Case No: RG15C00189
In the Family Court at Reading 
20th July 2015 

Before 
Her Honour Judge Owens

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

RBC v R & G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr M Brookes-Baker, Counsel, for the Local Authority
 Ms A Meusz, Counsel, for the First Respondent Mother
Ms F Harris, Counsel, for the Second Respondent Father
Mr D Darlow, Solicitor, for the Fourth Respondent acting through his Children’s Guardian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Introduction

I am dealing with an application for a care order in respect of JG aged 6 months.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from the mother.   By common consent, no party sought to cross-examine the mother and no other witnesses were called to give live evidence.  The remainder of this hearing has proceeded upon submissions.

The mother of JG is JR.  His father is PJG who has parental responsibility for him by virtue of a Court order made on 30th January 2015.  

Background and evidential summary

JG has been in local authority care since 23rd January 2015, initially pursuant to section 20 Children Act 1989.  This application was issued on 28th January 2015 and initially allocated to Lay Magistrates.  It was reallocated to a Circuit Judge following a hearing on 20th March 2015.  An interim care order was first made on 20th March 2015 until 10th April 2015.  On 10th April 2015 HHJ McIntyre heard the case and made an interim care order until the conclusion of these proceedings.  He also timetabled the case to an IRH before him on 17th June 2015 with a final hearing (time estimate 3 days) before me starting 20th July 2015.  

JR has two older children who were the subject of care proceedings in 2012.  A number of assessments were carried out in the course of those proceedings.  In February 2013 those proceedings concluded with an order for the children to live with their father and with a supervision order to RBC for 12 months.  Contact between those children and JR was supervised.

JR began her relationship with PJG in April 2013.  PJG is from the Republic of Ireland and his home address is there.  He is a long distance lorry driver between Ireland and Europe.  JR became pregnant with JG and she ceased taking her medication.  She had been prescribed sertraline, an anti-depressant used to treat depression and anxiety.  During the course of the previous care proceedings a psychological assessment of JR had concluded that she had psychological difficulties which compromised her ability to care for the children.  A further assessment of her in those proceedings clarified that she had significant difficulties with a severe anxiety state (generalised anxiety disorder).

A pre-birth assessment was carried out of both JR and PJG.  The parents were spending time together both at JR’s home and also in Ireland, as well as JR travelling with PJG in his lorry when he was working.  Contact between the assessing social worker and the parents was irregular and unpredictable as a result and PJG did not engage with the assessment.  Various concerns were identified as a result of that assessment, including:

•	Insufficient or limited engagement by the parents
•	JR unable to explain why her elder two children were not in her care
•	JR displaying a tendency to blame the father of those children
•	JR’s mental health
•	JR’s inability to process information
•	PJG’s lack of insight into her difficulties.

On 4th December 2014 JR moved into a privately rented studio flat in Reading provided by PJG’s parents paying her rent.  JG was born in January 2015 and, upon discharge from hospital, he went to JR’s flat with her.  Concerns about JR’s ability to meet JG’s basic care needs escalated, as did concerns about her mental health.  JR acknowledged to a CMHT practitioner on 22nd January 2015 that she was anxious, with feelings of disorientation and felt overwhelmed when she had sole care of JG.  PJG appeared bewildered at times with the situation and indicated that he would be returning to Ireland on 24th January 2015.  On 23rd January 2015 social workers visited the parents and JR admitted that she was struggling to cope.  PJG did not give a clear indication of how long he would be remaining in the UK.  Social workers believed that the couple were planning to leave the area and as a result the Police were called.  JR agreed to JG being accommodated and he was placed in foster care.

Prior to the issue of this application, as part of the pre-proceedings work, the local authority had commissioned an ISW to carry out a PAMS assessment.  That assessment did not recommend that the parents care for JG together but was cautiously positive about the potential for PJG to care for JG as a sole parent if he were able to separate from JR.  It recommended further assessment of PJG as a result.  Following some lack of clarity from PJG about whether or not he had separated from JR, an agreement was reached at court on 17th March 2015.  As a result, Edge of Care undertook intensive parenting support sessions with PJG over a two week period from the beginning of April.  

