Case No: CV14C01286
IN THE FAMILY  COURT AT COVENTRY

140 Much Park St , Coventry

Date: 18/05/2015

Before :

HER HONOUR JUDGE WATSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	The Local Authority	Applicant	
	- and -		
	BA
-and-
RB
-and-
M( through her Children’s Guardian)	First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent	

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

Ms Winstanley, counsel, on behalf of the Local Authority
Ms Gatland ,counsel,on behalf of First Respondent Mother
Ms Soar,solicitor, on behalf of Second R espondent father
Mr Hadden , counsel, on behalf of the child  

Hearing dates: 8 May 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Her Honour Judge Watson : 
1.	No evidence has been called because at the Issues Resolution Hearing on 8 May 2015, RB, the father of M, did not oppose the making of a final care order in respect of his daughter saying that he had considered the final evidence of the social worker and the conclusions of the parenting assessment of him and having regard to M’s express wishes in his statement dated 6 May 2015 said “ I will not force my daughter home and I will agree for her to remain in the Local Authorities care on the basis that work is being done to rebuild our relationship.” 
2.	The court was informed that father had attended a Triple P course designed to help parent of teenagers and that M had agreed to see her father and, with support, a successful visit had taken place. 
3.	M had been cross that her father was not accepting her account that he had hit her and she had refused to have any contact with him at all.
4.	By way of background. M was born in Africa on 6 May 2001 and is now 14. Her mother, BA, has remained in Africa and M was brought to the UK in February 2014 and resided with her father and step mother, MW. 
5.	On 9 July 2014 M told her school that RB had slapped her on the face.
6.	On 2 October M told school staff that her father hit her with a belt and made her do squats whilst doing her homework. During a joint home visit with police and social services on 3 October father admitted hitting M occasionally with a belt and the last time was when he found her accessing porn sites on his lap top. M later told the Guardian that she had been on a sex web site , but was vague about what she had seen, at a time when her father was beating her and she hoped he would find out and that he would send her back to live with her mother. Father also said that M did have to do the squats if she was lazy or had not done her homework.
7.	M was accommodated into foster care with her father’s consent under section 20 on 3 October 2014.
8.	During her police ABE Interview M repeated her allegations and said that her stepmother had tried to intervene but her father continued to hit her.
9.	Father was interviewed under caution and said that M was not telling the truth and he had only threatened her with the belt once, that he had never slapped her and she had only done squats on one occasion.
10.	I have now had sight of the agreed threshold which recognises that M has reported very harsh treatment, as she perceives it, at the hands of her father and there is  recognition by her father that this was unacceptable.
11.	It is agreed that: 
12.	Father has used and threatened physical punishment towards M including making her do squats and taking off his belt and threatening her with it.
13.	Father has had expectations of M which have caused her to be frightened. She has expressed her fear about returning to his care.
14.	Mother does not consider that she can care for M and has given instructions to her solicitor to agree to M remaining in long term foster care. Mother and daughter have regular telephone contact. 
15.	The court in these circumstances is satisfied that the threshold has been crossed and that it is necessary to consider which of the placements on offer is best able to meet M’s needs . Her welfare is my paramount consideration.
16.	The children’s Guardian, Eileen Lawrence in her final analysis dated 13 May 2015 says that M has remained with the same foster carer and that she has developed a good relationship with the carer and her extended family. The foster carer is also from Africa and speaks the same language. The placement reflects M’s cultural and ethnic needs.
17.	The report confirms that contact between father and daughter took place on 6 May which was also M’s 14th birthday. Father had requested the contact and M had agreed  but only if her foster carer could be present. The contact also included her step mother. 	MW and her daughter, and M’s half sister, N. This was the first time M had met her baby sister who was born after she went into foster care. The contact went well and   M wishes it to continue on a monthly basis.
18.	The conclusion of the parenting assessment completed by Jude Quiggan is endorsed by the Guardian who supports the making of a Final Care Order. The Parenting Assessment of father is a well evidenced and comprehensive report which concludes “I am not confident that Father would be able to provide safe care for his daughter in the future, even if he did not hit her. His lack of acknowledgment of any behaviour which was inappropriate, oppressive, or emotionally abusive while caring for M or in his contact with her subsequently, indicates that he does not believe he needs to change. Indeed it is M who he feels needs to change her account of what happened”
19.	M has been consistent in her wish to stay with her current foster carer and not return to her father since first voicing this on 13 November 2014. When her father withdrew his section 20 consent the Local Authority issued care proceedings and an interim care order was made on 15 December 2014 because the Court had reason to believe the threshold was made out and that M was at risk of physical and emotional harm if an order was not made and she returned to her father’s care. M’s welfare required her to remain in foster care.
20.	M does not have indefinite leave to remain and the care plan has been amended to ensure the Local Authority applies on behalf of M for permission to stay in the UK to regulate her immigration status.
21.	I have had regard to the final evidence of the social worker, Fiona Crawford and the amended care plan and I am satisfied that M could not be safely returned to the care of her father at this time. There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship between father and daughter and M is fearful of returning to his care. There are no other family members who are capable of caring for her and she is being well cared for in a culturally appropriate foster home.
22.	The threshold criteria are met and I must have regard to the welfare of the child and also the fundamental human right to respect for private and family life. The interference by the state by the placement of a child in foster care must be proportionate and just in all the circumstances. I am satisfied that no other form of order would meet M’s needs in the foreseeable future and I have regard to her express wishes, the harm she has suffered, the risk of future harm to her if she were to be returned to her father’s care against her express wishes and her need to maintain the  stability and consistency afforded to her in the warm, nurturing environment of her current foster placement to enable her to reach her potential.
23.	I am satisfied that the Local Authority will do all that it can to promote the relationship between M and her family through monthly  supervised contact and that long term foster care with her current carer is the best placement for M.
24.	Care order to The Local Authority.