Case No: RG14C00373
In the Reading County Court
24th November 2014 to 28th November 2014 

Before 
Her Honour Judge Owens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

RBC v P & M
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

JUDGMENT
Introduction
I am dealing with applications for care orders in respect of KF aged 16 years, KP aged 14 years, B aged 12 years, T aged 10 years and I aged 6 years.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles, seen the ABE interviews of Bradley and Isiah, and heard from various witnesses in the course of this Final Hearing. 

Background

These applications were made in March 2014 but Local Authority involvement with the family goes back to 1997 in relation to two of KF’s older siblings, and then KF himself from 1998.  Prior to this, Mother was herself known to Children’s Services as a child.

Concerns in relation to KF were centred upon drugs and domestic violence involving his parents.  Mother separated from KF’s father in 1999 and KF’s father has since died.

In 1999 Mother began a relationship with a new partner who went on to become the father of KP, B and T.  Domestic violence was also a feature of this relationship and it is accepted that Mother was a victim of terrible violence from her partner.  Children’s Services continued to be involved and in late 2007 Mother was granted a Residence Order in respect of KP, B and T.  In 2007 she also met SM, the Father of I.  The father of KP, B and T died in 2009.

In 2010, concerns about KF behaving violently towards his siblings were noted.  As a result, between June and December 2011 the Multi-Systemic Therapy Team was involved working with the Mother, SM and KF.  The parents co-operated and the case was closed in late 2011.

In 2013, KP made an allegation that SM had grabbed her by the arm and knocked her over which resulted in her injuring her ankle.  A section 47 investigation was commenced. Despite some recorded hostility on the part of Mother towards the social workers involved, the case was closed on 25th April 2013.  KF remained known to the Service as a Child in Need.  On 3rd June 2013 a referral was received after KF had been missing for over one week, the Mother having delayed for 5 days before reporting him missing.  A Core Assessment was undertaken and a referral was made for a Youth Worker to engage with KF.  The case was closed again on 4th December 2013.

On 9th January 2014, a referral was made in respect of KP and T who had disclosed at school that T had received an injury to his neck, caused by SM, over the recent Christmas holiday.  This led to a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub who recommended that the case be transferred to Access and Assessment Team for Assessment.  On 16th January 2014 the case was allocated to a social worker to carry out an assessment about what had happened and Mother’s capacity to promote and protect her children.  On 22nd January 2014, B alleged that he was frequently hit by his step father and verbally abused and told an out of hours worker that he was scared to go home as he would probably get hit.  As a result of this and other allegations of SM abusing the children physically and emotionally, B and KP were placed in a Foster placement on 24th January 2014 and these proceedings were commenced in March. B was moved from the joint Foster placement as a result of a request from the Foster carers in the summer of this year. They currently remain in separate Foster placements.   On 14th April 2014 T and I were made subject to Interim Care Orders, having been placed with DG, their paternal aunt, since 3rd March 2014 and this is where they remain.  KF has remained at home with his parents throughout these proceedings.

These proceedings were to have concluded at a FH on 18th to 22nd August 2014; however the Court had approved a joint instruction of the Anna Freud Centre to carry out a holistic assessment of the family.  That report was received on 21st July 2014.  DG indicated that she could not care for the boys on a permanent basis and her daughter, KG, came forward at a relatively late stage to be assessed as a permanent carer for them.  There was a positive Viability Assessment of her recommending a full assessment.  On 4th August 2014, HHJ Everall agreed to adjourn the August final hearing to allow the full kinship assessment of KG.

On 14th November 2014 at the IRH, I allowed an unopposed application for KP and B to be separately represented in these proceedings as their views were in conflict with those of the Guardian and they appeared competent to give their own instructions.   Their solicitor subsequently made an application for me to see KP and B before beginning this final hearing.  That application was supported by all of the other parties and I agreed to see them, with the usual safeguards as envisaged by the President’s Guidance.  I duly saw them at lunchtime on Monday 24th November 2014, with their solicitor and the solicitor for their siblings present to take a note.  That note was duly circulated to all parties after the meeting and conveyed the contents of the meeting.  The main point is that I did not take evidence from them but heard their views and explained that the final decision and responsibility for that decision was mine and not theirs.

