[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) >> OCC v R & H [2017] EWFC B7 (14 February 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B7.html Cite as: [2017] EWFC B7

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

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT OXFORD

		13th February 2017 To 14th February 2017

INTRODUCTION

I am dealing with applications for care and placement orders in respect of K who is now aged 5 months. Her mother is FR and her father is KH, also known as KL. These proceedings commenced with an application for an ex parte EPO on 17^th August 2016. An ICO was granted on 25^th September 2016 and remains in place.

BACKGROUND AND EVIDENTIAL SUMMARY

FR presented to hospital in Oxford late on 14^th August 2016 in the early stages of labour. She was not booked to give birth there and arrived with no clothes or items for the baby and no antenatal notes. She told staff that she was booked to give birth at the West Middlesex Hospital, however on investigation they had no record of any such booking. FR also said that her antenatal records were at home. Those notes were not forthcoming and staff were later told that they could not be found. FR gave conflicting accounts about where she lived and the due date for the baby. She arrived at hospital with a male whose name she said she could not spell but which was a different forename to KH though the same surname. It was suspected that this was in fact KH.

FR refused to give any clear information about where she lived and where she intended to take K if permitted to leave hospital with her. She also gave conflicting accounts about her circumstances. She was assessed by Dr Yousif, Consultant Psychiatrist, at the hospital. His notes are at E2-9 and his concerns about her led to her being placed under 24 hour supervision. He saw her again on 15^th August 2016 and on 16^th August 2016 and concluded that he was less concerned about mental health issues in relation to FR and more concerned about safeguarding the baby as FR was inconsistent and unreliable in her accounts.

Various associates attended the hospital to see FR. Dr Yousif saw her with a man who he felt was suspicious and controlling of her. He also noted concerns about FR's care of K at the hospital.

After the EPO was initially granted, K moved into foster care and has remained there since. After that initial EPO, which was subsequently extended at a later on notice hearing, it became apparent that FR was known to Slough Children's Services Trust who had initiated child protection procedures after receiving reports of domestic abuse between the parents.

The Local Authority in these proceedings had initially proposed sourcing an expert on honour based violence issues as both parents claimed that they were at risk from their respective families. Subsequently it became clear that this was not in fact a risk as FR denied that she had said it, merely that her family were likely to disapprove of the relationship. KH is also the father of 7 children with a white woman, SM. He is also not of Pakistani heritage as he had claimed and his birth name was KL.

Psychological and Parenting Assessments of both parents were directed. In respect of FR Dr Jackaman was able to carry out a full psychological assessment of her and the conclusion, sadly, was negative and did not recommend K that could return to her mother's care. FR has very bravely accepted that this is the case and acknowledged this at the IRH. She has therefore put K's interests above her own and accepts the Local Authority final care plan and for there to be care and placement orders for K and is consenting to the making of these orders. As has been acknowledged by the Local Authority and the Guardian, that is both incredibly brave of her and is putting K's needs first in a way that is a very positive indicator of her ability to begin to tackle her own vulnerabilities and issues.

The psychological assessment of KH is not complete as he did not attend all of the appointments. In relation to the Parenting Assessment the parenting assessor had sufficient information to enable her to reach a conclusion that K could not be safely cared for by her father.

KH opposes the making of final care and placement orders and was representing himself on day one of this hearing, having chosen to part company with his legal representatives shortly before the start. He did make an application for this final hearing to adjourn, that application being opposed by all of the other parties and refused by myself on the basis that it was his choice to be unrepresented at this late stage and that K's welfare (as my paramount consideration) required that there be no further delay to concluding these proceedings. He also sought to argue that he had not had an opportunity to look at the written evidence in the case. Obviously until he became unrepresented at the commencement of this hearing all documents had been served on his solicitors. He was provided with an unmarked Bundle for his reference purposes at the commencement of this hearing and I gave him an opportunity to read the documentary evidence relating to the social worker Nicki Heyes (pointing out particularly the parenting assessment of him and her final statement) before he cross-examined her. I also gave him time during the lunch adjournment to read any other documents prior to FR giving her evidence and, of course, told him that he would have overnight on 13^th February 2017 to read any other documents. The prisoner escort staff confirmed to me in court that KH would be able to retain the Bundle. In the event KH refused to leave his cell at HMP Bullingdon for the second day of this hearing. This was not apparently due to any illness or external factor preventing him from leaving his cell and I formed the view as a result that he had chosen to voluntarily absent himself from this hearing and had had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings. I therefore proceeded in his absence.

