IMPORTANT NOTICE
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 child and members of his 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.

Case No: NE14C00319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: G (A CHILD)
The Law Courts
The Quayside
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 3LA

Friday, 4th March 2016

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court

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

Re: G (A Child)

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

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by
Apple Transcription Limited
Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES
DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

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

Counsel for the Local Authority: Mr Stonor
Counsel for the Mother: Miss Scriven
Counsel for the Father: Mr Gray
The Paternal Grandparents appeared In Person
Counsel for the Maternal Aunt and Uncle: Mr O’Sullivan
Counsel for the Child: Mr Buchanan

Hearing dates: 4th March 2016

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

JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR JUDGE MOIR:
1.	I will just deal then with the issues that we have looked at.  I have had the opportunity to consider all the position statements in relation to the matters outstanding before this case is finalised.  It is important for everybody, but particularly A, that these proceedings are brought to a close.  The reality, however, is that although the proceedings might be concluded, the actual work which the local authority, grandparents, aunt and uncle, father and, indeed, mother will be required to undertake will continue and no doubt continue for some time. 
2.	A is a very complex little boy.  His needs are significant.  His needs are being met by placement with his grandparents, it is very clear that not only is it what A wanted and wants but I am told that his behaviour indicates that he is happy and settled within his grandparents’ care.  Of course, it was not to be expected and nobody involved with A did expect that everything would be completely satisfactory.  A’s difficulties mean that there will be occasions when very careful care is required to make sure that A’s needs are met.
3.	The local authority seek a supervision order and the grandparents do not oppose that.  Indeed, they work closely with the local authority and will continue to do so.  The supervision order is to support them, particularly in relation to things such as contact with the maternal family.  There is still outreach support from Organisation A which PGM has indicated they welcome and counselling is available from Organisation B which the local authority will no doubt oversee and make sure is appropriate for A.
4.	The outstanding matters therefore are in relation to contact.  Unfortunately mother, M, is not present.  I am told that she has had a consultation with her legal representatives but finds it very difficult and distressing to attend court and it seems from what I have heard that there are concerns about her present state of health and, as Miss Scriven says, concerns that her problems are not fully appreciated.  She has not had contact with A now for some two and a half months and A is now saying that he does not want contact with her.  Bearing in mind A’s difficulties, it is perhaps unsurprising that the fact that his mother has not taken up contact has resulted in A taking his own view that he does not want it. 
5.	M is now saying that she does want contact and it will require very careful work by the local authority and the grandparents to make sure that contact is in the interests of A, if his views continue to be negative.  Obviously long term it must be recognised that it would be in A’s interests to have contact with his mother if she is able to make that contact a positive experience for him.  Not to have a relationship with his mother is not long term in his interests. 
6.	As far as contact with his aunt and uncle are concerned, clearly that contact with members of his maternal family may well provide, as Mr O’Sullivan puts it, the gateway for appropriate relationship with the maternal family and MU and MA have always shown interest in A’s welfare since, if I call them, the present difficulties have been apparent.  The local authority again are seeking to assist with regard to that contact and what has been called mediation with a small “m” is being engaged upon to try and assist with this contact.
7.	MU and MA would like the court to make an order, a child arrangements order, really to underline and buttress the necessity for this contact and to make it clear what is expected for the future.  It is suggested by Mr O’Sullivan on their behalf that the contact be referred to or designated as reasonable with monthly contact as a minimum.  The problem that I foresee is that it is very difficult to legislate for the future as to what may be in A’s best interests because of his problems and difficulties.  In general terms and presently he will benefit from contact with his aunt and uncle, particularly his uncle with whom he has a good relationship and no doubt there can be benefits there.  I am, however, most concerned about the suggestion that the court should lay down a minimum in circumstances where I do not know what might meet the actual needs of A at a particular time.
8.	It can, of course, be argued that if the court says reasonable contact, then that covers a position where it is made clear that the court expects there to be contact as long as it is in A’s interests and what is reasonable at a particular time is reasonable as far as A’s needs at that time are concerned.  However, to make a child arrangements order for reasonable contact can also bring with it an argument as to what is reasonable and the last thing that A or, indeed, the special guardians need is any sort of dispute as to what may be reasonable. 
9.	PGF and PGM, it seems to me, recognise that contact for A with his maternal family can be of benefit to him.  The local authority are involved certainly for the next twelve months and they are seeking to assist and certainly they recognise also that this contact with MU and MA can be beneficial to A.  It seems to me in all the circumstances that it is not appropriate for this court to make a specific contact order.  I do not think that it is necessary.  The court does, however, recognise and it can be part of the order that the court has expressed the view that contact between A and MU and MA may be of benefit to A.
10.	The other issue which arises at this stage is the issue of the Facebook postings.  I have had the opportunity to read them.  It is unfortunate, to say the least, that someone has placed these postings upon Facebook.  It heightens the temperature, it does nothing to assist A and it raises concerns about the attitude of whoever it was that put these matters on Facebook.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of A’s needs and a concentration upon the needs of the mother as opposed to A.  I have not been asked to make any findings in regard to the Facebook postings.  M maintains through her counsel that she was not responsible and that someone else, she says father, but that someone else has hacked into her account and made it appear as though it is M that has indulged in this activity.
11.	It does not seem to me helpful at this stage for the court to embark upon an investigation of who is the author of these postings but, rather, to look at regulating the position for the future.  I will make an order in the terms that the local authority seek.  If that order is breached, then of course there will be an investigation by the court into who is responsible for breaching the order and it is a contempt of court, it is a matter which can attract a prison sentence and I make it very clear that I take the view that it is extremely serious for the sort of threats, comments, in relation to A’s special guardians, his grandparents, being made in this way. 
12.	It is, as far as they are concerned, unsettling, to say the least, and frightening in the circumstances that clearly is not good for A even if he knows nothing about it at this stage.  It seems likely also as A gets older if this sort of behaviour were to be repeated, A like every other youngster will at some stage be able to access this sort of material.  So I make it absolutely clear that I expect the order that I make to be complied with and if it is not complied with, then the court will investigate who is responsible for the breach.  Mr Stonor, I think that deals with the matters save for the content of or the expression of the findings.
[Hearing continues]
13.	Dealing with this particular aspect of the matter, Mr Gray firstly raises whether or not it is appropriate, in fact, to have a schedule of findings.  Bearing in mind the length of the judgment, I do think it is appropriate to have a schedule of findings.  Clearly, and really it does not need me to say this, any of the professionals involved with A would be expected to read the full judgment but, even so, in a case of this nature a schedule of findings made is, I think, helpful.  There is acknowledgement, of course, that these are the findings of the court and not findings that the parties actually have input into. 
14.	Having said that, of course, if a schedule is prepared by one of the parties, then it is quite right and proper that another party can raise whether or not the schedule properly reflects the judgment.  As far as those matters raised by Mr Gray on behalf of father in relation to the way that Mr Stonor has recorded the local authority’s understanding of the findings, I am able to take a fairly robust view of how it should be expressed.  As far as these matters are concerned, I am just going to refer to those where there is some sort of comment or dispute.  The other findings that Mr Stonor has set out are not subject to any particular comment. 
15.	Paragraph 2 of the wording proposed by the local authority at 2(b) where the nature of the harm is referred to, it seems to me that it is an accurate reflection to say “physical abuse in terms of harsh chastisement” because that is what I found. 
16.	Paragraph 4, at paragraph (c) of that paragraph I intended the judgment to reflect that I found that A was exposed to harsh treatment by father while recognising, as I set out, that father’s control did actually enable A to enjoy activities as any other young boy would but the finding that needs to be expressed is “harsh treatment”.  I think Mr Gray is right that there is no either finding nor necessity to include alcohol and drug misuse so that paragraph should read, “He was exposed to inconsistent boundaries”.
17.	Paragraph 7, in light of the way I have approached the other matters raised, I think that paragraph (a) should not be deleted but that what it should read is, “On occasions he treated A harshly including physical by smacking and verbal chastisement”, because I did find those and that reflects the judgment.  
18.	As far as 8 is concerned, that will stand.  It is clear from the judgment what was being referred to and certainly I intended that there should be a recognition of what the sexual activity consisted of.  Mr Stoner, I think that deals with matters.
MR	STONOR:  My lady, can I just clarify at 7(a), so that stands but with deletion of the word “unreasonable”?