Threshold

The Local Authority alleges that the criteria are met on the basis of actual emotional harm and likelihood of physical harm.  The final schedule of findings in relation to this sought by the Local Authority are at A39-41 and were amended after I had heard evidence to clarify that the Local Authority do not allege that the children suffered actual significant physical harm.  Threshold is not accepted by the parents in any form.

Parties Positions

The Local Authority stands by the allegations contained in the final threshold document.  Their final care plans for the children are that KP and B are placed together in a long term foster placement; that T and I are placed in the care of KG under an SGO; and that KF remain at home with his parents but with no order.  This is a change in relation to KF as previously the Local Authority were seeking a Supervision Order for him, but all parties agree that there should be no order for him.

As noted above, the parents do not accept that the threshold criteria are met in this case and there remain significant factual disputes related to these.  They seek the return of all four children not currently living with them to their care, and oppose the making of any orders with regard to them.  In the event that findings are made whereby it is not possible for the children to return to their care they agree that KP and B should be placed together in a foster placement and that T and I should be made subject to Special Guardianship Orders to live with KG.  They also seek a higher level of contact than that proposed by the Local Authority and that this contact does not need to be supervised.

KP and B are now separately represented, as I have noted earlier.  Their position is that they feel conflicted about whether or not they want to go home.  Essentially they each want to go home but only if things are different in relation to SM’s behaviour.  B in particular feels that his Mother has been denying the concerns.  If they cannot go home, they want unsupervised contact and a chance to have longer contact with opportunities to participate in activities.

The Guardian supports the making of Care Orders with a long term foster placement together for KP and B, and the making of Special Guardianship Orders to KG for T and I.  She also expresses the view that contact between the children and their Mother and SM does not need to be supervised and should be more frequent than that proposed by the Local Authority.

Expert evidence

As noted earlier, the Anna Freud Centre has prepared a holistic assessment of the family.  Their full report is at E16-43 and their addendum report is at E46-54.   The conclusions of their reports are that, whilst the parents continue to completely deny any physical or verbal abuse and inappropriate chastisement, they are unable to recommend the return of any of the children at this time.
I have also heard live evidence from Dr Shahnavaz from the Anna Freud Centre.  The conclusion of her team at the Anna Freud Centre was that the children had given consistent, credible accounts of undue physical chastisement with no evidence of coaching or influencing.  She confirmed the recommendations of the assessment and also supported increased contact beyond the 6 times per annum proposed by the Local Authority, suggesting that once per month would achieve a balance between the children’s need for frequency against the need to settle them in their placements.  She did support supervision of that contact to ensure that no negative comments were made about the children’s placements.

The Guardian has filed two reports, her Initial Analysis and Recommendations and Final Report (at E1-5 and E55-68).  She supports the final care plans for the children in general terms but does not support the making of a Supervision Order for KF.  She also questions the proposed level of contact as I have noted earlier.

Other professional evidence

In addition to the Social Work statements contained in section C, I have heard evidence from Carolinne Wilson, who prepared the assessment of DG and the SGO assessments in relation to T and I’s proposed placement with KG.  She was very clear that KG would be able to parent the boys to a good enough standard, dealing appropriately and sensitively with T’s econpresis, and I’s Rastafarian religious requirements.  She emphasised that KG had some additional expertise through her qualifications and experience working in a Children’s Home.  She also noted that over and above this, KG loved the boys.  Recently KG had asked for the Local Authority to facilitate contact for the first 6 sessions if Special Guardianship Orders were granted while she and the parents worked to address the issues surrounding contact.  

Sharon Carlin, the allocated social worker since April 2014 also gave evidence.  She described the children as giving consistent and credible accounts to her and other professionals of the physical abuse in their home from SM.  In the absence of an acceptance in relation to the threshold allegations by the parents, she was also unable to recommend that the children returned home and unable to suggest a support package to enable this to happen if Supervision Orders were granted.  She confirmed that the Local Authority would look to broker a meeting between the parents and KG as soon as possible to explore making contact with T and I work.

