[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) >> Five children, Re [2017] EWFC B52 (14 July 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B52.html

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

IN THE WOLVERHAMPTON FAMILY COURT

		14th July 2017

1. The applications that I am determining this week are made by Telford and Wrekin Council who applied on the 14^th February 2017 for care orders for the five children of this family and for placement orders on the 21^st June seeking permission to place the older two children and the younger three children separately for adoption. Their parents are C and B and I will refer to them as the mother and the father throughout this judgment. The local authority was represented by Ms Chatterjee, the Mother by Ms Dhaliwal, Father by Mr Abberley and the children by Ms Brown. I am grateful to them for their assistance.
2. The applications before the court are for the most serious orders the family court can make and always have to be justified and proportionate. I have considered carefully both two large ringbinders of written evidence and oral evidence from a number of witnesses, followed by oral submissions from each parties representatives, in order to come to a decision. This judgement aims to explain that process.
3. I am aware as a result of a psychological report on the father that he would struggle to understand complex language and so I have deliberately written this judgment in what I hope is simple terms. We also made some arrangements to ensure his participation in the hearing enabled him to give me the best evidence he could.
4. The applications are opposed by each parent who seek the return of all of the children home. They continue to have a committed relationship to each other . The children's Guardian supports the social workers plans. At the start of the week I heard an application from the maternal grandparents who sought to challenge the report social services did on them which didn't agree they could provide safe care. I did not agree to their becoming part of the case and gave my reasons for that in court.
5. The Legal framework
6. A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold criteria" under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

i. "A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied – (a) that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; ……..."

7. Section 31(9) defines "harm" as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development and "development" as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development and "health" includes both physical and mental health.
8. If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the 'welfare' stage with a view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 requires me to treat the child's welfare as paramount and to apply the 'welfare checklist' in arriving at my decision.
9. The placement application means I also need to consider the welfare checklist set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in which the children's welfare throughout their lives is my paramount consideration
10. The "welfare checklist" is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to particular regard to:

a. the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

b. his physical, emotional and educational needs;

c. the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

d. his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

e. any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

f. how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

g. the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question."

11. The checklist in s1(4) adds the consideration that the court must consider

a. At (c) the likely effect on the child ( throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person and

b. The relationship the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including –

c. The likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child or its doing so

d. The ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child's needs and

e. The wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives, or any such person, regarding the child

