IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including all representatives of the media must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

No.  BT13C00059

IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT

St Mary’s Court
Regents Park Road
Finchley Central
London N3 1BQ

Friday, 11th July 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVY
(In Private)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E EN :

		LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET	Applicant

-  and -

		The Father 	First Respondent

The Mother                                         Second Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MISS KNOTT  (instructed by the Local Authority)  appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MISS GILL  (instructed by Daniel and Harris)  appeared on behalf of the First Respondent (Mother).
MISS LONNNEN appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent (Father).
MISS PICCOS  appeared on behalf of the Guardian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
JUDGE LEVY: 

1	In view of everything that I have read about this matter and the indication which I gave at the last hearing on 2nd July (which was that but for the absence then of medical information about the aunt, I would have been minded to make a special guardianship order) and the evidence I have seen since then, I will start by saying that I make a special guardianship order in respect of A to the aunt.  I make a parental responsibility order for the father.  

2	There are other matters I have to deal with briefly.  I think it is important -- Miss Gill has suggested this but I had it in mind in any event -- that I should give a judgment because A’s mother is not here.  I have to assume that she would oppose the orders that I have made because that is the last indication that the Court and her solicitors obtained, although it was some time ago.  I am not aware of anything that has changed her position. In view of the rather difficult background to this matter I think it is important to place on record the evidence that I have considered and the reasons for the decision which I have reached.  

3	I am concerned this morning with one child, A, who was born on 7th March 2007 and is now seven years and four months old.  These proceedings are brought by the London Borough of Barnet.  I will refer to her parents as the mother and the father. Her guardian is Christine Payne.  A has a half brother, B, who I understand is autistic and in earlier years received some services from the local authority’s Disabled Children’s Team, but very little is known about his current circumstances.

4	These proceedings were issued on 5th November 2013 and so have run over 26 weeks for reasons which I hope will become clear from this short judgment.  The mother is not present at court today, she is remanded in custody at Holloway Prison awaiting sentence at Wood Green Crown Court on 18th July 2014 in respect of a charge of arson, being reckless as to whether life is endangered, to which she pleaded guilty.  

5	Unfortunately the mother has not engaged fully with these proceedings. She has attended some hearings, but she did not attend the issues resolution hearing on 23rd June nor the final hearing which was listed for 1st July nor the hearing on 2nd July, to which I adjourned for the purpose of giving her an opportunity to come to court, nor is she here today, 11th July.  On each occasion a production order has been sent to the prison and the prison authorities have informed the Court that the mother has refused to leave the prison.  I am aware that in the proceedings at Wood Green Crown Court the mother has on occasions refused to attend court.  I understand that she has given no instructions to her solicitors and indeed has refused to see them since May of this year.  Miss Gill, counsel, has been here for the last few hearings, early, prepared to take instructions, but is without instructions.

6	In preparation for this hearing I have read the bundle of documents and today I have received the witness statement of Sonia Thomas, the interim team manager in the kinship and permanence team, which stands as an addendum to the special guardianship report.  I have read an amended special guardian support package, which will be further amended as a result of discussions and agreements reached at court, and the local authority’s position statement for today’s hearing.  There is still one piece of information outstanding and that is the results of the checks which are being carried out by the Disclosure and Barring Service. They are not available yet, but it is agreed that the absence of those results does not prevent me from making a special guardianship order because they are not a mandatory requirement, although it would be better if they had been received.  The local authority does not say that I should delay the decision for A further in order to await those results.

7	The parties’ positions today at this adjourned final hearing are: the local authority seeks a special guardianship order for A to the aunt, who I think formally is A’s cousin, but is regarded as her aunt.  I have said that I have assumed that the mother continues to object to the aunt, though I have no note of any reason for her objection.  The father supports the making of a special guardianship order.  He has been seeing A, he will continue to arrange contact with the aunt and there seems to be no difficulty over that.  He seeks an order for parental responsibility, to which there is no objection.  It is not a matter which has been raised with the mother and I have no indication of her views.  The guardian supports the making of a special guardianship order.

8	I shall set out briefly the events which led the local authority to bring these proceedings.   There were concerns early last year because the mother, with whom A was living, disclosed to A’s school that she was the victim of domestic violence from the extended family, though it is not clear who they were.  Apparently A had witnessed these incidents.   The mother was seen to have bruising and the school made a referral to the local authority.  

9	On 16th July 2013 there was an incident when the mother lost her temper at school, was very rude to a member of staff in front of A, and then there were three similar such incidents which are set out in the bundle at pages G1 and 2.  Further referrals were made to the local authority.

10	On 13th September the mother assaulted a lady shopping at Sainsbury’s.  She was racially abusive, in A’s presence.  The mother was arrested and A was sent to stay with her aunt overnight.  

11	On 2nd October A became the subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect, that decision being made at an initial child protection conference.  

12	On 18th October because of her behaviour the mother was banned from entering A’s school.  Her response was to remove A from the school.

13	The police carried out a check on 21st October at the mother’s home because A was not attending school.  They found the mother very confrontational but A was seen and appeared to be well.

14	On 22nd October the mother attended at the local authority’s offices and asked to speak to somebody from the education department.  She was very angry and swore when spoken to.  The person to whom she spoke assumed that A, who was present, could hear what her mother was saying.  

15	The local authority issued these proceedings on 5th November 2013 and at a contested hearing on 18th November Her Honour Judge Venables made an interim care order and A was placed with the foster carer with whom she has remained throughout the proceedings.

16	On 27th November there was the incident which gave rise to the criminal proceedings, when the mother poured petrol in her house and appears to have set fire to it.  She was subsequently charged with arson, both with intent to endanger life and being reckless as to whether was endangered, and has pleaded guilty to the latter charge.

