Case No. NE17C00635
IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Newcastle on Tyne)

The Law Courts
Quayside, Newcastle

Friday, 23 February 2018

Before:

MISS RECORDER HENLEY
(In private)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B E T W E E N :

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL		Applicant

-  and -

(1) LW
(2) NW
(3) The children	Respondents

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

MS S WOOLRICH (instructed by Northumberland County Council Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MS M SWEETING appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.
MR K PATTERSON appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.
MS K FENWICK appeared on behalf of the children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

THE RECORDER:  

1	This is an application for care orders brought by the local authority, Northumberland County Council (LA).

2	The Court is concerned with MM (born [a date in] 2003) now aged 14 years old, KP (born [a date in] 2004) now aged 13 years old and LR (born [a date in] 2007) now aged ten years old.  MM gave birth to a baby girl, LW, on [a date in] 2018.  They were placed together in a mother and baby foster care placement. The parents had agreed to MM being accommodated in local authority foster care on a voluntary basis pursuant to s.20 of the Children Act 1989 since 21 December 2017.  There are separate care proceedings which have been issued in respect of MM’s baby.  KP and LR have remained in the care of the mother throughout these proceedings.  All three children are the subject of the interim supervision orders which were first granted on 4 October 2017.  

3	The mother of all three children is LW, also known as LA, born on [a date in] 1980.  She is 37 years old.  The father of all three children is NW, also known as NR, born on [a date in] 1974, he is 44 years of age.  He has parental responsibility in respect of all three children.  The matter was listed for a final hearing with a time estimate of two and a half days commencing on 22 February 2018.

4	The matter came before me last week for an IRH on 15 February 2018.  I was informed at that stage that mother’s partner, JC, was objecting to information about his conviction for a sexual offence being shared in these proceedings.  I directed that information about that offence would be shared unless he attended court on Monday 19 February, this week, to raise objection.  I indicated that my reason for making such an order was that this information was required by the court in circumstances in which two of the children are living with the mother and that in order for the court to balance whether they could safely remain there or should be removed to foster care in accordance with the local authority’s care plans, I needed to have this information as it could demonstrate that the children are at risk of significant harm.

5	The mother failed to attend that hearing and so, too, did anyone representing her.  I was informed that her legal representative had also failed to attend an advocates’ meeting which had taken place that week.  No final evidence had been filed on her behalf.  In the circumstances I adjourned the IRH to Monday of this week.  JC sought legal advice following receipt of the order I made on 15 February 2018 and indicated that he did not oppose disclosure of information relating to his criminal offending being shared with this court, save that he wished to keep some of the details confidential as far as the father was concerned.  He indicated that he was in a relationship with the mother and sought in due course to live with her.  In the circumstances, he did not attend the hearing on Monday of this week and I directed that the police provide disclosure in respect of his criminal offences. 

6	At the adjourned IRH on Monday 19 February 2018 the mother attended with her solicitor.  I was informed that she had failed to give any instructions prior to that morning since November 2017.  No final evidence had been filed at that stage.  The mother’s witness requirements were not known and the mother’s solicitor had attended court without any papers in respect of the case and, therefore, could not take instructions at court.  The mother applied for the final hearing to be adjourned to allow for an assessment of her and JC on the basis that they sought to care for the children together.  I refused that application on the basis that the mother had failed to file any final evidence, that the only information I knew about her partner had come from the local authority’s s.47 investigation following the discovery of their relationship and that the mother had volunteered no information about him other than that he had never met the children.  She said that at that stage they had been together for four months and that they were not living together.   

7	I refused to adjourn the final hearing on the basis that the local authority and the children’s guardian have pressing concerns about the safety of the children in the mother’s care and it seemed to me that those issues needed to be determined without delay.  I directed that if the mother sought to advance a case that she wished to care for the children with her partner then she would need to file a witness statement from him and he would need to attend court to give evidence. I could then decide whether there was any merit in the application but on the evidence I had this appeared to me to be a relationship that was in its infancy and I was not persuaded that their aspirations to live together in the future presented me with a realistic placement option to be considered at this stage.  I was informed that the matter remained contested.  I directed that the mother file her final evidence the following day indicating her witness requirements and that the matter would remain listed this week for final hearing starting a day earlier than previously scheduled.  The mother has filed her final statement.  It is dated 21 February 2018 but no statement was forthcoming from JC and the application for them to be assessed as a couple was not pursued.