The Guardian supports the making of care and placement orders in this case.

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, Re H (A child), Re B (Care Proceedings: Appeal), Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation), and Re W. I have also reminded myself that the burden of proof is on the Local Authority in respect of threshold and their case that K cannot be cared for by her mother or her father, and the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities.

FINDINGS

The Local Authority final threshold document is at A39-41 but has been amended to reflect FR's response to threshold so as to remove some items that the Local Authority no longer pursue and thus reflect the fact that threshold is largely now not in issue between FR and the Local Authority. In summary the threshold document alleges a history of domestic violence between the parents, a history of domestic violence between KH and the mother of his older children, the parents have not been open or honest with the local authority and other professionals, and that FR did not attend regular antenatal care. KH has indicated that he does not accept a large part of threshold but has not filed a final statement or response to threshold so the details of this lack of acceptance are not clear. Threshold is accepted by the respondent mother, with (as noted) a couple of minor amendments and which the Local Authority does not seek to pursue and have therefore amended their final document accordingly.

I heard evidence from the allocated social worker, Nicki Hayes whose written evidence is to be found at C64a-e (viability assessment of AA put forward by KH), C64f (viability assessment of HH put forward by KH), statements at C81, C87, and C145, parenting assessment of FR C92, and parenting assessment of KH at C122. She is also the author of the final care plan at D8. Ms Hayes confirmed that if final orders are granted the plan for contact would be a reduction in contact with FR from weekly to fortnightly for two contacts, then monthly until a placement was identified for K, then there would be a farewell contact. In relation to contact with KH, none is planned whilst he was in prison.

KH asked her whether it was possible for him to safely parent K with support. Her answer was that, in her professional opinion, it was not because the level of support required would almost be 24/7 supervision and that was not feasible in the longer term, nor was it in K's best interests as KH was unable to understand the more complex emotional needs of a child. She also questioned his ability to engage with support and take on advice. Ms Hayes was very clear that neither she as the allocated social worker, nor the Local Authority, had taken a view about ruling out KH nor FR until after the assessments had been completed.

FR also gave me evidence. Her statements are at C20, C32 and C174. Her response to threshold is at A48 onwards. She confirmed that she accepted that the final care plan for adoption was in K's best interests. When questioned by KH through me, she also accepted the Local Authority evidence that K could not safely be placed with KH.

KH's absence from the second day of this final hearing and the absence of any final evidence from him has made it difficult to work out what case he was seeking to put before me. As noted by Mr Trueman for K, what KH seemed to be putting forward on day one did not appear to amount to viable alternative plan.

In terms of the Local Authority final threshold, I find as follows:

1. There is a history of domestic abuse between the parents, including the following incidents recorded by the police:

a) 23 November 2015: argument culminating in Father grabbing mother's neck and arms. This is supported by the accounts given by both parties to the police at the time and recorded in the Police disclosure at PD17 and the Child Protection Conference case report at Ce. KH is recorded as accepting that he had grabbed FR but said that it was in self-defence. It is also in the evidence from FR via her response to threshold.

b) 25 January 2016: parents argued with Father reportedly throwing a mobile phone at mother and pinning her to the bed. This is recorded on the Child Protection Conference case report at Ce and in the Police disclosure at PD20-21.

c) 23 February 2016: Police spoke to mother following a 999 call. She stated that father had hit her with a belt and strangled her twice, he had threatened to kill her if she leaves or has an abortion, he was controlling, and she was not allowed male friends. This is recorded in the information from Slough Children's Services Trust at F4, Police disclosure at PD23-25 and again in the Child Protection Conference case report at Ce. It is recorded at PD25 that when the Police spoke to KH he was talking and shouting to them and it was some minutes before he calmed down. It is also recorded that he accepted that there had been an argument between the two of them.