12. I have to consider if any court order is necessary for the welfare and safety of a child and also carefully examine social workers plans for children to see if I can support them
13. Intervention by the state in private family life can only take place if it is a proportionate response to the facts and I must decide if the orders social services seek are necessary and that no other orders would do to meet the welfare needs of the children.
14. There is some dispute about the all of the factual basis, called the threshold, which gives the court the jurisdiction to make any order. The local authority has to prove the facts it alleges, and to do so on the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. The Respondents do not have to prove anything. Either a fact is proven to the necessary standard or it is not. If it is not it didn't happen. There is no room for "suspicion."
15. I have to consider all of the evidence carefully looking at all the material available and the whole picture , always bearing in mind the reminder in a case called Lucas that people may lie about one thing and not about others and that the reasons for not telling the truth can be many, including shame or embarrassment .
16. There are two specific allegations which are fully challenged. In reality the parents accept their home when proceedings began was disgusting and unsuitable for children animals or adults to live in.
17. The history of this case is that in December of 2016 this family were not in fact known to social services in this area. This seems surprising to me. When they had lived in Bedford they had come to the attention of social services only temporarily and it seems health visiting had expressed repeated concerns but child protection measures were never instituted. They moved here in the summer of last year, telling the court they sought support from maternal grandparents here.
18. This case began after police arrested both parents for child neglect in December 2016. Had Mother not lied to the health visitor as she admits she did twice, pretending the family lived at her parents in order to keep social services away from her home there would have been proceedings before, I am confident.
19. While parents were arrested a long time ago even now we do not know if they are to be charged which I find concerning and surprising. I accept the later sexual harm allegation in relation to child R will have complicated the picture.
20. Police visited their home with social workers as a result of Child M telling two school workers on separate occasions on the 9th December 2016 bruising on his ears was as a result of Mum hitting him. Having interviewed the child who said nothing further and Mother who denied this, she agreed they could visit the home. It was in a dreadful state. Father was obstructive and difficult. Parents were arrested for child neglect. Police could not leave the children there and they were subject to a police protection order and moved into accommodation in foster care , which continued later with parents agreement.
21. The facts in the threshold relate to this bruising, the state of the house and alleged sexual abuse of Child R which was discovered after a referral to a paediatrician following an ordinary child protection medical which each of the children had as a matter of normal procedure , at which the foster carer of child R raised concerns about his anus.
22. Parents do accept the incontrovertible evidence about the house but are reluctant to accept the full allegations about neglect. They both say the injury to Child M was caused at school by a child and that neither has abused Child R not failed to protect him.
23. It is right to give a full picture of the state of the house and the children last December. The photographs taken are really gruesome. The 4 dogs had been allowed to defecate all over the house, 50 piles noted by the police , the smell was so overpowering the social worker felt sick and it stopped the police photographer taking pictures of every room. The children's clothes had dog faeces on. There were no beds for the children, who slept on filthy bedding , four of them on a filthy floor, no tooth brushes seen, hardly any clothes or possessions. There are a range of dangerous tools on the floor. Everything is filthy and a mess. Parents and children smelt and were grubby. The bathroom was filthy and seemed unused. The children had dirty teeth and Child Ms and Child Rs obviously needed treatment. The pictures of the children I have seen in the bundle show they look tired, and not properly fed or cared for.
24. The parents were interviewed by Police about the allegation made by Child M and then and now have said it is untrue, though both are unwilling to call him a liar in saying it. He has not repeated this since.
25. After child protection medicals Child R was referred to a further paediatrician for a specialist sexual abuse medical and Dr Chaplin who conducted a full examination of him concluded that Child R had been sexually abused given graphic clear injuries to his anus. Child R is too young to be interviewed about these matters and has limited language still, he was under three when examined. Parents were later interviewed by police about this and denied any knowledge of it. The medical evidence was very clear and the fact this is such a shocking allegation is reflected I think by all parties referring to this as alleged abuse when the bruising is referred to differently, reflecting the fact that for everyone accepting that anyone could abuse a child in such a way is very hard to comprehend.
26. I will begin with the allegations about Child R as I first heard from Dr Chaplin who gave oral evidence after she had been asked to absorb a number of medical papers forwarded to her by fathers lawyers. She was a thorough and convincing witness who was careful to consider all options put to her and willing to accept that there is always the possibility of a most unlikely explanation for observed findings.
27. What she told the court, confirming her written reports, was that she witnessed two scars on the child's anus and two skin tags likely to be connected, the scars at 12 o clock and 6 o clock. She stated these were most likely caused by penetrative trauma from person or object using force, open cuts caused by this would have bled and been painful.
28. Importantly such an injury would be significant at the time and if someone was looking at the child's bottom easy to see, and it would cause significant pain at the time it happened. If seen later though she accepted both parents and professionals might not realise the significance of the scars or skin tags . We know the health visitor noticed the skin tags in December after removal and before the child protection medicals and had not plainly felt they were significant.