8	During this hearing I heard from counsel on behalf of the local authority and on behalf of the mother.  I heard from the father’s solicitor, Mr Patterson, and I heard from counsel on behalf of the children.  I have read the bundle of documents filed in respect of these proceedings, I have had the advantage of hearing the oral evidence of Sarah Stewart, the children’s social worker, from the mother and from the children’s guardian.  

9	By way of background, this family have been known to Children’s Services since 2004 as a result of allegations that the children had experienced neglect in the care of the parents including that home conditions were poor, that the presentation of the children was dirty and unkempt at times and that the children’s health appointments have not always been kept.  The father has long-standing difficulties with drug and alcohol misuse and there are allegations that the relationship between the parents was a domestically abusive one.  Engagement with services to address these difficulties was said to be inconsistent and often poor.   The parents separated finally in August 2017.   The children remained in the care of the mother after that time.  The local authority contend that the children’s circumstances deteriorated further following the separation of the parents.  

10	The children were made the subject of child protection plans under the category of neglect in October 2013.  Following improvements those plans were brought to an end in February 2015.  Thereafter, matters are said to have deteriorated again, leading to the local authority commencing Public Law Outline procedures.  Those procedures were brought to an end in June 2016 following further improvements being noted and the children were then made the subject of child in need plans.  These proceedings were issued on 8 September 2017 following mounting concerns about KP’s antisocial and criminal behaviour, the father’s drug and alcohol misuse, MM’s pregnancy, poor parental mental health and the family facing eviction due to the antisocial behaviour of the children.  

11	In terms of the positions of the parties, the local authority’s care plans at the commencement of these proceedings are dated 4 December 2017 but in fact I have received updated care plans of today’s date, 23 February 2018.  Within both sets of documents the local authority indicates that it seeks care orders in respect of all three children on the basis that they be placed in separate foster care placements on a long-term basis.  The local authority proposes that all three children see each parent on an alternating fortnightly basis so that they will see the mother one week and the father the next.  Their elder brother, L, is to be invited to attend any contact sessions that his work commitments permit him to attend.  These sessions would take place in the community, very probably in the area near to where the family live.  In addition, contact for the siblings and L without the presence of the parents is to be promoted during each school holiday with two sessions in the school summer holiday, very probably one at the beginning and one at the end and again contact would be community based.

12	The mother does not oppose the making of a care order in respect of MM but opposes the removal of KP and LR from her care.  She indicates that she would agree to the making of a supervision order in respect of those children providing that they could remain living with her. 

13	The father supports KP and LR remaining in mother’s care provided that she ends her relationship with JC.  He accepts that he is not in a position to care for any of the children.  He does not oppose the making of a care order in respect of MM.  

14	The children’s guardian has filed a final report dated 8 February 2018.  Within that report she indicates her support for the local authority’s care plans in respect of all three children.  She confirmed her position in oral evidence, including her support for the contact proposals.

Threshold Criteria

15	The parents accept that the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 is crossed by reason of the following admissions:
 
16	At the time the local authority instigated protective measures on 07.09.2017 by the issue of proceedings, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the children had suffered and were likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them, and likely to be given, to them if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them;

(a) The children have suffered chronic neglect and suffered emotional harm.

(b) Relationship between the parents: There was domestic abuse and some violence in the relationship between LA and NW to which the children were exposed.

(c) Substance misuse : NW accepts he has consumed excessive alcohol, used drugs and also used heroin in addition his methadone prescription.

(d) Home conditions were very poor : the Father accepts this and the Mother accepts that because of problems in the relationship she gave up and home conditions were unacceptable from time to time.

(e) Boundaries and behaviour management. : the Mother accepts that she struggled to manage KP’s behaviour but does not accept that she did not set boundaries.

(f) the Father engaged KP in his offending behaviour.

(g) Mental health: the Father and the Mother each accept they have mental health problems. The Mother has recently sought treatment.