d) 20 March 2016: the parents argued, culminating in mother calling the police. Again, this is supported by the information from Slough Children's Services Trust (F12) and is also in the Police disclosure (PDt).

e) 15 July 2016: Mother was arrested for assaulting Father and was bailed not to live at his address. Concerns were raised that he was tracking her. This is supported by the information from Slough Children's Services Trust at F44-45, as well as the information in the Police disclosure at PD44b and PD51-76. FR does not accept that she did assault KH and in fact the way this finding is worded, I do not need to determine whether or not she assaulted him. The fact is the evidence shows me on balance of probabilities that she was arrested and bailed and there were concerns that KH was tracking her.

f) 8 October 2016: Mother reported that Father had hit the side and back of her head several times and bitten her right foot. Paramedics observed 3 areas of swelling on the back of her head – this is documented at PD44a-d. Again it records KH acknowledging to the Police that he may have hit FR but saying that he did so in self-defence.

g) 10 October 2016: Mother alleges Father has attempted to physically hurt her. This allegation is recorded at PD44f;

h) 17 October 2016: Mother rings the police alleging that Father has grabbed her and threatened to strangle her – this is recorded at PD48;

i) 3 December 2016: Mother reports that Father has sexually assaulted her but declines to move to a Refuge – recorded at PD78-83;

j) 14 December 2016: Mother reports that Father has physically and sexually assaulted her and refused to allow her to leave her car. She is observed to have injuries to her head and a bite mark on her foot – this is recorded at PD87-93 so it is clear that she has made the complaint and that the injuries were observed. KH is remanded in custody pending a criminal trial in relation to this matter in April.

2. Father has a history of domestic abuse with the mother of his older children and Slough Children Services and the police report that he was emotionally and physically abusive to his children. These reports can be found at: Cf, F21-22, Fv-xlix, PD10, and PD14.

a) On 18 March 2011, his daughter Amy alleged that he had punched and head butted her [PD3]. Father subsequently accepted a caution for battery as his PNC record shows at C75, so therefore he must have accepted that he committed the assault to have been eligible for a caution.

3. The parents have not been open or honest with the local authority and other professionals:

a) They provided false names at the John Radcliffe Hospital and in mother's case, a false date of birth. This is recorded in the medical records at E1 where FR gave a false forename and date of birth, and KH also gave a false forename.

b) Father provided a false name to Birmingham Hospital on 10 July 2016; this is recorded at F31 when he gave both a false surname and forename of Joseph Rodrigues.

c) Mother did not provide her ante natal notes to the JR and was evasive about where she had received her ante natal care, at one point falsely claiming that she was booked at West Middlesex; this is recorded at E1 in her maternity assessment booking form completed on her arrival.

d) The parents did not provide the hospital with their home address, thus preventing discharge to an appropriate health visiting team. This is documented in the hospital records at E1-10.

e) Both parents were evasive about the identify of K's father and a new partner who was not the father and father using a false name and pretending to be a relative on one occasion; again, this is clearly documented in the hospital records at E7 and E2.

f) Mother previously refused to provide her address to Slough Children's Services – information contained in SCST records at F22;

g) Mother has repeatedly given inconsistent and/or false information about where she is living; this is recorded throughout the medical and social services evidence in section E and C.

h) Father gave a false name (Mr Khan) when attending contact on 1 September 2016; this relates to a visit KH made to the hospital on 1^st September 2016 and which is recorded in a case note by Susanna Cunningham, social worker at C40. He is recorded as being recognized by another member of staff who had seen him at the office on the Bank Holiday Monday.

i) Father did not disclose that his birth name is KL until the LA obtained this information from his sister CL. He falsely stated that he had only ever used the name KH (C62); the evidence from the social worker Nicki Heyes is at C85 and C89-90 and records that she has spoken to CL who provided detailed information about KH's background and family. KL is listed on his PNC record as his name with KH as an alias. He has also accepted that his birth mother was PL.