Dr Oliver, psychologist, was instructed to undertake an assessment of both parents.  She noted during the assessment that JR displayed anger and resentment towards agencies and PJG; she demonstrated little insight into the local authority’s concerns or into the impact that her behaviour has on others, or of the need to accept professional help.  She concluded that JR was not able to parent JG separately or together with PJG.  Dr Oliver also concluded that PJG had the capacity to care for JG and to develop his parenting further with support.  She also identified distinct benefits to PJG and JG returning to Ireland – the distance from Reading and rural nature of the family home as well as the paternal family’s position in relation to JR increasing the likelihood of the placement being stable and secure.  In addition, the assessment of the extended paternal family is that if PJG were not to separate emotionally from JR, they would take appropriate protective action for JG.
JR wants JG to return to her care.  She told me that she loves JG and that her first position is that she wants ideally to care for him with PJG as a family.  If this cannot happen, she wants an opportunity for further assessment and only in the last resort would she support JG being placed with his father.  She does not support JG moving to Ireland with his father.

PJG also clearly loves JG and welcomes the Local Authority proposals and has indicated that he supports supervised contact taking place at least four times a year between JG and his mother, as well as weekly updates via email or text, and monthly contact via Skype.  He also supports JG having contact with his half-siblings, JR’s elder two girls, and suggests that this is also done via the monthly Skype contact with JR.

The Guardian, in her final report, supports the Local Authority plan as being in the best interests of JG.  She does not support any further assessment of JR and believes that placement of JG with his father in Ireland would limit the scope of JR to disrupt that placement given the strong views of the paternal family about JR and the physical distance involved for JR in travelling to Ireland.

Threshold

Threshold is not disputed in this case.  In light of the Local Authority plan for JG they do not seek threshold findings. 

Parties’ Positions

The Local Authority supports placement of JG with his father and is seeking a Child Arrangements Order (although accepting that this would not be recognised in Ireland) as this would indicate the seriousness of the views of the English court.  They ask that this order provide for JG to live with his father and to allow for JG to be removed from the jurisdiction of this court to the Republic of Ireland indefinitely.   They propose that recitals to the order could record what is expected in relation to contact arrangements, including contact between JG and JR and his half-siblings.

PJG and the Guardian support the Local Authority position.

JR opposes the Local Authority’s plan for JG but accepts that she cannot immediately care for him.  She therefore seeks further assessment.

In light of the fact that threshold is not in dispute and, as argued by the local authority may not be relevant if I am satisfied that the plan for JG is in his best interests, the only issue in this case is whether that plan is in his best interests.  

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 and, I have also had regard to the cases of Re S-B and Re R, Re C and B, YC v UK and Re B.  
Options in this case

The identified options in this case after considering the final evidence and submissions of the parties are as follows:

1)	For JR to be further assessed in relation to her ability to care for JG as a sole parent
2)	For JG to be placed with his father in Ireland.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