29. Such an assault could not be timed but she said the scars would eventually go and she was able to say that the timing was before removal and could have been up to 14 months before. Noticeably this is after the only medical referral about constipation for this child which parents told police and the court they considered must have been the cause.
30. She confirmed that is no peer reviewed research that constipation causes scars and accepted it was not impossible that constipation had been so severe that it had caused two lacerations but she felt most unlikely.
31. The other children showed no physical signs of sexual abuse although this does not ever exclude that possibility and neither of the two older and more verbal children have then or since made any complaints about it, nor have there been any concerns about sexualised behaviour.
32. I heard from both parents about all matters. Mother was an alert witness who demonstrated a quick understanding of what she was asked. Plainly Father appeared to struggle. I know he had been unwell the day before giving evidence but that both social workers and the Guardian have been able to have detailed conversations with him that they were confident he understood. His evidence in court was halting and he said he could not remember a lot of things he was asked about. I am aware he receives disability living allowance at the middle rate for care and mobility allowance and that Mother is his carer because of his cognitive limitations. He must have been badly behaved as a young person ending up in his exclusion from school. He was unwilling to give family details to social workers but didn't explain why. Sadly this means none of them have been approached to see if they could care for the children.
33. In written and oral evidence neither parent believed their child had been sexually abused it is plain though they had said they accepted Dr Chaplin's evidence before. Mother in reality said she hoped this had not happened but knew she had to accept an expert report and she did not try to suggest in court that others might have had the opportunity to abuse her child – having at one time suggested if he had been abused this must have happened at nursery and being aware her parents had cared for this child on occasion she was clear she did not consider they might possibly have done it.
34. She accepted it was her who usually did nappy changes , and the majority of child care. She had never noticed pain or bleeding and her child with limited language would still be able to communicate to her if he was hurt. She said she was completely shocked at the outcome of the medical investigation. She said " not noticing isn't the same as failing to protect him", a rather sophisticated response, and accepted she had failed to notice anything unusual about his bottom
35. Father told me he had done some basic care including nappy changing. Unlike his partner he said in a written statement he had seen blood from Child R's bottom and had washed and dried the child often – this latter unlikely given the state of the children and the house obviously – but in oral evidence said he had never seen any blood. He said about abuse " he must have been if she ( Dr Chaplin) said so " but he didn't think he had been and he had not abused him nor would his partner he was sure. He couldn't think of anyone else either. Unfortunately these late admissions nursery workers did not do this to their son came after nursery filed hundreds of pages of documents and their manager was required to give evidence.
36. The written evidence shows foster carers reported this child was anxious around males when first moved and he has been distressed at separation from his current carer and around going to contact
37. I am able to conclude on the balance of probabilities this child has been abused and I accept Dr Chaplin's conclusions in their entirely. I find it must have been one or both parents that has done something to him to injure and hurt him by forcefully inserting something or a body part into his anus causing him pain. I cannot exclude either. I am confident one or both must know what has been done to their child but chooses not to be truthful about it.
38. At the same time the point Mother made, supported by the Doctor, is that someone who didn't perpetrate such an injury and wasn't immediately present might have been unaware of what had happened and I am not persuaded I can make a finding of failure to protect. I am confident the children were not properly washed or bathed regularly – in such circumstances a parent who had not abused a child might not have noticed anything untoward and upset might not have been noticed in what must have been the chaos of their home..
39. I am able to make findings about all of the neglectful care of the children. I have seen the photographs taken of the children on the 9^th December last year in which they look forlorn and pathetic and of the house in which they were living. Parents denied they had no toothbrushes saying their teeth were cleaned twice a day. I cannot believe that from the sight of the children and the house. They had not had dental care they required or eye tests I find. Two of the children have needed significant , and likely painful , dental work since reception into care which all could have been prevented. I am confident the eldest may perform better in school now she has glasses. The improvement in their presentation including their weight since in care clearly shows the impact poor care had on the children.
40. Mother told the police and the court the state of the house had worsened and was materially caused because of the number of dogs and her inability to cope. While she said "the kids are always fed and cleaned" the evidence of that day demonstrates that was not true. They had more dogs as a result of failing to care properly for the dogs they had so pregnancy resulted in puppies some of which they kept. She agreed the dogs had a bigger room than the children, and said they were her partners. Both claimed recent decorating meant no beds were there for the children which I find to be patently untrue. In interview it appeared Father didn't really comprehend the house was so dreadful and was prepared to make statements such as he was actively decorating or washing and cleaning up when police arrived that were patently untrue. They had lived in this house since July without beds and there was no sign of decorating.