j) Father falsely stated that he is of Pakistani Heritage (C16, C61) when he is actually of British/Jamaican and Burmese descent; this is confirmed in the social work evidence of Nicki Heyes following her conversation with CL at C85 and C89 when she documents KH's acceptance of his heritage as not being from Pakistan.

k) Father initially claimed that he had been evasive because he was afraid of the reaction of their families (A31). However, it has since been confirmed that this was not true and that he has also used the name SH; this is confirmed in KH's own evidence at C61-62 and again the PNC shows him using the name SH (C70).

l) Father filed a false birth certificate; this is in the Bundle at C64 and clearly does not relate to him as it names a different mother to one that he accepts is his, as well as what appears to be a wholly different father.

m) Father denied that he was the father of SM's seven children (A30, C62). He has since admitted to the social worker (C128) and Dr Jackaman (E51) that he is their father, and this is also clear from the Slough CST paperwork and police disclosure (Sections F and PD); the various documents and records in these proceedings referred to in this threshold finding, as well as KH's own admissions, amply prove this on balance of probabilities.

4. Mother did not attend regular ante-natal care, thus placing K at risk of harm as an unborn baby.

a) It is known that she missed appointments on 10 and 18 May 2016 (F22); FR says that she was prevented from attending by KH and this does seem wholly credible given their volatile history and her apparent fear of him.

b) She left Birmingham Hospital against medical advice and was reported as a missing person (F31). This is a matter of record and as such is not really in dispute.

c)

As a result of all of the above, I find that on balance of probabilities at the time that protective measures were taken, namely August 2016, there were reasonable grounds to believe that K has suffered and/or was likely to suffer significant harm, the likelihood of harm being attributable to the care likely to be given to her, that care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give her.

Turning next to the welfare stage of this final hearing, K would no doubt wish to be brought up in a safe, stable and loving environment where all of her needs are met, though she is too young to be able to articulate her views on the matter. As identified by the Guardian in her final report at E66, the relevant welfare checklist headings in this case are the capability of the parents and risk of harm to K.

In relation to the capability of the parents and risk of harm, there is a thorough parenting assessment of each. FR accepts the conclusions reached in that assessment (C118-120) and in the psychological assessment of her by Dr Jackaman (E53-57 for the conclusions reached about FR). This is a very brave acknowledgement of her difficulties in parenting and, I find, is one where she is putting K's needs above her own by accepting this and the final care plan for K. As she herself says in her final statement, she has no knowledge of parenting and is not ready to be a parent (C176). I also acknowledge that she does seem genuinely fearful of KH and that much of the evidence before me underpins how reasonable that fear of him may be. That fear may also go a long way to explain her actions and in particular how controlled and manipulated she may have been by KH during their relationship.

In relation to KH, the parenting assessment of him is at C122-144. It is noted throughout by Nicki Heyes that KH displayed a lack of honesty and a difficulty in sharing information necessary to the assessment. He is also noted to have shown "a lack of insight and understanding into the violence that has continued to be a feature of the parents' relationship" (C143). An example of this lack of insight is as noted by Nicki Heyes "there is an ongoing pattern of violence between K's parents including incidents perpetrated by KH towards FR beginning in November 2015 and continuing to date. These incidents include assault, biting, strangulation, restraint with a belt and imprisonment. A significant number of these incidents have been assessed as high risk by Police involved in these incidents. On 31 March 2016 Slough Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference expressed that FR was a high risk of domestic abuse at the hands of KH…I have discussed these incidents with KH. He does not appear to believe that these incidents of violence are a concern and he continues to be evasive and deny or minimize incidents that have happened. During our meetings he has not taken any responsibility for his actions and remains of the view that incidents have been exaggerated or that he was protecting himself" (C126-7). At several points in the assessment Ms Heyes notes concerns about the difficulties in establishing KH's identity because of his inconsistent, contradictory and at times confusing and misleading information. As she says "KH appears to have a fairly fluid notion of his own identity which is significantly worrying. His refusal to discuss his childhood also raises further questions around his understanding of the importance for a child to know where they have come from and where they belong. I feel that this would not place him in good stead when it comes to fostering a sense of identity for K as she is growing up" (C136). KH was also not co-operative in allowing Ms Heyes to visit his home to assess it, although as she notes this was requested on more than one occasion.

