decided that a psychological assessment was not necessary and my case management decision has not been the subject of appeal. It has been raised again in argument, but I am clear that the approach to be taken in 2016 makes it inappropriate for the case now to be adjourned for this purpose.
21. This hearing is my opportunity to decide whether it is necessary for this child to be placed for adoption. The alternative care plan would be rehabilitation. My determination of the factual issues leads me to the conclusion that adoption is neither necessary nor proportionate in this case. In that context, a psychological assessment might well guide the Local Authority's implementation of an alternative care plan for rehabilitation, but that assessment would be for the Local Authority and not for the court.
22. I turn to the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative care plan. It is described as high risk but I ask, "risk of what?" and conclude that the mother's attitude to neither the father nor the unidentified strange men represents a high risk to the child. There is, of course, a risk that the plan for rehabilitation might fail or break down. However, in September, assessments concluded that the mother could meet the needs of the child and all the evidence is that the mother represents a stronger candidate now than she did at the time of that assessment. Of course, if the plan fails, the mother must be acutely aware that the only alternative available to the court would be to revert to a plan for adoption. In the event that there was such a breakdown, of course the child would have been exposed to unnecessary upheaval. The child would be older and perhaps more difficult successfully to place for adoption. Mitigation for the child would probably be found in the making of a joint placement for adoption with the baby still to be born. The advantage of the plan is maintaining the relationship with the mother which is well established. The affection in that relationship is clear and assessments confirm that the mother is able to meet the child's needs.
23. Stepping back, it is for me the turning point in this case to decide whether the December episode indicates an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. Apart from the Christmas Day relationship, the criticism concerns relatively minor matters. So far as the Christmas Day relationship is concerned, this is, of course, a serious issue. If the mother was taking strange men home with a child present, that would be totally unacceptable behaviour. However, there was no child and more importantly and fundamentally, I accept that mother would not behave in this way if there was a child in her care. In that finding, I differ from the guardian's analysis and the consequence is that I differ from the guardian's recommendation. For me, the mother has achieved a remarkable change by breaking away from the insidious control of the father. For me, December does not fatally undermine that progress.
24. The guardian is in fact very generous in her praise for the mother's progress. She criticised the Local Authority's use of the phrase 'disguised compliance'. The guardian went so far as to express her own confidence that the mother will be able to parent a child in the future. The guardian conceded that, in her mind, it was a finely balanced case. I agree but, for me having seen and heard the mother and considered the evidence in depth, a very clear picture emerges. This child will not be inherently unsafe with the mother. With support and work which is realistic under a care order, rehabilitation can safely be achieved.
25. Turning to the legal position then, the consequence is that I must answer in the negative the various questions that I put to myself; whether I can approve a care plan for adoption, whether I am driven to dispense with parental consent, and whether it is necessary and proportionate for the plan to be adoption. A consequence is that the placement order application must be dismissed. I have already expressed my desire to conclude the case in the near future by the granting of a care order. The contents of a new care plan will need some reflection and I turn now to the advocates for guidance as to how that is best achieved.
26. Post Script

A week later the local authority presented a care plan for work with the mother leading to the return of the child to her care. The case was concluded on this basis by the making of a Care Order

Judgment ends

Approved 17.3.16

RD