C (Children : phased rehabilitation) [2016] EWHC 3484 (Fam)

IMPORTANT NOTICEThis 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.[2016] EWHC 3484 (Fam)Case No LS15C00660
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Date Wednesday, 21 st December 2016
SITTING AT [TOWN STATED]
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF: C (CHILDREN)
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BODEY
Re: C (Children)
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
Hearing Hearing date: 21 st December 2016
Counsel for the Local Authority: Mr Taylor
Solicitor for the Mother: Mr Gordon
Counsel for the Father: Miss Garnham
Counsel for the Children/Guardian: Miss Bond

JUDGMENT APPROVED

[1]This is the final hearing of care proceedings in respect of two children: a little girl X who was born in 2013 and is now 3; and a little boy Y who was born in 2015 and is now 1½ approximately. I shall refer to the children’s parents as “the mother” and “the father”. Both are in their mid-twenties. The local authority’s care plan if all goes well is for a phased rehabilitation of the two children to the mother and the father over the next few months under the auspices of full care orders. I will explain in a moment why the children are not with the parents at present.[2]The mother and father both accept this outcome which is supported by the children’s guardian. All are hopeful that in the fullness of time the care orders may be able to be discharged. This judgment is therefore to inform any such application and may also be for the benefit of the children, when they are old enough, to make sense of their early lives, which (by the time they are rehabilitated) will have involved separation from their parents and from each other for not much less than 18 months.[3]I have read the court bundle and heard counsel for the local authority, Mr Taylor; the solicitor for the mother, Mr Gordon; counsel for the father Miss Garnham; and the solicitor for the children’s guardian (Miss Halstead), Miss Bond. The case has been collaboratively and helpfully prepared and presented throughout.[4]Why were the children removed from the parents and why are they currently not with the parents? In a nutshell, on a date in September 2015 Y who was then aged 3 months and had been born prematurely was taken to hospital by the mother with bruising to the left side of his face. Tests showed that he had multi-compartmental subdural haemorrhages overlying the brain, together with retinal haemorrhages. The original and prolonged explanation by the parents given to their family, to the police, to social workers and in their statements in these proceedings was that the injuries to Y had been caused by an accidental blow to his head by a closing car door on the previous evening.[5]However, it emerged not long before a fact-finding hearing set down before me in March 2016, that this explanation was false. In reality, as had been known all along by both parents, the injuries had been caused by the father losing his temper with Y and striking him when he was alone with Y in the bedroom during the night before Y was presented to hospital, at a time when the mother was downstairs making up a feed. At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, on 16th March 2016, I made various findings about these matters including to the effect that the parties had been acting in cahoots in putting forward the explanation of the car door and that the mother must have known and did know all along that the father had been responsible during the night for the injuries sustained by Y.[6]Following these injuries to Y, the local authority had to make urgent arrangements for the children back in September 2015 to ensure that they were safe until such time as the care proceedings could be resolved, firstly with the fact-finding hearing which I have mentioned and subsequently by a so called welfare or disposal hearing later in 2016. The decisions which the local authority reached as to the immediate care of the two children in September/October 2015 were(i) that X should be looked after by J, the maternal grandmother, and(ii) that Y should be cared for by K, the maternal aunt and her husband. Those are the arrangements which pertain and have pertained to date. The children are doing very well in their respective placements.[7]As to contact with the children, it has been generous and of good quality. The mother has seen the children five days or more every week for five hours on each occasion, this being informally supervised by either J or K or a combination of both of them. As regards the father, initially between September 2015 and February 2016 he was having contact to the same or a similar extent as the mother (as just mentioned). However, in February 2016 when he owned up to what he had done to Y, the maternal extended family were unwilling for a period of time to continue to supervise his contact. Accordingly, for about two months between February 2016 and about April 2016, his contact was dramatically reduced to one hour twice per week, that being supervised by the local authority.