It is noted within the parenting assessment that KH "has shown a level of commitment to contact with K, and during these times he has shown considerable warmth and affection towards her. He has talked lovingly and affectionately to K" (C143). Despite this, it is also noted that he "presents as someone who is unfamiliar with meeting the needs of an infant. Throughout his contacts he was often seen to be mechanical and superficial in his responses to K" (C125). As Ms Heyes notes at C126 and told me in evidence, this is all the more worrying given that KH has seven other children. In her opinion, despite having seven other children, he would struggle "to identify K's needs and so to meet them" (C126). Ms Heyes also notes that records from Slough Children's Services Trust indicate significant concerns relating to the emotional welfare of KH's seven other children but KH refused to discuss this with her which prevented any assessment of this aspect of him. It also appears, as Ms Heyes notes at C137, that he appears not to have been able to form positive relationships with his older children from the records held by Slough. Despite KH indicating in his questioning of Ms Heyes on the first day of this final hearing that he had cared for his seven elder children with no problems the evidence from Slough Children's Services Trust suggests otherwise. The overall conclusion reached by Ms Heyes in her parenting assessment is that it is her view "that there are significant concerns as to KH's understanding of the needs of his daughter and his ability to meet those needs. It is also my view that because he does not accept that his behaviour and lifestyle poses any risk to K, that he would not able to make the necessary changes in his life to offer K the necessary level of safety and stability that she will need as she grows and develops" (C144). I find that KH has not parented any child to a good enough standard on the evidence before me and would really struggle to achieve adequate parenting of K. I find that, as Ms Heyes told me, the level of support that would be required to enable him to do this would simply not be feasible. She told me that it would be practically 24/7 supervision and I accept that this would be what would be required to address the very serious deficiencies and concerns identified in relation to KH's parenting capacity and the risk of harm that he poses to K.

Dr Jackaman also conducted a psychological assessment of KH. KH did not attend all required appointments with her and was late for his second appointment as she notes at E48. When he did attend his appointment with Dr Jackaman, her notes of his presentation and behavior chime with the concerns noted by Ms Heyes in that he was histrionic, someone who was embellishing and exaggerating, but Dr Jackaman also noted a lack of sincerity regarding what he talked about (E48). Dr Jackaman commented that "he clearly seems to struggle to discriminate between fact and fantasy, his relationship with the truth seems to be fluid at best, and it is incredibly difficult to pin him down and obtain even basic facts such as where he was born, and what his name was. He is incredibly evasive in his manner and fluctuates between being over and under assertive" (E48-9).

The detailed information which he provided to Dr Jackaman about his background (E49-52) was something that she wanted to explore during the second interview with him but KH did not turn up at all. Dr Jackaman noted at E52 that the information provided quite clearly contradicts some of the information provided by CL. Dr Jackaman commented that KH's "ability to be deceptive over a number of years and in a number of different situations is also of concern" (E52). Dr Jackaman was limited in the conclusions that she could draw in light of KH's lack of engagement with the assessment process, but from her interview with him and the documentation supplied to her in these proceedings she was able to form the following conclusions "in summary I think there are indications that the father has personality difficulties, possible of a histrionic and narcissistic nature, difficulties with being overly and under-assertive on occasion, and slight disinhibition and perhaps manic tendencies. He is someone who is known to have been dishonest on many occasions and indeed he has criminal convictions for fraud, and for example, impersonating a police officer. He has shown no capacity to openly and honestly engage with professionals, even as part of this assessment, and therefore there can be no confidence in the account that he does give of his background. He has a history of a turbulent relationship with his ex-partner, a lack of commitment and a lack of ability to adequately parent, supervise and guide his elder children and these concerns must undoubtedly remain in terms of his capacity to be a safe and nurturing parent to this child. He has shown an inability to commit to his previous partner despite being with her for many years and he has shown a limited capacity to take into account FR's situation, to be honest and open with her, and to make himself full available to support her. Although he frequently states his desire to reconcile with her and professes his love for her, unfortunately this has not resulted in him even engaging openly with this assessment, let alone making himself available to reflect on his own behaviour and make any changes to it to reduce the risk of ongoing volatility in that relationship, and to improve the quality of parenting he can provide to any child in his care.