41. So far as the alleged assault on child M , then 6, by his Mother on the 8^th December the court heard from Dr Mahabeer who diagnosed that the injury was an inflicted one and not accidental and was questioned rigorously about her conclusions. She was a careful and impressive witness giving us clear demonstrations of where she had seen bruising and its most likely cause. She was clear force was required that would be unlikely from a child and while it was possible it came from a punch it is most likely that each ear was pinched by an adult causing the linear marks and petechial bruising she saw , with significant force. The Doctor was unable to date the bruising as this is not possible. She accepted it was not impossible a child might have caused this injury but most unlikely.
42. Mother's explanation then and now is that the child had complained of bullying at school, and it is accepted she had visited school once to complain of this and she said that children had "flicked" his ears a number of times and this or a punch from a child was the most likely explanation for the bruising which she and Father said they had seen the night before. They both suggested the bullying had been ongoing and serious tho accepted only one complaint had in fact been made . Both parents and the social worker agreed that this child is not prone to lying .
43. Two school witnesses who had spoken to the child that day came to give evidence, a teaching assistant and learning mentor. They were both palpably honest caring individuals and in reality their evidence was unchallenged. Each was told directly that Mum had done it when they asked the child about bruises they saw, and he put his head down, with no eye contact and was subdued as he said it. It was noted he was a bit different that morning. I am confident if he had been hurt by another child he would have told them so; they are plainly the kind of school assistants children would feel easy talking to. He did not.
44. They told me that the child was well liked at school, happy go lucky and fun. There had been a problem with rough play in the playground by a group of over boisterous children but it was plain that the learning mentor was determined to stop this and was in the playground to do so. Of note this week the child had been helping to clear the playground and was praised for his work- so he was not likely to be by any boisterous group. No teacher was aware of or had seen bullying of him.
45. In interviews with the police Mother claimed she had "told them this morning he had a bruise on his ear and I asked him where it had come from" then saying she had not reported it. She told this court she had to take child R to nursery and given the head wasn't outside school she didn't tell anyone herself at school about the bruising, which she regretted. To the police she said she had asked him where he had got it from in the morning though both parents claimed to me they had seen the bruises after school the night before. Neither was a convincing witness about this. Such an injury is very serious and if Mothers account was true you would expect an immediate response .The medical evidence, demeanour and clear statements from the child lead me to accept that what he said was true and his Mother injured him.
46. I could well understand it all getting on top of her. I believe she cannot get any real help from her partner who in fact they claim she cares for herself. It would be hard caring for him and five children even without the dogs and the disgusting conditions in which they lived. She must have lost her temper with her little boy described in such lovely terms by school. We know nothing more about this since he was unwilling to say more and she has not explained it.
47. As a result of these events social services conducted assessments to determine whether the children could go home with support, whether relatives could care for them or potentially they should be adopted. I heard from social worker CC who is newly qualified and co-worked the case with SC. She had conducted the parenting assessment with a family worker who had been trained in a model called PAMs designed specifically for parents with a learning disability.
48. She worked with both parents, telling the court Mother appeared genuinely remorseful and also appeared able to take on advice. She was never able to identify how or why the home had become so dreadful so the social worker concluded this might well happen again. As a result she felt she could not recommend the children return to the home which is now adequate. Father was less able to contribute to an assessment but she considered the work done with him adequately reflected his needs. I agree. There is no rule that says only a particular type of licensed assessment must be used but any assessment needs to engage with parents at a level that ensures they can understand and contribute. I am satisfied that happened here and she told me she wanted to ensure the assessment was fair and would get the best out of each parent. I considered this genuine. She had examined the needs of each individual child and how parents might meet them and concluded they could not even care for one child care without a real risk of significant harm. In particular she identified lack of a reason why things in the home had become so bad , the two injuries remaining a matter of dispute and I must add the seriousness of the unexplained injuries to two children in the family home.
49. She noted too that parents had moved a long way to have family support from maternal grandparents and family but had then not allowed them into the home and therefore not accessed any meaningful support from them, though they did care for the children on occasion and family did help with transport including to school. This led her to conclude support from family and professionals would not remedy the problems.
50. I should add since we have no clear picture about what family life was like in this home the lack of openness and honesty prevents any real support as well. She said both parents had co-operated tho' on two occasions Father had been angry and on one of these she had not felt comfortable to continue the conversation with him as a result. He did not want to be open about his first child. The oldest children appear reluctant to talk about home or personal things. The assessment was concerned about safety and neglect, their ability to manage all five together but while it identified areas where support could be given overall it concluded this would not answer the range of concerns. It observed it was clear both parents loved their children very much and some loving contact seen but difficulties there focussing on each of the children and managing their behaviour. I considered the social workers work was fair and accept her conclusions.
