[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> H, Re [2016] EWFC B20 (01 February 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B20.html Cite as: [2016] EWFC B20

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

In the FAMILY COURT at
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

		The Quayside Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3LA
		1st February 2016

1. Her Honour Judge Moir : I am concerned with the welfare of RLJH, who was born on 31^st March 2010, so he is five years of age, shortly to be six. He is the son of AH.
2. The local authority have made application for a Care Order; it does seem that the local authority have been extremely dilatory in the way that they have pursued this case. The tipping point, as it has been called, arose out of a hospital admission in November and on 20^th November Dr Naomi Jones, the consultant paediatrician, expressed her concern about RL being discharged into his mother's care.
3. There had been concerns expressed by Mrs Bradley, the social worker, when she took over the case in August 2015 and those concerns were significant. The local authority made their application for a Care Order on 22^nd December 2015. Bearing in mind the concerns that there are and have been, it does require explanation as to why it took until 22^nd December for care proceedings to be issued. Mrs Bradley could not explain why there had been that delay and I am satisfied that the delay has not been on her behalf, but rather, I will call it the administrative side of things.
4. The application has come before me today, by an almost circuitous route. It should have been heard in the Family Proceedings Court last week. The Justices had intended to deal with the matter by way of submission, there was argument in relation to that and it was listed before a District Judge on the 28^th and adjourned to enable me to hear evidence today. I have heard that evidence. I have heard from Dr Naomi Jones; I have heard from Margaret Bradley; I have heard from AH and from the Guardian, Alison Ruddick.
5. The position of the local authority and the Guardian is that they say that RL's safety demands immediate removal. Ms Hodge, on behalf of AH, accepts that the section 38 threshold is made out, but is opposed to the granting of an Interim Care Order, which would involve removal of RL from her care. RL has never been out of her care; not even for an overnight with another adult. He has been cared for exclusively by AH. It is clear that she loves him very much; that is not what this case is about. It is an Interim Application and I emphasise, as all the advocates have done, that it is interim. It is to deal with the present situation until there is a full hearing.
6. There have been reports ordered, namely a psychological report to be prepared by Dr Paul Jones, with a comprehensive set of questions and a hair strand testing report in relation to mother's drug use. As far as this hearing is concerned, the drug use of the mother, or otherwise, is only of peripheral concern. No doubt, in a final hearing, more detail will be required.
7. When the local authority makes application for an Interim Care Order, the court shall not make an Interim Order unless it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the circumstances with respect to the child, are as mentioned in section 31(2). I am satisfied that the threshold is made out. But the next step, as Ms Hodge points out, is that the court should not equate satisfaction of the interim threshold with satisfaction for removal of the child from a parent. A child should only be removed if the child's safety demands immediate separation.
8. This case is unusual in that the safety that is being referred to is bound up in the emotional welfare of RL and the local authority raise a number of matters, as evidence that his safety cannot be dealt with, with continued residence with his mother, over the interim period. There is a date fixed for IRH in May and therefore it is likely that a final hearing will take place in some three months or so. So, Ms Hodge on behalf of the mother, argues that in the meantime, with support monitoring, RL should remain at home. If he is removed, it is argued on behalf of Ms H, that having never been out of mother's care, it will be emotionally damaging to him and that, with support and care, it would be preferable and in R's welfare to remain at home.
9. When Mrs Bradley took over and made her first visit at the end of August, she told me in evidence that she was very worried about the level of violence that RL exhibited to his mother. He threw slippers; he up-ended a purse over her head and Ms H, according to Mrs Bradley, told her that she was at her wits' end. Mrs Bradley observed bruises all over Ms H's body, for which R was responsible. Ms H was saying that she did not know what to do; that she was receiving different and varying advice from health visitors and others and none of the steps that she implemented worked.
10. The descriptions of RL's behaviour, from the end of the summer term of 2015, show an escalation in the extremes of behaviour which RL exhibited and continues to exhibit. The headteacher at R's school identified the second part of the summer term as being the time when it was noticed that RL's behaviour was becoming really untenable at school. The descriptions of RL using extremely bad language, hitting other children, swearing at teachers, hitting out at teachers and the concerns that Mrs Bradley identified were that although RL's behaviour prior to the summer term of 2015 had always been difficult, it had become much more difficult. She told me RL was becoming more isolated from his peers; he was violent and shouted; often had to be removed from class because of his behaviour; he has very few friends because of his aggression; his ability to learn had been affected because of the necessity to remove him at times and also because the school was unable to assess R educationally, because his behaviour prevented it.
11. R has been described to me as a lovely, polite little boy, when he is not in his mother's care. As I referred to the tipping point, this was when he was admitted to hospital, because of his soiling problem. RL has had a soiling problem for some time; there has been a concern that his mother has not always administered his medication as required, but again careful examination of that is for a final hearing.
12. Dr Jones was so concerned about R's behaviour, she described the description she was given by her colleagues and the staff, as setting out that R's behaviour was distressing to see. When R's mother was present he would spit, kick, swear, throw things, bite. He would direct some of that to his mother, but also to the staff when mother was present. When mother was not present his behaviour was more cooperative and pleasant; he worked with a nursery nurse on a one to one, he did craft work with her; he was calmer and more cooperative. It was observed that when his elder brother visited, in those circumstances, RL was cooperative and calm when his mother was not present.