[8]In about April 2016, however, the mother’s family agreed that they would resume supervising the father’s contact and so his contact took place for about the next five months, one hour twice per week, supervised by J and/or K. Finally, in September 2016 the maternal extended family agreed to revert to supervising his contact to the generous extent that it had originally been taking place between September 2015 and February 2016. The long and short of it is that whilst the two children have obviously become well attached (I do not use that word in its technical sense) within their current placements, they still have a good and close relationship with the respective parents.[9]Taking up that theme, I refer back to my judgment of 16th March 2016 where I made the point that the mother and father appeared to have been caring well, or at least adequately, for both children up until the events of the evening in September 2015 when Y was injured. I there referred to the warmth and love which they had demonstrated towards both children throughout the process, as observed by the social workers, and to their having worked excellently with the local authority during the course of the proceedings, demonstrating a clear desire to put the children first. The local authority has always accepted that X never suffered in any way whilst in the care of her parents during the two and a half years between her birth in 2013 and the time when she was removed from them in September 2015 following Y’s injuries.[10]That was a testament to the parents’ care for X given the huge demands which she imposes on any carers by reason that she has very substantial disabilities. Those disabilities affect many parts of her functioning and I do not propose to set them all out in detail. They have the effect that she is non-vocal and non-mobile. She requires very special care for which training is required as to the proper techniques of feeding her and as to dealing with other aspects of her care. Both J and K have the necessary knowledge and abilities in this respect and K was very probably considered as carer for both the children back in September 2015. However, K and her husband have a child of their own, S, who was born just four days after Y’s birth and it may well be that it was felt too much to expect K to care for three children pending such time as these proceedings could be brought to a conclusion.[11]Following the fact finding hearing in March 2016, the case was adjourned for its so called welfare or disposal hearing in July 2016. It proceeded along conventional lines. The parties considered their positions as to my findings and the mother reflected on her relationship with the father. In the event, they decided to stay together as a couple, as they still present. They were so assessed by the social workers in a sizeable Addendum Parental and Risk Assessment dated 3rd June 2016 which runs to 34 pages. In short that report concluded that the parents had not shown any real insight into what had happened to Y. It considered that they had continued in trying to mislead the social workers in the local authority’s original assessment of them made earlier in 2016, namely by representing that their relationship in the autumn of 2015 had been a satisfactory one when, as they subsequently admitted, it had not been. The authors of the report considered that they, the parents, did not fully appreciate the seriousness of their many and repetitive and skilful lies about the events of the night of Y’s injuries; nor that such lies could have resulted (but for the medical experts’ opinions) either in Y not receiving necessary medical treatment or even the two children being returned to a very unsafe home environment. It was considered that insofar as the parents did appear to be expressing a measure of insight, this was really only ‘window-dressing’ because they (particularly the mother) had come to realise what it is that professionals and the court need to hear from parents in situations like this.[12]Consistently therefore with that addendum report of June 2016, the local authority’s Care Plan for use at the welfare hearing in July 2016 was that rehabilitation was not in the best interests of the two children. It recommended that there should be Special Guardianship Orders in favour of J regarding the child X and in favour of K regarding the child Y. Such an outcome, however, was not going to be a panacea. J was then aged about 60 and would clearly struggle with lifting and moving X as she, X, would grow heavier and more unwieldy whilst J herself was becoming older. Further, it was understandably J’s expressed intention to turn to the mother for help and support with X when necessary, which might have led to a troublesome blurring of their roles. Then, as to Y, under a Special Guardianship Order in favour of K and her husband, he would have been brought up with his cousin S as if she (his cousin) were his sister and he would not have been being brought up with his actual sister. K and her husband had, in fact, only intended to have one child of their own and would, if X were made the subject of a Special Guardianship Order in their favour, be caring for two children of different parentages and of almost exactly the same age. That, it was accepted, could have caused difficulties. There might also have been a detrimental blurring of roles in such circumstances because the mother and father would have been seeing quite a good deal of X and there would have been the risk of potential tensions developing between the two sisters.