(h) the Father and Mother accept that they have not always been open and honest with the LA. It has hampered efforts to alleviate the harm the children suffered and were likely to suffer.
 
17 	As a consequence of these concessions, I am satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of public law orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989 is crossed.

18 	The focus of this hearing has therefore been the children’s welfare.  There remain a number of factual issues which have been disputed by the Mother and therefore it is necessary for the Court to make some factual determinations. 

The Law in respect of Factual Determinations
 
19 	The law to be applied when considering the issues before the court is well settled.  When considering the findings sought by the local authority the court applies the following well established principles.

20 	The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the local authority.  In cases of alleged inflicted injury, it is for the local authority to establish on the balance of probabilities that the injuries in question were inflicted.  There is no requirement on the parents to show that the injuries have an innocent explanation.  

21	The standard to which the local authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities.  The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [15]).   Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened.  The court may decide that it did or that it did not (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [2]).  

22. 	Findings of fact must be based on evidence not on speculation.  The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors (A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)).  

23 	In determining whether the local authority has discharged the burden upon it the court looks at what has been described as ‘the broad canvass’ of the evidence before it.  The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly.  Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]).  

24 	The evidence of the parents and carers is of utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.  The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them.  

25 	The court must always bear in mind that a witnesses may tell lies in the course of an investigation and the hearing.  The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied above everything (R v Lucas [1982] QB 720).  I make clear that in reaching my conclusions in this matters, I have given myself this direction in respect of the evidence of the Mother. 

26	It is also important when considering its decision as to the findings sought that the Court take into account of the presence or absence of any risk factors and any protective factors which are apparent on the evidence.  In Re BR [2015] EWFC 41 Peter Jackson J sets out a useful summary of those factors drawn from information from the NSPCC, the Common Assessment Framework and the Patient UK Guidance for Health Professionals.
 
Legal Framework in respect of welfare decisions
 
27 	I remind myself that each child’s welfare is my paramount consideration. That is section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.  In considering what orders to make I have regard to the Welfare Check List found in section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.
 
28  	In relation to the threshold criteria of section 31(2) Children Act 1989 I have regard to whether I am satisfied that each child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.  

29 	When considering which orders if any are in the best interests of the children I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family.  The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are “very extreme”, and should only be made when “necessary” for the protection of the child’s interests, “when nothing else will do.”  The court “must never lose sight of the fact that (the child’s) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them.”

30	 It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said: “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and . everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”

31 	I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the realistic options for the children, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.  

32 	In considering making a Care Order I have had close regard to the Article 6 ECHR and Article 8 ECHR rights of each parent and of each child, but I remind myself that where there is tension between the Article 8 rights of the parent, on the one hand, and of the child, on the other, the rights of the child prevail; Yousef v The Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210.

33 	In terms of my welfare analysis, there are two realistic placement options before me in respect of each child.  Firstly, a placement with the mother or, secondly, a placement in long term foster care.  The father concedes that he is not in a position to care for the children and I give him credit for adopting that position.  Having read the unchallenged evidence of the local authority in respect of him, which I accept, I am satisfied that he is not in a position to be able to care for either of these children now or for the foreseeable future.  The father continues to misuse illicit drugs and alcohol which effectively precludes him from having the sole care of the child.  

34	 In reaching a decision in this matter, I have had the benefit of the statements and assessments provided within the bundle by the children’s key social worker, Sarah Stewart, who has been involved with this family continuously since February 2016.  I am very grateful for the work that she has provided.  The children’s guardian, Nicola Murphy, has filed three reports in this matter again for which I am very grateful.  When contemplating which care option is in the best interests of each child I must consider their needs now and in the future.  
	
35 	MM is 14 years old and gave birth to a baby girl on 9 February 2018.  She lives in a mother and baby foster placement with her baby.  She suffers from ADHD which she previously refused to take medication for.   She attends specialist educational provision having been excluded from B Academy as a result of her behaviour.  MM had an antecedent history which includes offences of theft, arson and racially motivated public order offences.  She has a history of antisocial behaviour.  She needs safe, consistent care in an environment which will encourage her to complete her education, learn self-care skills and enable her to develop her skills as a parent whilst being supported and nurtured as a child in her own right.  It is very much to the credit of the parents that they were able to support MM to enter a foster care placement during the latter stages of her pregnancy with a view to her residing there with her baby once it was born.  MM managed this transition well.  The parents agree that this is an appropriate placement for her and do not oppose the making of the care order in respect of her.  The children’s guardian supports the making of a care order in respect of MM.  