THE	JUDGE:  Yes.

MR	STONOR:  Thank you.

THE	JUDGE:  It is, of course, a précis of the findings that I made and it is the judgment that is the important part but, as I have indicated, it does seem to me that a schedule of findings can in certain circumstances be helpful.

MR	STONOR:  My lady, I do not believe I have any other matters to raise from the local authority’s perspective but could I just take a moment to take instructions?

THE	JUDGE:  Yes, of course.  [Pause]  

MR	STONOR:  My lady, we would ask for a transcript on your judgment today on the Facebook matter and the child arrangements orders.

THE	JUDGE:  Yes.

MR	STONOR:  And perhaps if the cost could be split as before between the parties and it is then just the matter of service of the injunction order.

THE	JUDGE:  Yes.

MISS	SCRIVEN:  Service to mother’s address, that ought to be recorded delivery, just service—

THE	JUDGE:  Just usual service, yes.

MISS	SCRIVEN:  And, indeed, we were also going to ask for a transcript so we are grateful for that.

THE	JUDGE:  Yes.  Mr Gray, anything further?

MR	GRAY:  Nothing further, thank you very much.

THE	JUDGE:  PGF and PGM, anything further?  Mr O’Sullivan?

MR	O’SULLIVAN:  I am not sure whether you were expecting the order to be, as it were, formally served either in that formula or otherwise for my clients, there being—

THE	JUDGE:  Everybody.

MR	O’SULLIVAN:  Everyone has it so everyone is going to have it in the post.

THE	JUDGE:  Everybody has it, yes.

MR	O’SULLIVAN:  Yes, I am just clarifying that in case people misunderstand that they have in some way been singled out for—

THE	JUDGE:  No, I want all the parties.  I mean obviously all the parties include PGF and PGM, I see no reason why they should not have a copy available to them of what the order that I am making says.

MR	O’SULLIVAN:  Quite so, indeed.

THE	JUDGE:  And so they know what it is that the court has actually said, so all parties will have a copy.

MR	O’SULLIVAN:  Yes, thank you very much.

THE	JUDGE:  Mr Buchanan?

MR	BUCHANAN:  Nothing further, my lady.

MR	STONOR:  Thank you, my lord.

THE	JUDGE:  No, well when I say I hope that I do not see this matter again, it is obvious why I say that because if I do see the matter again, it means that something has gone wrong or that there is another matter for this court to determine and I very much hope that that is not the case and that A can without having his carers or parents, aunt and uncle, A can continue with his life without having those persons having to come to court to have somebody else decide what should happen in relation to him.  So, as I say, hopefully and for that reason I hope that this really does bring proceedings to a conclusion.  

MR	STONOR:  Thank you, my lord.

THE	JUDGE:  Right, thank you.

[Hearing ends]