[13]It was bearing all these factors in mind that the children’s guardian considered that before Special Guardianship Orders should be made it was necessary and in the interests of the children for there to be a full psychological assessment of the mother and father and of their relationship to try to understand better the extent to which they had or had not developed real insight into the matters which had caused the local authority to come to the conclusion that they had not gained sufficient insight. This became a Part 25 application placed before me at the hearing in July 2016. It was opposed by the local authority but I ruled on balance that such a report was necessary in order to see if, even at this very late stage, rehabilitation back to the natural family might become possible.[14]That report was carried out by Dr L, a clinical child psychologist and is dated 15th October 2016. Dr L carried out interviews with both parents and reached firm but balanced conclusions. Some extracts from his report will enable an understanding of how he came by his view, namely that with careful safeguards a rehabilitation of the children to the mother and the father would be acceptable. For example Dr L says: “…based on the parents’ comments to me, both when I met with them jointly and individually, it would very much appear that they do now have an understanding and acceptance of the findings, with the added development since their most recent statements in July 2016 that both parents now appear to concede that they did collude with one another in order to sustain their attempt to mislead professionals, the police and the court between September 2015 and February 2016. From my perspective, as well as confirming their acknowledgement of the findings, during my discussions with them they were willing to reflect on their understanding of those findings; though in respect of collusion, I am of the view that the father appeared more willing to concede this point with the mother presenting as more reluctant to do so with her continuing to show a degree of ambiguity as to when and how much she knew of the father’s role in causing the injuries to Y. …I would also have to highlight the couple’s position as outlined in their more recent statements and most definitely in their meetings with me as to their relief at not having to maintain their dishonest approach; with the clear implication from my perspective, that maintaining a joint dishonest approach had proved stressful for the couple and, in my view, likely introduced significant further tension into their relationship, with the further implication that, knowing this, they would be highly unlikely to enter into any future deception with any enthusiasm, aware of the stress and tension which such an approach inevitably brings to those following it”.[15]Dr L continued: “Whilst it is obviously crucial for those seeking to ensure the future safety of X and Y that an understanding of how the injuries were caused to Y is now available and agreed by all parties, it is also of major importance to understand why the parents chose to mislead the authorities and in particular the parents’ understanding of the lasting impact of this on the confidence that professionals and others can have in them. From my discussions with the parents I am of the view that they do have that understanding, though my individual meeting with the mother would suggest that she may find it more difficult than the father to fully concede the concerns of others as to her somewhat ambiguous approach to when and how much she knew of the father’s actions during the night in September 2015 that led to the injuries to Y”.[16]Dr L went on to identify a number of ‘dynamic factors’ which he considered were or may have been involved in the father arriving at a point where the usual barriers which would prevent a person behaving in a violent manner towards a helpless infant were no longer effective. In summary these were: i) The father’s own troubled childhood leading him to have a strong sense of wanting to assert his independence, coupled with limitations which the couple had now accepted in discussion with Dr L as regards their communication with one another at the material time about key issues and feelings; ii) Dr L referred to the fact that the parties seem to have harboured an ill-founded belief that they were being judged differently from other parents of children with complex needs, making them reluctant to share with professionals their sense of exhaustion in coping with the extra demands imposed on them by the fact of caring for X with her considerable disabilities and Y following his premature birth; iii) Dr L noted a dynamic in the relationship of the parties whereby the father felt resentful of what he, the father, perceived as the mother’s appearing to know more about parenting than he did, but that the couple did not talk about that and ‘just fell out’; iv) Dr L repeated the pressures which Y’s premature birth would have brought to the couple leading to quarrels and a distant and tense relationship between them which they had by now admitted to him; v) Dr L makes the point that the complex needs of X may well have disguised for these parents (particularly the father) the fact that many of the pressures imposed on them by X would be pressures imposed on parents by any infant, thereby causing the father to have inappropriate expectations of Y.