36 	Having read the papers in respect of MM, I am satisfied that her care plan is the appropriate one and that her current placement is meeting her needs well.  It gives her the best opportunity to be able to parent her baby whilst keeping her safe from harm.  I am satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate for MM to be made the subject of a care order, so I make that order.  

37 	KP is a 13 year old child who suffers from behavioural difficulties and asthma which is currently well controlled with inhalers.  KP attended the Pupil Referral Unit up until 24 November 2017.  He is now enrolled to attend specialist educational provision but has not been attending his provision despite the fact that a taxi is dispensed to collect him each day to enable him to attend.  KP’s antecedent history includes offences of theft and arson which caused in excess of £20,000 worth of damage.  He has a history of antisocial behaviour.  His arson offence is a significant red flag as far as placements are concerned and it may present significant difficulties and indeed be a barrier to a standard long-term foster placement being found for him within the locality.  I am pleased to say that the local authority has identified at least a short term foster placement for him but that was identified today, the local authority having indicated during the course of the hearing that it would struggle to find any standard placement for him.

38 	It is right to acknowledge that KP has not committed any further criminal offences since the summer of 2017 and that he has a good working relationship with his youth offending manager.  During her oral evidence, the social worker described KP in the following way, “KP is a lovely boy.  He’s really engaging and well mannered.  But if you try to talk about anything too personal with him a brick wall comes up.  He is defensive of his parents and wants to protect them.  He has a good sense of humour … He looks very different on paper to when you meet him.”   KP has always lived with his sister, LR, and the mother.  He experienced the separation from his parents in August 2017.  He has consistently expressed a wish to remain in his mother’s care and opposes a placement in foster care.  He needs carers who are able to keep him safe, who will support him to complete his education and who can prepare him for independence and guide him towards making life choices which would avoid him committing further offences.  

39	 LR is ten years old.  She has no additional health needs and is a popular child in school, being highly regarded by both staff and her peers.  She has always lived with the mother and KP and has a close relationship to each of her parents.  She wishes to remain living with the mother and opposes a placement in foster care.  LR experienced the breakdown of her parents’ relationship and the family’s evictions as a consequence of her siblings’ antisocial behaviour which has necessitated in her change in schools.  She needs a safe, stable placement to ensure that she is able to meet her potential.

40	The mother:  There are clear advantages to KP and LR being cared for by the mother.  She is their natural parent and she has been their primary carer throughout their lives.  These are children who have always lived together.  They remain in her care to date.  Each child has expressed a clear wish to remain in her care.   They are loyal to their mother.  Their mother clearly loves them and they clearly love her.  LR has no current behavioural difficulties and is perceived as “the good child” and, therefore, the mother submits that if I were in agreement with the plan for KP, I should go on to consider whether LR alone could remain in her care.   The mother points to the lack of criminal offending by KP during these proceedings and his lack of antisocial behaviour since the family has lived in their current accommodation.  

41	The professionals agree that the mother has no cognitive difficulty that precludes her from providing good enough care to the children or from understanding what that means.  At times she has been able to provide good enough care for them.  This is, however, against a long history of neglectful care as a consequence of the mother being either unable or unwilling to sustain positive changes to her parenting.  The mother’s case is that much of the reason for that is the domestic abuse she experienced in her relationship with the father which she argues has now come to an end.  Additionally, she accepts that she suffers from low mood and argues that she is now in receipt of medication to address those difficulties.  

42	Since ending her relationship with the father in August 2017, there have, however, continued to be volatile incidents between them necessitating police involvement, most notably on 24 December 2017 when each parent accepts that the children overheard the father shouting “rapist” at the mother’s new boyfriend in the street whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the police were called.  