51. The viability assessment of maternal grandparents properly concluded that they must have known from the smell and dirt of the parents and children things were very wrong and did not intervene, apart from other issues. Mother's sister and her partner were also assessed but were unsuitable for a variety of reasons; they did not appeal that decision but the maternal grandparents did to me. I agreed with the social workers conclusions. An odd thing about these assessments are that maternal grandparents, the Mothers sister and her husband and the Father had all changed their surnames as adults largely due to dislike of connection with family members.
52. The sibling assessment was conducted by social worker CC. She concluded sibling relationships were strong and important. The two older children are currently in separate foster homes and the younger three together. She recommends the two older children move in together soon and are placed for adoption together and the three younger but accepted in an ideal world all five of them would be together - practicality determined her plans. She described each of them as lovely. She was clear if the children were separated it was imperative they should stay in touch though if some of them remained in foster care and still seeing their parents that might be much more difficult, since adopters might be anxious about that. A statement from fostering confirmed adoption was a proper plan for the children .
53. The children were aware of the impact of poor care on them and for example very thrilled to have a bed, and the older a hair brush. I do not accept Mothers account it was in the kitchen drawer.
54. The older children have met professionals to help them express their feelings about their future. The oldest said she wanted to return to her parents but agreed with social work worries and appeared content with a plan for a new family to be found for her. The next child is plainly happy in foster care but expressed a wish to return home, knowing why social workers are worried, while parents were not listed in the list of people important to him. There are concerns that some children were said to have begun to express some reluctance on occasion to go to see their parents and for example child M's bedwetting appeared linked to it and he was recently needing prompting and appearing uncomfortable in kissing his Father goodbye.
55. The parents dispute the local authority plans. When pushed, rather distressingly I think, Mother thought they ought to have the three youngest now and when they have shown they can manage then the older two , remaining in foster care, might return home. In fact one would expect the older two to have had longer relationships with their parents and also be badly effected if younger children could return but not them. Both said they preferred all children to be together, a conclusion supported by the children's Guardian and in reality by the social worker. Unsurprisingly they cannot countenance the idea of adoption.
56. The children's guardian provided a full and detailed analysis with a very detailed picture for me of each child and their current presentation which I am grateful for. She has been told the children are now more confident and outgoing. She has confirmed the children have all settled very well in foster care. She also gave evidence supporting the conclusions and recommendations save that she is clear there should be a concurrent search for a home for all 5 children together which might be possible as well as a search for other homes. She considers there are no other long terms options that meet the children's needs. She was clear the sibling relationships are very important and the care plans should specifically deal with ensuring this was a clear priority. I agree.
57. In evaluating the welfare options for all five children I do not believe parents have the capacity to care for them safely. The long standing and serious neglect they have suffered, and serious injuries which remain completely unexplained in a family so reluctant to get help all indicate the high risks of harm that would exist if any child was returned to their care. I have to balance all options for the children but cannot countenance one that is so unsafe.
58. There is no kind of help that would alleviate these risks since I do not feel parents are able to work honestly with social workers and think it more likely that the closing in of the past would happen when we still have no real picture of the challenges of family life for them before. Sadly there are no suitable family members, though obviously I am aware Father has not provided details of his own by choice. In the circumstances the choices available for care of the children long term are fostering or adoption.
59. For such young children fostering is not ideal – your carer can change, you have lots of meetings, need permission to have sleepovers at a friend's house, and it is not a family who will be there forever necessarily , to lend you a deposit to rent or rescue you in a crisis as a young adult. On the other hand adoption means you lose your name, your ability to identify family members who look or sounds like you and wider family relationships that are always important. Both parents plainly love their children very much and this will be a significant loss. The quality of contact between parents and children does not lead me to think it is essential that this should continue although I dearly hope both parents help prepare life story books and keep in touch with the children through the annual letterbox scheme.
60. These children deserve permanent families of their own to make up their poor start in life and achieve the best they can and I have concluded their welfare throughout their lives requires both that I approve the care plans, make care orders and that I dispense with parents' consent to adoption and make placement orders for all five children.
61. I consider the care plans should be altered for concurrent searches for homes for them all together and also if separated it should be essential that potential cares clearly understand and will promote sibling contact, since this family group plainly have a close and important bond. I am today pleased to be told this has been agreed and also that adoptive parents will be sought, if separation is necessary, who will ensure sibling contact takes place at least twice a year
62. Lastly – the children need to know it is not their fault they have been taken into care. Their parents love them very much I am sure but were unable to care for them properly. It will be distressing for all of them to know of the unexplained injuries to child R when they are old enough to understand this and of their Mother hurting M.

Her Honour Judge Williscroft

14^th July 2017.