IN THE PORTSMOUTH FAMILY COURT
Case No. PO15C00824
Winston Churchill Avenue
Portsmouth, Hants.

Date: 22nd June 2016

B e f o r e:-

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVEY

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
													Applicants
v

C

													Respondent

JUDGMENT

MISS WILKINSON appeared on behalf of the Local Authority.
MISS HENRY appeared on behalf of Mother.
MISS PATEL appeared on behalf of the Children’s Guardian, Dianne Ford.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcription by:
Audio and Verbatim Transcription Services
10 Herondale, Haslemere, Surrey, GU27 1RQ : 
Telephone: 01428 643408 : Facsimile: 01428 654059
Members of the Official Tape Transcription Panel
Members of the British Institute of Verbatim Reporters

HER HONOUR JUDGE LEVEY:
1.	These proceedings concern an eight year old boy, T, born in May 2008. The application is made by Hampshire County Council, represented by Miss Wilkinson. T’s mother is N.  She is not present, her attendance having been excused on the last occasion, but she is represented by Miss Henry. T’s father is J. The father has been acting in person but has decided not to attend today having sent a number of emails to all parties, and to the Court, indicating that he was not intending to attend Court due to threatening emails that he said he had received on behalf of mother.  I have not been able to make any findings in relation to those of course because he has chosen not to attend or give evidence. T himself appears through his Children’s Guardian, Miss Dianne Ford, represented by her solicitor, Miss Patel.
2.	In terms of the hearing today I have heard evidence from T’s social worker, Rachel Stanbrook, and also from Miss Ford.  There is a bundle of documents, which I have read, containing in particular statements of evidence which have been filed on behalf of the Local Authority, by the father and the Guardian’s final report and an addendum which dealt with father’s position.
3.	These proceedings have taken in excess of 26 weeks to come to a final hearing and they were referred to me as Designated Family Judge because at one point it was proposed that five days of Court time was to be set aside for the hearing. Accordingly, I directed that the matter be listed before me on the 6th May to consider whether that time estimate was realistic and what directions, if any, needed to be made in relation to this matter.
4.	What happened at that hearing was as follows.  The mother was not able to attend. The father did attend and indicated that he did not intend to pursue an application for T to live with him. On that basis, although the mother was represented, I decided to adjourn the IRH so that she could attend because I had certain comments to make which I felt might assist her in relation to the proceedings. 
5.	In fact, on the 27th May, when the matter came back before the Court, she had  considered her position and decided that she would no longer challenge the application made by the Local Authority. However, the father had reviewed his position and at that hearing said that he now wished for the Court to make a child arrangements order providing for T to live with him and for a supervision order providing for Portsmouth City Council to supervise the placement with him. It was as a result of that change of mind that it was not possible to bring the application to an end at that hearing and so this final hearing  was listed today. It is therefore frustrating that the father has chosen not to attend. 
6.	All parties and indeed myself were aware that this was his intention, he having informed the Court in recent days that he did not intend to make an appearance. He relied upon threats which he said had been made against him by the mother and declined an offer of giving evidence by special measures.
7.	At the last minute today he has sent an email to the Court responding to the case summary sent to him on behalf of the Local Authority complaining about the fact that the case summary was, he says, received late and inviting the Court to adjourn and to relist the matter.  Of course, against that background I have no confidence that he would attend any adjourned hearing, he having been steadfast in his refusal to attend today, even though I have asked the Court office to make clear to him that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to evaluate his evidence, and to make the findings that he sought in his absence, and to deal with the matter on the statements that he has submitted. Notwithstanding all of that, as I say, he has not attended.
8.	So T is eight.  He is the only child of the mother and father. He has always been cared for by his mother.  The relationship between the parents is extremely difficult. They make allegation and counter-allegation against each other and, as Miss Stanbrook has said in her written evidence, it is extremely difficult to work out where the truth lies in relation to the allegations and counter-allegations. On reading the evidence it seems quite clear that in relation to their dealings with each other they have lost sight of the fact that T is their son, is their joint responsibility, and needs to have parents who are able to meet his needs. They have become consumed with the conflict between each other.
9.	Prior to October last year, when these proceedings started, the father went for a period of 18 months when he had no contact with T.  Contact only resumed once the Local Authority became involved. There had been private law proceedings between the parties on a number of occasions which included the involvement of a Children’s Guardian in 2011. In those proceedings the court gave consideration to a direction under s37 Children Act for a report as to whether care proceedings should be commenced, so serious was the acrimony. 
10.	There has been Local Authority involvement with the mother’s care of T since at least 2009. There was then a period of time, from 2011, when mother, together with T, moved backwards and forwards between Dorset, where she had been living, and Hampshire, until she finally settled in Hampshire in 2013. The concerns about the mother were her ability to meet T’s needs. He exhibits difficult behaviour.  He requires a particular type of parenting. There were concerns about the mother’s choice of partners. There were concerns about domestic violence and also about the home conditions.  Matters deteriorated until T went to live with his maternal grandmother between June and September 2015. After a brief period when he returned to his mother’s care in September 2015, she requested that he be accommodated by the Local Authority and these proceedings were subsequently commenced.