43	The mother has chosen to enter into a new relationship with Mr JC.  That relationship on her account ended after the court session on the first day of the hearing.  She states that this was in response to her being informed of a greater level of detail about his rape conviction, an offence which he had told her about in November 2017 and which the probation service, the police and the social worker had all given her information about prior to the court hearing this week.  The mother failed to engage in these proceedings between November 2017 and this week.   She failed to attend a hearing in December 2017, she failed to file final evidence on time and had no contact with her solicitor between November 2017 and attending court on Monday this week.  

44	When considering a foster care placement: if the court sanctions long term foster care for either or both children it would permit them to be placed with a suitably assessed foster carer.  Their needs would be met in a safe and stable environment by a trained foster carer who would be able to work with a range of services to enable them to reach their potential.  The children would remain Looked After Children and, therefore, would receive ongoing support from the local authority.  The children would be able to have ongoing contact with each of their parents and with their siblings.  However, long term foster care brings with it a risk of placement breakdown and disruption.  It involves the children continuing to hold Looked After status which many children can grow to resent as a consequence of the associated stigma of being in care and the potential restrictions involved in their day to day lives.  As a consequence of the heightened risk of placement breakdown, children can experience instability in long term foster care and there is a risk that they will move around the care system.  This risk is heightened for KP as a consequence of the potential that his behaviour could prove unmanageable in a standard foster care placement.  The local authority has indicated that its second option for KP would be a children’s home.

45	Information about available placements for the children has emerged during the course of this hearing.  A long term placement is available to LR.  During the hearing it was understood that no long term placement was currently available for KP due to his profile.  Instead, the local authority recommended a short term placement of around six weeks with an experienced foster carer whose task would be to assess his suitability to be placed in a standard foster care placement.  The local authority was optimistic that that would permit a more positive profile of him to emerge such that a long term placement could then be found for him.  That would have meant that KP would experience a minimum of two moves.  The local authority and the children’s guardian accepted that that was not ideal for KP but that it was a necessary consequence of his offending history which precluded a long term placement being readily available for him now.  

46	However, just prior to giving judgment I was informed by the local authority that a short term placement of up to two years has now become available for KP.  This is an in-house placement available immediately with a single female carer who currently takes a 15 year old boy for respite at weekends which the social worker thinks will assist KP to settle into placement.   The carer is not currently approved as a long term carer; however, the social worker, Ms Stewart, has been advised that the short term could mean up to two years for KP and is hopeful that that may be able to be extended, subject to a positive match being made at a fostering panel.

47	The local authority’s care plans involve separating the children not only from their parents but from each other which is likely to have a negative impact upon the family relationships that they currently enjoy.  KP and LR are said to have a close sibling relationship.  By placing them in separate placements, it is likely that they will be able to spend far less time with each other which may well cause each of them a degree of distress.  KP and LR R have each been clear that they do not wish to be removed to foster care, that they want to remain with their mother and that they want to remain together.  Therefore, this care option is not an option that accords with their express wishes and feelings.

48	In terms of my overall analysis and conclusions, I have had the benefit of hearing the oral evidence of Sarah Stewart who has been the allocated social worker for all three children since February 2016, a continuous period of two years.  She gave impressive, balanced and thoughtful evidence.  I am satisfied that she has thought very carefully about the needs of each child and that the decision to separate the children is a considered one, driven by the needs of each child.  I agree with Ms Sweeting’s description of the social worker.  She presented as a sensitive professional who was well attuned to the needs of these children and to the family as a whole.  She has worked with the family continuously over a two year period now and, therefore, in my view, knows them well.  

49	I have also had the benefit of hearing the oral evidence of the children’s guardian, Nicola Murphy.  Her evidence was measured, considered and extremely helpful to the court.  

50	When I consider the lengthy history to this matter I accept that this local authority has done all it could to keep this family together.  I agree with the guardian that it really is difficult to envisage what else could have been done to assist them.  The children have been on child protection plans over the course of two years, they have had family support workers and social workers have been in to the family home to physically clean it in order to bring it up to an acceptable standard for the children to live in.  The public law outline was entered into.  The children have been on child in need plans, but none of these interventions have managed to assist this family to bring about any meaningful sustained change. 