[17]Bringing these and other factors to a conclusion, Dr L said this: “As a result, a likely scenario developed where the demands on the couple began to swiftly outstrip their resources to meet those demands; with the couple likely aware of this at some level but unable in particular (due to their need to present as capable and coping and the lack of full and frank communication between them as to their feelings) to acknowledge this mismatch between their resources and the demands placed on them by having to care for two young children leading, I would suggest, to them becoming increasingly exhausted and beginning to harbour feelings of resentment towards one another… It seems very likely that all of the above came to a head on the night in question in September 2015 particularly in the case of the father with him by his own self-report being particularly worried in respect of X, exhausted due to lack of sleep, resentful of the mother and with no effective outlet for the stress he was feeling, with likely feelings of inadequacy on his part in that he was unable to soothe Y, leading to a major breakdown in any barriers to him acting in such an unacceptable and violent manner”.[18]Dr L referred again to the parents having had a need to portray themselves as capable and coping and he suggested that they were affected by an apparent belief in:
“…the narrative promoted by certain media outlets in respect of the zealotry of social workers, in particular in their splitting up families forever”
. He went on to express the view that the parents:
“…have [now] been able to recognise the enormity of the father’s actions in causing the injuries and the enormity of their joint attempt to mislead professionals, the police and the court as to how those injuries came about; that they can acknowledge the full range of findings made by Mr Justice Bodey and from my perspective have already embarked on changes in respect of the factors relating to the father’s emotional and psychological state that were likely implicated in his injurious actions…”
Accordingly, and on balance, Dr L was of the opinion that:
“…with a clearly structured programme of monitoring and support, the risks that would be posed to the children if they were to be returned to the parents’ care could be effectively managed”
. He then went on to recommend further work with the parents, which the local authority now has in hand. He found that they showed what he described as: “…a clear ability and willingness to explore, challenge and change their perception of themselves and of each other… and have both significantly increased their understanding of the father’s anger, the circumstances which constitute a trigger for such anger and his ability to control and manage his temper, with them both appearing very aware of the potential consequences should he not be able to do so”.[19]All concerned have effectively accepted these opinions and Dr L’s recommendation for a very careful phased rehabilitation with various suggested safeguards. It is in those circumstances that I am asked to approve Care Plans which now reflect those recommendations. I have heard briefly from Miss S of the local authority and from the mother and the father. Miss S discussed Dr L’s recommendation of ‘couple counselling’ and arrangements have been made for the financing of that if the parents are unable to pay for it themselves. Arrangements are in hand for the father to have further therapeutic work with the help of the therapeutic social work team. There have been meetings already with the family on several occasions which have gone well, such that Miss S described herself as reassured that the plan will progress. There was a successful Family Group Conference on 9th December 2016 involving all interested parties and certain of the relevant professionals. Miss S told me of numerous conversations with J and K concerning the need for them to keep a critical eye on the welfare and safety of the children. Miss S told me she was sure that they would put the children first. They would both offer respite. Indeed J has told Miss S that she would positively insist on such respite being put in place as between the parents and herself.[20]Miss S was satisfied, as far as one can be, that these members of the extended family would play an integral part in safeguarding the children. I was told by Miss S that X has now started at a specialist Inclusion Learning Centre where she goes three days a week and is doing really very well. This of course acts as respite in itself. X can stay at that centre throughout her childhood, which is obviously an excellent arrangement. Miss S discussed in her evidence the financial arrangements that the parties will need to have in place when the children are rehabilitated and there is agreement that the local authority will, in effect, loan the parents that money over a period of some twelve or so weeks. The parents will repay it when they get it from the Benefits Agency. There is a Child Health and Disability Team who are well aware of this case and will be able to undertake individual pieces of work, for example assessing the parents’ house in respect of X’s special needs when she comes home. The local authority would be responsible for transferring the case in due course to this Child Health and Disability Team.