BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> RO v A Local Authority & Ors [2013] EWHC B31 (Fam) (26 March 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/B31.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC B31 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
(FAMILY DIVISION)
The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a judge of the High Court)
____________________
- v - | ||
A local authority & Others | Respondent |
____________________
1st Floor Paddington House New Road Kidderminster. DY10 1AL
Tel: 01562 60921 Fax: 01562 743235)
MR COWEN appeared on behalf of the Respondent Local Authority
MISS MEACHIN appeared on behalf of the Guardian
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
See Also: [2014] EWHC 97 (Fam)
MR RECORDER KEEHAN QC:
"And upon the applicant father accepting that it is in the best interests of F to be placed permanently with the maternal aunt and uncle, TM and KM, provided that reasonable contact can be arranged."
"And upon the court indicating that F should be told that her father is supportive of a placement with her aunt."
However, at the next hearing on 18th February 2013 the following recital appears in the order at B61:
"And upon the court being informed that the position of the applicant father is that despite not being in a position to care for F he is hopeful that this will change to such an extent that F could reside with him."
At the next hearing three weeks later before me again on 5th March the father signalled that he wished to make an application for a residence order in respect of F which I directed should be set down to be heard on 25th March and today, 26th March.
"During these proceedings SM stated to me that I would not obtain contact with F due to my origin which is black African. I felt this was very unfair. I mentioned this to PB in my initial appointment with CAFCASS who confirmed that this would not be the case."
That is a matter that the father has referred to and alluded to during the course of his oral evidence at this hearing. I want to make certain matters clear beyond peradventure; the father's ethnicity and cultural background are hugely important and they are hugely important because it is part of F, it is part of her identity and the person that she is and it is something that she needs to be told about, encouraged to be involved with and to know about. I make it absolutely plain that there is no question of the father's ethnicity or cultural background being a negative factor when the court is considering whether or not it is in F's welfare best interests to be cared for by him.
"At this point RO was silent for a few moments and then advised me he did not actually live at the address on the court documents. My team manager JH was present throughout this conversation and interjected at this point and asked RO if he currently had a partner. RO laughed and said no. JH then reminded RO that if he misled us during the assessments that it would not reflect well on him and that we needed him to be honest. RO then admitted that he did indeed have a girlfriend but that he did not live with her. He refused at this point to share her name or address."
According to the father's evidence, he was by that time living full time in Manchester with his partner and he could not explain why he had given that account to the social workers. He sought to suggest that they had got it wrong. I do not accept for one moment that the social workers got it wrong. I regret that I have come to the clear conclusion that the father was for whatever reason deliberately lying and obfuscating to the social workers about where he lived and his own then personal circumstances.
"Mr RO told me that he had been to see his immigration support and had been told that because of his daughter F he will get his residence application granted."
That is, I understand he would be given leave to remain in the United Kingdom by the immigration authorities. The father does not say that that was a misunderstanding. He point blank denies making any such comments to the guardian at all. I have no hesitation in accepting that it was said to the guardian, that the guardian has accurately recorded those matters in his report and once again the father is lying to the court.