51	I have had the benefit of hearing the mother’s oral evidence.  At times she was able to be remarkably candid with the court about her failings.  She was able to admit that the children had suffered chronic neglect, that she had not been a good role model to the children, that she had not effected proper routines and boundaries for them, that she had struggled with her mental health, that at times felt overwhelmed and that she could not cope.  She told me that she felt like that again in early February, this month, which led to her seeking a repeat prescription of antidepressant medication.  She was able to accept that she, in her words, “needed” JC as someone to talk to through this process, notwithstanding that she accepts that the social worker had given her a warning in the strongest of terms that she should end her relationship with him for the sake of the children.

52	The overall impression that I gained from her evidence was that she was a woman who was barely coping with life herself.  She currently resides in homeless accommodation which comprises of a single room.  She goes out all day, every day, to avoid being in that room alone.   When the subject of bereavement counselling was raised with her to address her feelings following the tragic death of her child E from sudden infant death syndrome, she immediately became deeply distressed and was able to tell me that she simply cannot attend counselling as she cannot talk about the loss of her child.  The social worker had been recommending that she do so throughout her involvement with this family and I observed in my exchanges with counsel that it struck me that this was a mother who may never be ready to access counselling in respect of this issue.  The mother has experienced domestic abuse in her relationship with the father over a protracted period of time.  She became a mother herself at the age of 19 years old and has had five children since that time, one of whom sadly passed away.  She accepts that she failed to protect the children from domestic abuse and that she did not prioritise the children above her relationship with the father.  She has done no work since separating from him to address this issue.

53	During her evidence, she repeatedly told me how very busy she had been and used that as a reason why she has not engaged with her solicitor during these proceedings, why she had not engaged with the staff based where she lives to address her housing situation and she also said that she had been too busy to confront issues in her relationship with JC, stating at one stage that she had been too busy to ask him about the details of his rape conviction.  KP told the guardian during her enquiries that he spends most of his time with his brother L during the day.  KP is not attending formal education despite a taxi being provided for him to attend every day.  

54	Lorraine Knox, the temporary accommodation officer where the mother lives, sent an email to the social worker dated 20 February 2018. Within that email she highlighted concerns that the mother leaves her accommodation every morning before KP’s taxi arrives.  The mother did not dispute this in her oral evidence.  KP informed the guardian that his mother spends all day with her boyfriend.  The clear picture that emerges from the evidence is one in which KP and indeed LR are left effectively to fend for themselves.  LR, a compliant child, who is thriving at school, chooses to attend school, KP does not.  I am satisfied that these children are left to make their own choices in this regard and that the mother is not taking any adequate steps to ensure that KP attends educational provision.  She is simply not there to encourage him to get into a taxi each day.  If LR were to choose not to attend school, I have no confidence that the mother would take any steps to ensure that she attended school either.  I am satisfied that this is because the mother is choosing to spend her days with JC and that it is through this relationship that she is managing to cope with her situation at the present time.  I accept the evidence that she gave that she needed him.  I am not confident that anything has changed for her in this regard.  I am satisfied that she has prioritised her relationship with him above the children.

55	The mother’s evidence in respect of JC was deeply troubling.  She admitted that after having sexual intercourse with him on just two occasions he tearfully told her that he had a conviction for rape for which he had been imprisoned.   The mother told me that due to her aversion to the word “rape” she did not feel able to ask him anything about it, that she felt sick but then, their relationship continued and that despite advice, the mother chose not to make a Clare’s Law application to find out anything more about the details of his offence.  She accepts that the social worker advised her very strongly that she should end this relationship.  She also accepts that the police and the probation service spoke to her about it.  She denies that she was aware that he was on the Sex Offenders’ Register.  She did admit that she knew he had ongoing involvement with probation and that he had a duty to notify them of any change of address.  She repeatedly told me that she had given him the benefit of the doubt.

56	Warning signs were clearly there.  For example, she was quite unable to explain to me why she thought he may have ongoing involvement with probation for an offence which on his account dated back 24 years.  The impression she gave me was that she simply did not want to talk or to think about it.  At times during her evidence, she said that the relationship continued whilst she was waiting to hear more information about the offence.  It remains unclear to me what further information she needed to gain in the circumstances in which she refused to ask him anything about it and refused to seek information from the police by way of Clare’s Law for disclosure despite being advised to. 