13. Dr Bruce described his experience of mother and RL in that he said mother's way of managing RL was to have recourse to shout and threaten him. Mother denies that she has ever threatened R; she denies that R has learnt his bad language from her, but rather that he has heard it outside shops or at school from other children. She accepts that R's behaviour with her can be difficult, but she tells me, more recently, it has improved. As far as his soiling behaviour, she says that over the time since Christmas, that has also improved. I have to say that the evidence that is before me, apart from mother's, would not indicate an improvement in behaviour.
14. The hospital, as articulated by Dr Jones, took the view that the relationship between R and his mother was emotionally harmful and the medical professionals took the view that RL should not remain in his mother's care. Dr Jones continued to express that view during the course of the evidence that she gave to me.
15. The difference in R's behaviour when mother is not present is very remarkable. Unfortunately, presently, Ms H does not have any insight into her involvement or responsibility for the way that RL behaves. The medical professional view of the soiling is that it is not an issue that can be tackled by way of medication, but the soiling is a symptom of a broader picture; the broader picture being emotional distress in that R feels that he is not safe, or well nurtured. Dr Jones told me that RL needs to be in a place where he has consistency and a consistent setting of boundaries. The present circumstances are fire fighting, not dealing with the problem.
16. I remind myself that we are looking at an interim period and consider whether or not, in the months until the final hearing, there can be a package of assistance to enable R to stay at home. The significant matters to consider, if the soiling continues, is that it will have a significant impact on RL's self-esteem, unkind comments from school, direct bullying. Dr Jones told me it has a huge effect on children, that the impact on children can be life long. Of course, again, we return to the fact that this is an interim hearing. RL was discharged home to his mother's care with what has been described as a "wrap around" package. But the evidence would indicate to me that R's behaviour, both by way of his aggression and his soiling has not improved. Indeed, the words "escalation" or "deterioration" have been used to describe his behaviour and it may be, as Mrs Taylor raised, that the fact that there has been much more significant monitoring over the past months, since November, may in fact have picked up more than before. But, it certainly is not getting any better and may be getting worse.
17. The harm is significant; it is emotional harm. Mrs Taylor says that to categorise this as chronic neglect is a wrong characterisation. It is not just that physical needs are not being met. It is the manner of parenting which is causing RL's behaviour to develop and which is escalating.
18. Ms Hodge, who has put forward every possible argument very attractively, on behalf of Ms H, has said that R is not at risk with the current package of support. The contrary view, expressed by the local authority, is that no package of support or plan can protect RL in the circumstances in which he is living.
19. The authorities make it clear that safety is not just physical safety. There is some concern, although Ms H denies it, that there have been occasions when RL's behaviour has been so extreme that Ms H has resorted to hitting or slapping him. I do not, for one moment, take the view that Ms H wants to do anything other than provide care and a good home for RL. She has attended the Triple P and she told me that she has looked at her notes on that and she has instituted a regime in accordance with that. She says that RL becomes angry when he cannot get his own way. She says he has been spoilt so much and that now she is putting her foot down he is reacting and he is being aggressive now because she is setting boundaries. She says he is much improved. Sadly, I do not accept that he is much improved.
20. It is always a difficult decision, in the circumstances, to contemplate removal of a child, but I have to look at RL himself; his welfare is my paramount concern. The paediatricians in the hospital are well used to dealing with difficult behaviour of children. Of course they are dealing with children all the time; coming from a huge range of backgrounds. It is extremely telling, in my view, that the professional advice and concern was that RL should not be discharged to the care of his mother; that it was not safe for his emotional welfare for that to happen.
21. The support that has been in place has been significant. It has not improved RL's behaviour, or mother's ability to manage it. It is a highly unusual step for a hospital in response to what they have observed by way of behaviour to advise a local authority that upon discharge a child cannot be seen to be safe in his mother's care.
22. I have considered this very carefully and I am satisfied that the only way that RL's safety can be achieved in the interim is for the local authority to have an Interim Care Order, to enable them to take steps to place RL in circumstances which are safe and to enable a psychological assessment and other assessments to be carried out to inform the court at the final hearing what best suits the welfare of RL as he grows older. This is an interim decision. It is not a final decision. It will enable proper assessments to take place. It will enable the local authority to assess mother and RL and, in the meantime, it will keep him safe.
23. I have balanced, as I am required to do, the various options that there are and whether removal of R from his mother will be just as emotionally damaging as him remaining with his mother. But I am satisfied that the evidence very clearly determines that it is not safe for the sort of behaviour that R exhibits to continue. His health is being damaged; his education is being damaged and in all the circumstances I make the Interim Care Order with the plan that the local authority have set out.
24. There is the issue of contact. It is, in my view, a difficult issue because it is not clear how RL is going to react to being moved from his mother's care and from his home. To that extent, it must be within the discretion of the local authority to consider what level of contact is beneficial for RL. Clearly, his mother will want to see him as often as possible and bearing in mind that this is an interim situation, then his mother should see him as often as R's welfare demands. It seems to me that to set it too high and reduce it is more damaging than setting it at a level and then increasing it. But I take the recommendation of the Guardian that three times per week, to start with, would be reasonable. As I say, I make it clear, that as far as support is concerned, the local authority must have discretion. Obviously, if there is disagreement, then the matter will have to come back before the court.
End of judgment

We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by Her Honour Judge Moir.

Compril Limited