[21]These meetings which I have mentioned are intended to continue on a weekly or more frequent basis for the first three months after the first of the children (Y) goes home and it is intended that there would also be unannounced visits. The parents are comfortable with that. Miss S is herself going to continue to casework the case, which is excellent news, together with one other social worker. She described her relationship with the parents as improved and she felt that they are now working from a good base with much more openness and less negatives in their relationship.[22]Turning to the parents, the matter reflected in the witness box on the lies and deceptions which she perpetrated, saying that she was absolutely disgusted with herself. She appeared to accept that it had caused numerous problems for the professionals and for her extended family. She referred to her regret at what she had done, accepting that she had been proud and stubborn in respect of support which would have been beneficial from professionals in respect of caring for X. She told me that she fully understands the effect of her lies and that she wants, effectively, to make amends. She too felt that her relationship with Miss S is more open and that she clearly benefits from that. The father, likewise, appeared to show regret as to what he had done, both in respect of the violence to his little boy, his baby, and in respect of the false story in respect of the car door. He told me he did not deserve to have the children back.[23]It hardly needs to be said that to return two vulnerable young children to their parents, in circumstances where a baby was seriously injured and could have died and where the parents then colluded (as I have found they did) to mislead all the professionals about what had happened, cannot be without risk. That risk and the extent to which it can be managed has to be balanced, however, when assessing the welfare of the children (which is paramount) and when considering the ‘welfare checklist’ under section 1(3) of the Children Act, against the benefits of children being brought up in their natural families provided risks can be sufficiently minimised and managed. One has to factor into that assessment the perceived potential disadvantages of whatever alternative placements for the children may be available, when striking the necessary balance, but remembering that safety is essential. I accept Dr L’s opinions set out in what was a very thorough report expressed (as was requested in July 2016) in non-technical language. He is an extremely experienced child psychologist whose impressive CV I have considered with care. I note that the experienced children’s guardian accepts his appraisal too, as indeed does the local authority, which has creditably changed its earlier plans so as to follow his recommendations.[24]We are all fallible and I recognise there is a risk even now that the mother and father are still just saying what they know professionals want to hear. On all the evidence before me however, this does seem very much less likely than likely. I consider it reasonable and in the children’s best interests to proceed on the basis that the mother and father have developed a sufficient and genuine appreciation of what went wrong and a sufficient determination not to let anything like it happen again (whether an assault or lying) that care orders can now should be made on the basis of the local authority’s Care Plans.[25]I stress to the mother and the father that the professionals are now reposing trust in them and that the safety of their children depends on their complying with the local authority’s plans, advice and suggestions. The mother in particular must see herself as the major protective factor in the children’s lives. Only she has the opportunity of real insight into what will go on behind closed doors, as in any family. If she perceives any stresses or tensions within the father or within the dynamics of the parties’ relationship, she must this time put the safety and welfare of her children first, which she failed to do previously. Even though she would be likely to feel conflicted, she must inform social workers or her mother or sister and seek help and support in such circumstances. If she and/or the father fail in these respects, there is a strong probability that the local authority would take a different view as to the children’s safety and perhaps conclude that arrangements must be made for the children’s removal from the parents to where their safety could be guaranteed. The Local Authority does undertake, however, not to remove the children from the parents, save in circumstances of urgency.[26]The matter is to be reserved to myself, if available. I can say that if there were to be any significant backsliding by the mother or the father in respect of the plans which the local authority has made in its Care Plans and Rehabilitation Plan, or any lack of full cooperation and the matter were to be restored to discharge the local authority’s proffered undertaking (not to remove the children from the parents, except in a situation of urgency) then the parents would be very unlikely indeed to be given another chance. That said, I wish them well with their family as and when both children are restored to them in the next two or three months, and I express the hope that issues surrounding the children will not need to be brought before the court again.