57	The mother now states that she accepts that JC poses a risk of harm to her children but she is quite unable to articulate what led to this change of opinion.  Prior to this week, she was clearly of the view that he did not pose a risk of harm to the children.  She minimised his offending history to professionals.  I am satisfied that she chose to believe what she wanted to and failed to accept professional advice which was given to protect her and her children from him.  

58	The mother denies that JC ever met the children but I do not accept this.  Staff at the Mother’s place of residence report that neither the mother nor the children were ever in the property at weekends.  The mother failed to fully explain where they were.  LR has reported that JC makes her laugh.  I am satisfied that the mother has introduced these children to him.  On her account she would have had no reason not to as she did not think he was a risk to her children.  I do not accept that she did not want to “rush into” introductions.  This was a man who on Monday of this week she was arguing should be assessed as a carer for the children.  It is unlikely that she would have done so had he not met her children, given that they are in her care.  It appears to me that this relationship has reached an advanced stage within a rapid period of time. 

59	The mother attempted to mislead the court in respect of her relationship with JC telling me that she had ended the relationship this week.  On Monday of this week she made an application to adjourn this final hearing to enable them to be assessed as carers for the children, as a couple.  At the commencement of this hearing on Wednesday, her case was put on the basis that she would choose her children over JC if they could remain in her care.  By the time she gave evidence on Thursday, she said that she had already ended her relationship with him.  When questioned a little further, she said that she had ended the relationship after court on Wednesday when he collected her to give her a lift home.  Initially, she denied having any contact with him since that time save by text message.  Only when confronted with information that she was seen being dropped off at court by him that morning did she accept that he had given her a lift to court.   She attempted to make a series of excuses about why that had occurred.  Her first response, however, had been to lie about it.

6	 I have no confidence that the mother will be able to separate from JC for the sake of these children.  Had she been able to do so, she would have done so before now whilst the children were in her care during these proceedings.  At the time that she entered into her relationship with him, these proceedings had already begun.  The children were in her care and she knew that JC, a convicted rapist, was the last thing that she needed in her life if she was to persuade the court that she could manage to safely care for these children.  She chose to embark upon and continue a relationship with him regardless.  Even if the relationship with JC does come to an end, the mother has amply demonstrated that she simply is not able to make safe choices for her children when it comes to her relationships.  I have no confidence, sadly, that she would be able to prioritise their safety or indeed her own above her need to have a relationship.  The mother has attempted to deceive the court in respect of her relationship with JC, highlighting her lack of honesty.  

61.	I accept the guardian’s evidence that to be able to work with the mother in any meaningful way, professionals must be able to trust her.  I have no confidence that the mother can be trusted to work openly and honestly with professionals for the sake of the children.  I am satisfied that her lack of honesty is a barrier to any plan or any order that the court could make to enable the children to be safely cared for by her.  It is right to acknowledge that KP has not committed any further offences during these proceedings.  I accept the guardian’s opinion that KP has chosen not to behave in an antisocial way during these proceedings for fear that he would be removed to foster care.  I am satisfied that this is the deterrent rather than anything that the mother has done which has caused this change.  The mother was able to accept that KP’s difficulties have not gone away.  This is perhaps best highlighted by an episode which took place as recently as January of this year when the father had to call the police because KP had stabbed a mattress in his father’s property on three occasions.  The father did not wish to take the matter further, quite understandably, but was described by the police as deeply distressed during the telephone call to them to report this incident.  Clearly, KP needs a great deal of support to address his emotional and behavioural difficulties.  I agree with the guardian that unless changes are made there is a real risk that KP will end up leading a life in custody.

62 	This risk must be balanced against the risk that KP will react very badly to a decision to remove him from his mother’s care which he may see as unfair given the efforts that he has made not to offend during the last few months.  However, in practical terms I am satisfied that at the current time he spends the majority of his days with his 17 year old brother L and his father.  The father has been able to accept that he is not able to provide good enough parenting to the children as a consequence of his own drug and alcohol difficulties.  I am therefore satisfied that the mother is not currently parenting KP to any meaningful degree.  