11.	There was a background to this in that T made allegations of physical abuse against the mother’s then partner.  I have not been asked to make any findings in relation to that, but of course the position – and I think I made this comment to Miss Hennessey who was representing the mother on the 6th May – that there were two alternative outcomes, both of which affect a return of T to the mother’s care whilst she remains in that relationship. The first is that the allegations are true.  Secondly, if not true, then the question arises as to why the allegations were made in the first place. Both possibilities T’s placement there extremely difficult and unlikely as an outcome.
12.	T has been in foster care now since October 2015. Although his behaviour continues, from time to time, to be difficult and challenging for the social worker, Miss Stanbrook made clear in her evidence today that he has made very significant progress since being in foster care and he responds extremely well to the flexible parenting which he requires and which his foster carer is able to give him.
13.	The position of the parties is that the Local Authority ask the Court to make an order placing T in their care, subject to a care order. The plan is for him to remain in long term foster care.  Miss Stanbrook told me that it is likely that he will move foster placements because he is not able to remain in his present placement permanently. That transition is likely to take place over the summer. The plan is for him to have contact to both of his parents. That will be at a frequency of once a month, depending upon his needs. The Local Authority confirm that this will be kept under review, again subject to his needs.  The period of contact will be one-and-a-half hours or two hours if in the school holidays.
14.	The mother’s position is that she now accepts that she is not in a position to look after T.  She is supportive of him remaining in foster care.  For obvious reasons she would wish contact to be kept under review.  The decision that she has taken in those circumstances is an extremely difficult decision for her to make.  It reflects her love for T and demonstrates that she has put his needs, his interests and welfare before her own. I commend her for it.
15.	Equally, I have no doubt at all that father has a deep and abiding love for T and that his motivation in opposing the Local Authority application is that he sees T’s welfare in the future as being met by him. I have no doubt that his motivation for that is positive. So his position, at least on the papers today, is that he wishes T to be made subject to a child arrangements order providing for him to live with father, together with his wife, and her daughter, and that he be subject to a supervision order in favour of Portsmouth City Council. The father has not attended to give any evidence in support of his application.
16.	The Children’s Guardian supports the Local Authority application and care plan.
17.	Turning to the law first of all. I can only make a care order if I am satisfied that threshold under section 31 of the Children Act is made out. In other words, that T has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of neglect, physical harm, and emotional harm, attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give.
18.	The mother concedes threshold on the basis of paragraph 4(g) of the threshold document which is that she and her partner are unable to safely manage T’s behaviour. 
19.	I am asked to make a finding under 4(i) of the threshold document in relation to father.  That reads:
“The father does not have an established relationship with T. The father has not seen T since April 2014.  He withdrew from private law proceedings in April 2014.  T would have experienced emotional distress and confusion at his father withdrawing from his life.”
That of course was the position at the point that proceedings were instituted in October 2015 and it was correct at that point, as I have already stated, that father had not seen T for 18 months at that stage. Plainly 4(i) is established.
20.	I make that finding on the balance of probabilities, it being the responsibility of the Local Authority to prove any matters which they rely upon on the balance of probabilities. In making the finding as to threshold that opens the way for me to consider what orders are appropriate in order to meet T’s welfare.  His welfare is my paramount consideration. I must consider it with regard to the welfare check list in s1 of the Children Act 1989. I bear in mind the various authorities which make clear that the making of a care order must be a last resort, where nothing else will do. I also bear in mind that each of the parents have a right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but also of course that T has his own rights. They include the requirement for his wishes to be borne in mind and for him to be brought up in a secure and stable household.
21.	Having concluded that threshold is met I turn to consider his welfare. His expressed wishes and feelings are that he would wish to live with his mother. Again, as Miss Henry submitted, that reinforces the selfless nature of the position that she has taken in relation to the application before the Court today. 
22.	He has contact now with his father, but the evidence that I have heard, both from Miss Stanbrook, and from the Children’s Guardian, is that he is still wary of that contact.  Miss Ford spoke for example of him not responding to contact in a physical way with father. She spoke of him appearing rather intimidated by father’s behaviour when he was being rather aggressive with a contact supervisor.  He has said to both the Children’s Guardian and to the social worker that he would rather not see his father.  So it is clear that his wishes and feelings in relation to living with his father are that he simply does not wish to live with him.
