[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> M (Children), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 1044 (26 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1044.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1044

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(Mrs Justice Bracewell)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 26th June 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE THORPE: This is a very sad case. Mr. and Mrs M apply for permission to appeal the order made by Bracewell J on 27th March 2002. The proceedings before her were to settle the future of two children of the applicants, a little boy born on 19th March 1992 and a little girl born on 9th November 1994. This was a disposal hearing, the judge having conducted a preliminary fact finding hearing approximately a year earlier.
2. The family is of Armenian origin and culture. Difficulties have surrounded the parents' conviction as to what constitutes a healthy diet. It is a sad fact that one of their children is deceased. As a consequence of the death the parents were prosecuted and sentenced at the Old Bailey. Inevitably the death of the child casts huge question marks over the capacity of the parents to provide good enough and safe enough parenting for the other two children.
3. The judgment that committed these two children to another family is very clear and relatively full, 103 paragraphs in all. Of course, the parents were putting forward the case that they had changed and changed sufficiently to justify the judge's trust. In that they had support from a professional expert and the psychiatrist, Dr. Nayani, who had given evidence in the criminal proceedings.
4. What the case was about was trust. Did the judge trust the parents? Did she trust their case that they had changed sufficiently, profoundly and in sufficient time to meet the needs of these two children? Did she trust the opinion of their expert? The judge deals with these important issues very plainly in paragraph 59 of her judgment. She said of the preliminary hearing in February 2001:

"I regret I have to find that before me in February 2001 the parents were setting their shop out for the criminal case so that they could minimize their conduct, pull the wool over the eyes of the Crown Court judge and receive a sentence on a false basis. In order to achieve that without risk of disclosure, they had to lie to me, lie in the assessments, carry on with the deception to the professionals until after sentencing. After that date they were more free to disclose the truth so as to present themselves in a more favourable light for the care proceedings. However, they still had to be careful because they were subject to community reports back to the criminal court and it would not have looked good if they had presented a different version from that to which they had pleaded guilty. Thus it was that they persisted in the lies to Hopley Michaels, to Dr Myatt, to Dr Nayani, to the probation officer and so they failed to address the position in their latest statements. Only in the witness box before me did they appear to have changed, seen the light and accepted full responsibility for A's death. I find it a cynical ploy. The parents' credibility is seriously damaged and it is not possible to place credence on what they say unless there is confirmation from outside sources."

5. I go to paragraph 82. In relation to Dr. Nayani the judge made this finding:

"Having had the opportunity to consider the parents at length I have concerns that they may well have sought to manipulate Dr Nayani who was not able to report on an accurate basis. In consequence, although I do not criticise Dr Nayani, I strongly fear he was taken in. When Dr Nayani saw father for the preparation of the report on mother for this hearing, Dr Nayani stated that father had almost abandoned his belief system, that he regretted the website which did not accurately reflect his thinking. Dr Nayani formed the opinion that all the events had caused him to move back to normality and that he no longer believed in the ideology and micro-culture. Dr Nayani said that once belief disintegrates it has gone because there is nothing to keep it in place. I do not accept this as accurate in the light of the other professional evidence and the presentation of father, which I find on the totality of the evidence."

6. Finally at paragraph 94:

"I find the changes in the parents are too recent and it is not possible to know the depth of the changes. I have great concern about their credibility. I have reached the conclusion that as at the threshold criteria hearing they have been driven by practical, pragmatic considerations which do not represent the sea change envisaged or needed. I find them both very manipulative. They attempt to say and do what they think it takes. The only genuine movement has been in respect of the acceptance of education. I find all the other concerns and risks remain."

7. Those findings could not be clearer, nor could they be more fatal to the parents' hopes and expectations. On those findings the judge's orders were inevitable.
8. Mr. M this morning in his submissions seeks to rely on subsequent events. He says that there have been positive developments since the last hearing. He says that his wife has been psychiatrically assessed by Dr. Bond, a consultant adult psychiatrist, who finds that she has no treatment needs. He says that their co-operation with all professionals is being sustained. He says that their reunification after a separation is profound and genuine. He says that they continue with the normal vegetarian diet. He says that fresh evidence from the Food Standards Agency supports concerns and anxieties that they have always expressed about packaged foods. He says that, even after the order below, the parents maintain quality contact for the benefit of the children. He says that the children are continuing in confusion and are at risk of an identity crisis.
9. I understand all those worries and anxieties which they hold as parents, but none of that would justify me in admitting this case to the Court of Appeal and to re-opening the findings and reasoning of the judge below. Obviously there is an obligation on the local authority to implement the care plan. Plainly, if the local authority fail in any way in their professional responsibility -- I do not mean by that minimal or insubstantial failure to achieve timetable -- but if there were a fundamental and massive failure to implement the care plan, and if there were continuing positive developments in the parents, then it is open to them to apply to discharge the care order. I see no possible basis on which I could grant permission to appeal. The application is refused.
Order: Application refused