JR has been subject to numerous assessments in the course of the previous proceedings involving her elder two girls and has also been assessed in these proceedings.  Sadly, all of those assessments come to a very clear and consistent conclusion that JR cannot care for JG.  JR herself has acknowledged to the ISW Ms Clutterbuck that she would find it difficult to care for JG alone (E24 & E33).  Much as JR may wish to be reconciled with PJG, the reality of his position now is that he is no longer indicating that this is a possibility and, from the evidence I have read, his family are clearly going to be a powerful influence against that being a possibility in the future.  The assessment of the ISW also concluded that JR’s difficulties in parenting seem to be related to her own psychological difficulties (E25) and that JR also showed little insight into the concerns of the professionals (E33).  Worryingly she also noted that JR seemed to use JG to regulate her emotions when she was feeling upset and anxious (E36-37).  Dr Oliver also concluded that JR demonstrated little insight into the Local Authority concerns (E99) or into the impact that her behaviour has on others (E131).  She also did not demonstrate any insight into the need to accept professional help (E132 & E137).  Dr Oliver’s conclusion was that JR could not parent JG separately or even in partnership with PJG (E138).  I know that JR told me this morning that she wishes to be assessed for further support but she immediately qualified this by describing how intrusive she found local authority intervention after JG was born.  She also stated that, whilst she understood that she needed extra support, she only wanted a little bit and that she knew where to go if her health deteriorated.  I am afraid that her evidence simply reinforced how little insight she has into her difficulties as a parent.  She is only prepared to accept limited support and feels that she should be left to get on with parenting JG.  A further assessment of her is, I find, therefore not necessary.  There have been numerous assessments of her which all reach the same conclusion and I have no gap in the evidence before me in relation to her capacity to parent.  She has had every opportunity to be able to develop the necessary insight into her difficulties and to begin to address them constructively and the fact that she still minimises these difficulties simply reinforces how far she would have to progress for further assessment to be a realistic prospect.  It is also, I find, something which would go far beyond the appropriate timescales for JG as without an indication that she has already begun to make progress and address her issues, the time for her to change is open-ended and JR needs permanency now.  He is already 6 months old and has been involved in these proceedings since his birth.  Despite the fact that JR clearly loves him, her ability to parent him to a good enough standard is not there and remains unlikely to be there for the foreseeable future, I find.

In addition, as noted by the Guardian in her final position statement, the local authority has concerns about JR’s anxiety and mental health.  JR has stated that any anxiety has been caused by the involvement of professionals (E36).  These difficulties have been an ongoing feature of the Local Authority concerns in these proceedings and the previous proceedings.  JR would need to commit to long-term involvement with professionals given the history of concerns to date and yet in her final statement she still states that she does not need any medication because it does not work and that she is now stable.  She does not address at all the deterioration of her mental health in May of this year which resulted in a short period of engagement with mental health services.  I am forced to conclude that she also lacks insight as to the risks which her mental health may pose to a child in her care.

As I have said, I therefore cannot conclude that further assessment of JR is necessary in this case and must find that further delay for such assessment would cause harmful delay to JG.

The second option in this case is for JG to live with his Father in Ireland.  The experts who have assessed PJG have concluded that he has the potential to parent JG but will need to have ongoing support and guidance.  The strong family ties which come out time and again from the evidence in the bundle will provide the necessary support, guidance and protection that PJG will need to enable him to parent JG, I find.  This will necessitate PJG leaving the jurisdiction for this support from his family to be provided.  In addition, as noted by the experts in this case it would be difficult for PJG to remain emotionally separate from JR if he were not to go to Ireland and did not have his family to support him (C105 and C65).  The influence which JR appears to have over PJG is a legitimate concern, I find, which will be addressed by PJG moving to Ireland. Although this will inevitably limit the scope for JR to have direct contact with JG, I also find that the security of this placement does require that such direct contact is limited and supervised as proposed.  Therefore, allowing PJG to remove JG to Ireland is the best way of ensuring a secure and stable placement for JG with his father and the proposals for direct and indirect contact with JR and his half-siblings will ensure that JG retains his link to his maternal birth family.

Conclusions

Applying the welfare checklist to this case I am forced to conclude that only placement with PJG will enable JG to grow up with his family and will therefore make a child arrangements order to that effect.  It will inevitably result in a reduction of the time that JR can spend with him but I find that such a reduction is in JG’s best interests given the potential for JR to undermine the placement.  The strong protective factor of the paternal family in Ireland also leads me to conclude that it is in JG’s best interests for me to grant leave to remove him from the jurisdiction to the Republic of Ireland indefinitely and will also make such an order.  I am also satisfied that contact with his mother and half-siblings will be promoted by the father and his family and that the proposals for contact with them, to be recorded in a recital to the child arrangements order, are in JG’s best interests.

I do not need to make threshold findings in this case as I have concluded that the proposed child arrangements order in the terms set out by the local authority are in the best interests of JG.