The Guardian also gave me evidence in which she confirmed the recommendations in her last report at E55-68, albeit with some reservations about the Care Plans which the Local Authority sought to address by producing a document at Court on 27th November 2014 detailing their proposals and commitments in response. 

Parents’ evidence

The Mother gave me evidence to the effect that she had never seen SM be angry or use inappropriate physical force against the children.  She maintained that her children do not lie but the only explanation she could give for their allegations was that KP, B and T have been influenced by their paternal grandmother.  She alleged that I had been influenced into saying what he has by overhearing his elder siblings.  She told me that MST had worked well for the family but she could not accept that anything had been wrong in her parenting prior to these proceedings and therefore could not identify anything that might need to change.  Her idea of discipline was not to use physical force.

SM told me that he did not live full time with the Mother and children but was there to put Isiah to bed and take him to school frequently so the children may well have perceived him as living there.   He also denied the allegations of inappropriate physical chastisement entirely and of shouting at the children and abusing them verbally, but accepted that he had shouted upstairs to the children to tell them to “pack it in” when they were misbehaving.  He also stated that he believed the allegations to be down to JS influencing them, and also some memories that they may have of their father.  

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklist contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989, I have also had regard to sections 14A and 14B of the Children Act 1989 with regard to Special Guardianship.  Although this is not a case involving adoption as a potential outcome, I have applied the balancing exercise envisaged in Re B-S to the various options as the case does involve plans for the children to live apart from their Mother.

Threshold Findings

I find that the children have given consistent, credible and compelling accounts of undue physical force being used on them by SM to all the professionals involved in this case.  They have had ample opportunity to withdraw these accounts, and to return home to their parents’ care, and yet have maintained these accounts in the face of this powerful incentive to resile.  That they undoubtedly love their mother is clear.  It is also clear that they struggle to understand how SM can be so loving towards their mother and at times towards them, yet also display inappropriate anger and violence towards them.  The parents’ position has been one of denial about the truth of the allegations, but accepting that the children have made them.  Mother herself said that her children do not lie and was unable to therefore explain how this honesty fits with the allegations that they have made.  The parents allege that the children have been coached or influenced by their paternal grandmother, JS, to make these allegations.  I can find no evidence to support this whatsoever and the conclusions of the experts is that the children have not been coached or influenced into making these allegations.  Indeed, Isiah, who has also given details of being smacked by SM and of SM shouting at B, and who is not related to JS, has had no contact with his siblings’ paternal grandmother at all. The other possibility which was put to Dr Shahnavaz was that the younger children had heard the elder children talking about the allegations.  This is suggesting a rather sophisticated conspiracy for four children, two of whom are really quite young and is simply not credible.  From what the children and their Mother have said, their Mother must either have been in the house or aware of what was going on and to this extent I find that there was a failure to protect the children on her part.

The house appears to have been at times chaotic, with even the parents describing having to shout to be heard over the children squabbling. The Guardian offered a possible narrative whereby these parents found themselves simply unable to cope with so many children.  I was also struck by both parents repeatedly saying that there was nothing they could do to effectively discipline the older children when they misbehaved – that they would simply do nothing just does not ring true with their account of using incentives and rewards for all of the children.  SM’s description of punishing only B when it was KP who was apparently shutting B in her door repeatedly because he said there was nothing he could do with her illustrates this.  It also shows that his first reaction was to physically grab B and move him out of the way and therefore goes some way to supporting the allegations made by the children that his first reaction to perceived challenges by them is a physical one.  He also accepted that T had a scratch on his neck after he had grabbed T’s T-shirt when T tried to barge past him in the hallway.  He could not explain this scratch, which he accepted was very fresh, and the most likely explanation seems to be that it was caused as T alleged when SM grabbed him. 