63	Having considered the lengthy history of police involvement with this family, it is clear from the  police reports, and not disputed by the mother, that the parents have behaved in a confrontational and aggressive way towards the police in front of these children time and time again.  When the police have attended the home to discuss concerns about the children’s behaviour, they are met with an angry response and a series of expletives from the mother.  The parents have demonstrated very little respect for the police to their children and I am satisfied have failed to work cooperatively with the police to address KP’s behaviour.  I am satisfied that their negative attitudes have served to rub off as far as KP is concerned.  When discussing MM in her evidence, the mother simply blamed her previous antisocial behaviour on the friends that she had at the time.  The mother appeared entirely apathetic when asked to consider anything she could have done differently or could do differently in the future to prevent the children from behaving in this way.

64	In balancing the risks to KP of removal to foster care, which could include a number of moves of placement for him and a real risk that he may react very badly to the court’s decision, against the risks that present to him if I decide that he should stay at home, I have to recognise that he is still just 13 years of age.  I agree with the guardian that he deserves to be given the chance to experience proper routines and boundaries from a carer devoted to spending time with him, a carer who would encourage him to complete his education and who would encourage him to develop interests outside his antisocial and criminal behaviour.  I appreciate that this is not what KP wants.  However, I accept the view of the guardian and the children’s solicitor that KP does not have the capacity to make informed decisions himself.  He only knows the life that he has led to date.  It is perfectly natural for him to fear the unknown and seek to reject it.  There are real risks that he may reject a foster care placement.  However, if the plan is successful there is a real chance that he could hugely benefit from the safe, consistent, attentive care that will be provided to him.  I am in no doubt that he should be given that opportunity and that the local authority’s revised care plan is the right one for him.

65	The mother invites the court to consider whether she could care for LR alone in the event that KP is to be placed in foster care.  It is right to record that LR presents as a much more compliant and in many ways easier child to care for.   She attends school and has not to date exhibited any antisocial or criminal behaviour.  However, I am satisfied that LR’s behaviour to date is a credit to her own resilience and personality.  LR faces the same risks in her mother’s care that MM and KP have faced.  She is younger than them but there is nothing to say that like them, when she reaches her teenage years, she will not choose to seek attention by engaging in early sexual relationships with the risk of pregnancy that that would bring or antisocial behaviour or both.  The mother’s parenting style will do nothing to prevent her from making those choices.  I am satisfied that LR is not safe in the care of the mother.  I accept that she is likely to suffer a degree of distress as a result of the separation from her mother and from KP but on the evidence I have, her life is very different to KP’s and she is spending very little time with him at present.  

6	In balancing the available care options for LR I am satisfied that foster care is the only option which will keep her safe and enable her to reach her potential.  The court is always reluctant to separate siblings; however, in this case the plan to separate all three is driven by their individual needs.  MM needs to be placed in a mother and baby foster placement to enable her to care for her baby.  That placement would not be suitable for LR or KP.  LR already presents as a compliant and somewhat forgotten child and I am satisfied that at the current time there is a real risk that attempting to place her with KP would deny her the opportunity of being placed in a suitable foster care placement.  I am also satisfied that there is a risk that his behaviour would result in her needs being eclipsed by his.  His behaviour may also lead to placement breakdown which would not be fair for LR and I am satisfied would have a negative impact upon her.  I hope that in the future these children can be reunited but that will very much depend on how KP settles into foster care.  

67	Key to both children being able to adjust to their placements will be their parents’ ability to support them to make this transition.  The mother told me that she would do anything for these children and now is an ideal opportunity for her to demonstrate that.  It has been to the very great credit of both of these parents that they were able to support MM’s placement in foster care.  They now need to do the same for these children.  I appreciate that that is a very tall order for them but I am satisfied that it is what these children need and deserve.  

68	I approve the revised contact proposals for the children and invite the local authority to amend its care plans if they need to any further but I am satisfied, having read the care plans and the transition plan that was presented to me immediately before coming into court, that the way forward is sufficiently clear for me to approve those plans and, therefore, I make care orders in respect of KP and LR.  

CERTIFICATE

Opus 2 International Ltd. Hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the judgment or part thereof.

Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd.
(Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737
civil@opus2.digital

This transcript has been approved by the Judge