17	It has been impossible to obtain a full assessment of the mother in the course of these proceedings.  On 4th December 2013 Her Honour Judge Venables asked the prison authorities to undertake a capacity assessment of the mother.  The local authority sought permission to instruct Dr T McClintock, consultant forensic psychiatrist, to prepare a report about the mother with regard to capacity, but the mother refused to see him.   An assessment was carried out by Dr Galina Lobanov of the prison service who reported on 20th December that the mother was not suffering from an enduring mental illness, but might have a personality disorder.

18	On 20th January 2014, Dr Lisa Gardener, a locum consultant psychiatrist at HMP Holloway, attempted to assess the mother but the mother refused to engage and was verbally abusive.  Within the prison there were concerns about the mother’s presentation.  She was relocated to a segregation unit due to racially abusive behaviour towards other inmates.

19	Eventually, on 13th March, Dr Ali Ajaz was able to provide a report at the request of the Crown Court.  He managed to interview the mother for two and a half hours on 27th February.  He had read all the papers, including her GP records.  He said there were no significant active health problems, but he noted her aggressive behaviour in prison and the concerns that had been raised with the local authority.  His opinion was that the mother’s behaviour did not fulfil the criteria for a mental disorder and he found that she was fit to plead and stand trial in the Crown Court.  He thought that at the material time, when the offence of arson was committed, it was likely that she was not experiencing abnormality of mental functioning. 

20	I have been informed by the Crown Court that in the criminal proceedings the mother has twice dismissed counsel.  The most recent information I have is that her public funding has been withdrawn.

21	I am going to say a little about A.    As regards her health, she has a kidney condition which can sometimes cause difficulties and requires ongoing monitoring, which takes place now.  Previously there was concern that the mother failed to take A to hospital appointments.   The guardian and A’s solicitor visited her most recently on 3rd June, found her an engaging young person and discussed her views which are set out in the guardian’s report.  In summary, A is happy to be going to live with her aunt and her cousins.

22	I should say a little more about B, the mother’s older son and A’s half-brother, who I believe is 14.  I understand from the papers that although from about 2004 the local authority’s Children With Disabilities Team provided support, the mother eventually rejected it and changed B’s school.  The most recent information is that she sent B to stay with his father in Somalia.

23	In these proceedings the father has been assessed as a full-time, permanent carer for A, by an independent social worker, Tracey Reynolds.  She found that he was well-motivated and wants very much for A to remain within the family, but he considered -- and this is to his credit -- that her needs might be best met by being placed with her aunt.  It is considered that contact with the father is an asset and a benefit to A.  I very much hope that contact will continue.

24	The aunt was assessed and a special guardianship report was completed, also by Tracey Reynolds, on 1st April 2014.  The aunt is the mother’s cousin but they were brought up together, as though they were sisters, by the aunt’s mother.  A had frequent contact with the aunt and her children until about 18 months ago, when there seems to have been a difficulty as a result of the mother becoming suspicious of the aunt, but I know no more about it than that.  I understand that A often stayed overnight at her aunt’s home.   The aunt has four children: W, who is 13; X, who is five; Y, who is three and a half; and Z, who is two and a half.   She has a very good relationship with her children’s father, who is a supportive father and a frequent visitor. I note that the aunt trained as a nursery nurse, which is also no doubt of benefit.  The guardian is very supportive of A’s placement with the aunt.

25	I have considered the welfare checklist and all the options for A.  Unfortunately being placed with the mother is not an option because she remains in custody, she may receive a custodial sentence on 18th July and in any event within these proceedings remains unassessed and uncooperative.  The father has decided that it would be best if A were placed with the aunt and that in my view is the best placement for her and indeed a very good option for her. 

26	I found that threshold was established at the hearing on 2nd July on the basis of the background which I have set out and I indicated then that I would make a special guardianship order to the aunt, which I do.  I am very pleased that A will remain within her birth family with people she knows and loves and where she will be supported by her father.

27	The local authority is going to try to see the mother after she is sentenced to consider with her both direct and indirect contact with A and to carry out a risk assessment.  The social worker will consult with the aunt and the father as to whether and, if so, how contact should take place. There are provisions for support referred to in the amended support package which I have seen.

28	The father has been a committed father throughout, his commitment to A is very clear and it is proper in my view that he should have parental responsibility. I make that order.

29	I have seen an amended order which is agreed between those who are present, except Miss Gill who cannot comment on it.  It refers to the local authority undertaking the risk assessment with regard to contact with the mother after she has been sentenced.  The plan is that the order having been made today, A will remain with her foster carer until 25th July so that she can complete the school term.  The aunt has agreed that A can remain accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act until 25th July; that has been explained to her.  Overnight contact has started and that is going very well.   I am very pleased to hear this morning that it has been confirmed that A has been allocated a place at a local primary school from September which is the school that the aunt’s son attends, so that will be convenient and I am sure a very happy school placement.

30	The local authority agrees to consult with MAPPA and make a referral there as appropriate.  Everything else, I think, has been agreed.  I am very happy to make those orders.

	Miss Shaw, is there anything else I need to deal with?

MISS SHAW:  Your Honour, obviously you have considered Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

JUDGE LEVY:  I have not said so, but I have considered it.  The order that I am making is an interference with the mother’s right to family life but, as I have explained, she is sadly not available to participate in family life directly and actively at present and I have no assessment which would assist me to consider whether she will be in the longer term.  In any event, A’s welfare takes priority and my finding is that the orders I have made are in the interests of her welfare and are proportionate to her needs.