23.	His emotional and behavioural needs are complicated.  He has experienced inconsistency during his childhood so far. There has been a lack of clear boundaries.  He has been exposed to domestic abuse.  His requirement for a parenting style is one of flexibility and one that takes into account his behavioural and emotional needs.  It is the evidence of both the Children’s Guardian and Miss Stanbrook that the father’s parenting style, which is very direct and rigid if I have understood the evidence correctly, is a parenting style to which T does not or will not easily respond.  T can be physically aggressive and so his behaviour can be particularly challenging and occasionally disruptive.
24.	So the impact of any change on T, if moved to his father’s care would be significant. Of course there will be a change of circumstances come what may because T will have to move to a permanent foster placement. Of course I bear in mind that foster care, by its very nature, is not necessarily permanent. I take that into account when balancing the position which has been taken by the father.
25.	Whether the father is able to meet T’s needs is simply unknown at this stage.  A parenting assessment was undertaken on the father and his wife in December 2015 in respect of which the father took part to a limited extent. He refused to allow permission for the social work assessor to view the file of papers held by Portsmouth City Council in relation to his daughter, L. He refused to allow the assessor to contact his G.P.   At first he refused to provide information about his childhood experiences, or to share any details of his childhood, as part of the assessment. It was the view of the assessment that he minimised his previous offending behaviour. There were concerns about the fact that he did not disclose his offending history to the assessor. There was his failure to include L in the investigation. There were varying relationships with his other children. There was his apparent failure to understand the concerns of Children’s Services.  The assessor concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the father would be able to care for T on a full time basis. The assessor said:
“I feel it would be more damaging to remove him from his placement to his father whom I am not confident can meet his holistic needs. I would also be concerned about father’s ability to work with Children’s Services Department and do not feel that he would be able to build a relationship with the service to be able to fully meet T’s care needs.”
26.	Recommendations were made that the father and his present wife should undertake a parenting course. It was suggested that they undertake a Triple P Parenting Course which father, despite it being suggested, has not engaged in, saying that he saw no benefit in it.
27.	I have been party to many emails from father now which have been forwarded through the Court office, some of them coming directly to me, even though I made it clear in response to the first that it was not appropriate for any party to routinely communicate with a Judge during proceedings.  It is clear from that email correspondence that father is extremely unhappy with the way Children’s Services have dealt with this matter. He talks in his email correspondence about wanting an investigation, although what that investigation is to consider is unclear. The tone of the exchange of emails, including some which I have seen, which have been sent direct to Miss Stanbrook, are bordering on the offensive, certainly aggressive, and make it very clear to my mind that he would not be able to work with the Local Authority to T’s benefit  
28.	He did not co-operate with the psychological assessment that was directed by the Court at the end of last year.  In answering the question as to whether the father, together with his wife, is able to meet T’s needs I simply have no evidence upon which I can form any conclusion that he is able to do so.  He has chosen not to take part in the assessment that would have provided that information and particularly given that he has not attended Court, which would have enabled me at the very least to formulate some view of him, I am unable to conclude that there is any evidence upon which I can be satisfied that he has any understanding of T’s emotional needs and any ability to meet those needs.
29.	In those circumstances, bearing in mind that making a care order is an order of last resort, I accept the evidence which Miss Stanbrook gave which is that there really is no alternative but for a care order to be made given that the only option before the Court, other than that, would be father’s application for T to live with him.  There is no evidence upon which I can be satisfied that father is able to meet T’s needs.
30.	 I would add that the Local Authority’s position is that they have not completely written off the father as a carer for T in the future.  The position remains that it might be that in the future he is able to demonstrate that he is an appropriate carer and is able to meet T’s needs. That would require a very significant change of attitude by the father who would need to co-operate in assessments of him and provide information that would enable those assessing him to do so.  So as things stand at the moment the prospect of that does not appear to be significantly promising. Nevertheless, the possibility of the father looking after T at a point in the future remains open but requires, again as is clear from the Local Authority evidence, the development of a much more fulfilling relationship between father and T than is the case at the moment.  
31.	In concluding I remind myself of the evidence of T’s Guardian, Miss Ford, which is that for T to return to father’s care against his wishes at this time would be a disaster. I agree with that evidence.
32.	In the circumstances I am satisfied that there is no alternative but to make a care order.  It is the only order which in my view meets and provides for T’s welfare by enabling his emotional and behavioural needs to be met. I therefore approve the Local Authority’s plan which provides for T to remain in long term foster care and I make a care order.
33.	I am content with the care plan in so far as it relates to contact with the parents at this time and note that it is the position of the Local Authority that contact will be kept under constant review in accordance with T’s needs and his wishes and feelings. I am content with that to be recited to the order as requested on behalf of the mother, although of course the same applies to both parents. That is all I propose to say. That concludes my Judgment.
AVTS REF: 6364/H5201