I also think it highly unlikely that KH is yet at a position where he can reflect on his behavior, see the concerns about that, and be prepared and motivated to engage in the change process. I therefore think the prognosis for him making changes, especially within the timescales for this child, is exceedingly poor" (E57-58). In answer to supplemental questions Dr Jackaman also gave as her opinion that "KH shows no insight whatsoever into the concerns about his emotional and behavioural presentation. In addition I consider the prognosis for him improving in this area to be very poor" (E60).

In addition to the evidence from Nicki Heyes and Dr Jackaman, I also have the Guardian's evidence. Her final report is at E62-71. She notes that neither parent is able to offer K a safe and secure home. She also notes that KH has been unable to demonstrate that he can care for K safely and be emotionally and physically available for her (E69). As the Guardian notes, K needs "an opportunity to be cared for in a safe stable and calm environment and to form strong bonds with carers who can be available to her both emotionally and physically" (E69). As the Guardian also noted in her position statement, KH is currently on remand facing trial for serious offences against FR. If convicted he faces a substantial custodial sentence. Even if acquitted it is the opinion of the Guardian that it would be safe for K to be placed in her father's care. As the Guardian notes "there has been no proper assessment of his parenting capacity as he failed to engage properly or honestly. What assessment there has been has been negative. The evidence remains that the parents' relationship is volatile and mother accepts that she cannot parent K and she believes that adoption will ensure that K is kept safe". The Guardian is quoting from FR's final statement at C176 where FR acknowledges that adoption is in K's best interests as the only means of keeping her safe from KH.

Conclusions

I find that the weight of the professional evidence in this case is such that I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that neither of K's parents are capable of meeting her needs and that placement with either would also place her at risk of both emotional and physical harm. As was submitted by Ms Cox for the Local Authority in opening there is indeed a very striking lack of openness from KH in this case which has hindered professionals assessing him fully. He has put nothing before the court as a credible explanation for this and his failure to engage in a timely fashion with professionals and even his solicitor.

In relation to the welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the additional relevant headings here relate to the likely effect upon K of having ceased to be a member of her birth family and her relationship with her family. My paramount consideration has to be her welfare throughout her life. Clearly, as noted by the social work evidence and the Guardian adoption is a draconian measure which "will have a direct impact upon K as she grows up in terms of her identity and sense of self" (Guardian E69). It is also noted that K has experienced love and warmth from both of her parents during contact. However, my findings above with regard to parenting capability and risk of harm to K apply equally to my consideration of this welfare checklist. Given the 'extremely poor' prognosis for change in relation to KH which was noted by Dr Jackaman and the negative assessment of KH's parenting ability by Nicki Heyes, it is clear to me that placement of K with her father is not a realistic option. This is compounded by the fact of his current imprisonment but even if he were to be acquitted and at liberty after his trial in April, I find that he is not a realistic placement option either in the medium or long term in light of the very real concerns about him identified in the professional evidence before me. There are no other kinship carers or other carers identified for K and her mother accepts that she cannot safely care for K herself. In light of this, the only remaining realistic option to provide K with permanency and stability as soon as possible is adoption. FR has consented to the making of the placement order in this case. KH has not consented and I find that K's welfare requires that I do dispense with his consent to the making of a placement order for her.

I will therefore grant a care order to OCC in respect of K and will endorse the final care plan including the planned reduction in contact as outlined in the final care plan at D12. I will also grant a placement order to OCC in respect of K.