Much has been made by Mr Rawcliffe for SM of apparent inconsistencies in the accounts given by the children.  As the Local Authority pointed out, if all of the details had been exactly the same this would have been rather suspicious and I do have to bear in mind the ages of the children concerned so that some minor inconsistencies in terminology are perhaps only to be expected.  I do not find that there have been significant material differences in their accounts.  Therefore on balance of probability I am satisfied that they have been consistent that SM has resorted to inappropriate physical force to discipline them.  Dr Asen saw them and assessed them as being credible but he was not the only one at the Anna Freud Centre who believed them, and their school, Guardian and Social Worker have also not only had largely consistent accounts given to them but have found them to be credible accounts too.  B and KP have not exaggerated their allegations, and neither have the two younger children, so this also points towards these being credible allegations.

In relation to emotional abuse, in addition to the impact of the use of inappropriate force, I am also satisfied on the balance of probability that SM did use verbal abuse to the children.  Again, the children gave consistent accounts of this.  I also have the evidence of KP’s diary which is truly compelling, both in relation to this and in relation to SM using force.  Not only does it support her accounts of inappropriate physical force being used by SM, but also details the verbal abuse from SM.  I remain unclear what Mother and SM are saying about this diary.  They both say that they were unaware of its existence but stop short of saying that it has been fabricated.  Mother in particular did not answer the question when she was asked about its contents, merely repeating that she was unaware that KP kept a diary although she did accept that it was probably written contemporaneously. 

There is also compelling evidence before me that Mother failed to prioritise the children in relation to significant events for KP and B.  In relation to KP, she missed a couple of singing concerts and for B and KP she missed school sports day.  The latter incident resulted in B locking himself into the toilet for an hour as he was so upset.  Mother explained these lapses by blaming incorrect information being given to her by the school in relation to the time of sports day, and that she was on bail not to have any contact with the children without the supervision or permission of the Local Authority.  However, she did not appear to have sought the permission of the Local Authority if this was why she did not attend, and it appears that she would have both been told by the children about arrangements before and had a letter from the school.  Even if a letter did not get to her, she only rang the school at 9.30am on the day itself rather than ringing the day before.  Her description that KP and B seemed fine when she saw them after conflicts with how upset B was seen to be by his teacher and supports the Local Authority case that she lacks insight into the emotional impact upon her children of failing to support them.  These incidents need to be seen in context as the school have noted that Mother does not regularly attend parent’s meetings with them so it is not just that she missed a couple of significant events for KP and B.

All of the above is also in the context of a Mother who has previously struggled to adequately parent her three older children, although I do accept that none of them were removed from her care and she herself was a victim of significant domestic violence. I do also accept that nothing which I have found Mother and SM to have done was done to deliberately cause the children emotional harm or be at risk of physical harm.  That their Mother loves them and that they love her is simply not the issue in this case.  It is also not the case that SM doesn’t love I nor I him, and there is also evidence that SM has become fond of KP, B and T and they have warmed towards him since they have been out of the family home.  Sadly, this case is not about how much love anyone has for anyone else.  This case is about whether things went badly wrong in the family last year, and whether the children suffered significant emotional harm and were likely to suffer significant physical harm in the future as a result.   The weight of the evidence in this case does satisfy me on balance of probability that the threshold criteria (as amended and set out at A39- 41) are met in this case.
Options in this case

In this case, I have the following options to consider:

For KF – no order or a Supervision Order for 12 months whilst he continues to live with his parents.  All parties support that no order is the best outcome for KF.

For KP and B – no order and a return to live with their parents, or Care Orders and a long-term foster placement together.

For T and I – no order and a return to live with their parents, or Special Guardianship Orders with KG appointed as their Special Guardian.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

I will deal with KF in my conclusions as all parties agree about the best outcome for him.

In relation to KP, B, T and I returning to live with their parents, given my findings that there has been undue physical chastisement by SM and a failure to protect and prioritise them by the Mother, a return to live at home is fraught with difficulty for the children as noted by the professionals.  The Anna Freud Centre identified that complete denial by the parents makes it impossible to undertake any work with them to address their issues.  This in turn means that the risk of physical and emotional harm to the children would remain the same.  It is true that a return home would enable them to continue their relationships fully with their Mother and SM.  In I’s case this would mean that he continues his relationship fully with his father also.  All four children are old enough to have significant memories of their family and it will be important to them to maintain their link to the family as a result (and as noted by the Guardian in her evidence to me).  The Guardian did also think that in theory some work could be undertaken with the parents if the children were returned to their care.

Balanced against this, allowing the children to go back into a home where there would immediately be a large number of children, with no changes to parenting in that home, presents a real risk to their physical and emotional safety, I find.   The lack of acknowledgement of any problems in their parenting by Mother and SM, coupled with SM’s indication in evidence to me that he did not know if he could ask the Social Worker for support in the future, does not bode well for their ability to work collaboratively to address the problems were the children to be placed back with them.  The proposed placements for the children would allow them to continue their relationships with their Mother and SM, albeit not as freely as before.  It is proposed that KP and B are placed together in a long term foster placement which would preserve their sibling bond and would not sever their ties to their Mother or their siblings as long as the Local Authority honour their proposed commitments under the revised Care Plans.  The proposal for T and I is that they are placed with KG under Special Guardianship Orders.  Although Mother does not know KG yet, she is a kinship carer and is known to SM, albeit not well.  The children and KG will only be a short distance away from Mother’s house too and this all helps to ensure that T and I will maintain an important link with their birth family.  KG is also assessed as capable of dealing sensitively and appropriately with T’s soiling which is going to be a significant issue for him as he gets older and with which he is going to need a lot of help.

Resolution-style work is proposed between KG, DG and Mother and SM and I think that is an excellent suggestion.  The Guardian has also expressed her views about the amount and frequency of contact.  I echo her concerns that the Local Authority proposals do seem unduly limiting for KP and B as I do not find that there is a risk of harm to them as long as they are not living all of the time with their Mother and SM.  KP and B have made their wishes and feelings very clearly known and their age does mean that the Local Authority needs to find a way to ensure that they are able to better enjoy contact otherwise they risk KP and B simply voting with their feet which may place them at further risk of harm.   I am pleased to note the proposals from the Local Authority in this regard and I am not saying that I do not endorse the current care plan now that these proposals can be incorporated into it, merely that the Local Authority and Mother and SM need to work positively together to ensure that KP and B can have increased and child focussed contact that meets their needs and I can see no reason to require supervision of their contact.  

Conclusions

That there should be no order for KF as agreed between the parties, as I accept that a Supervision Order would not practically add anything to his situation, and I can see no reason to depart from the no order principle in his case.

In relation to KP and B, they have both expressed a wish to return home but only if things were to change at home.  Sadly, since neither parent has made any acknowledgement of the issues, I do not find that a return home is safe for them at present.  They would be at risk of further significant emotional harm and a risk of significant physical harm without changes to the way Mother and SM parent.  I find that the same risk applies in relation to T and I and for precisely the same reasons.  Although it is clear that I was treated differently on the children’s own accounts, he was still subject to physical chastisement and would have been living in a household where T, KP and B were also being handled roughly and verbally abused.

I would echo the Guardian’s views that hopefully Mother and SM will reflect after this case and find some way to acknowledge what the children have said was their experience of living with them.  From such acknowledgement, I would hope that they can begin to move forward and to work towards enabling their children to have increased contact with them, even returning home in the future if they are able to work collaboratively with professionals.  I also accept what the Guardian has said about there being no need for any orders with regard to contact in this case.  I do hope that Children’s Services can try to find a way to work with Mother and SM to facilitate this, but it will require Mother and SM to accept that their parenting has not been as good as they think.  I would have thought that loving their children would enable them to do this, and perhaps the Guardian is right when she says that the adversarial attitude adopted by the parents and the Local Authority in these proceedings does not help with this.  Maybe the end of the proceedings will enable both to move past this impasse for the sake of KP, B, T and I