RSS Feed

Tag Archives: mother and baby foster placement

Shoe-throwing and Interim Care Order

 

This is a tricky case.  It involves an appeal to the Court of Appeal about the Judge’s making of an Interim Care Order in relation to four children aged between 8 and 2 1/2

 

Re W-J (children) 2015

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed146039

The mother in the case has what appears to be a form of personality disorder.  She accepts that there are times when she is utterly unable to control her temper and can fly into an unmanageable rage. Generally during these rages, she takes it out on inanimate objects.  She describes that the things that can set off these rages can be very trivial, giving the example of someone eating a packet of crisps loudly.

 

 

3…In short terms, from time to time she loses control of her behaviour, loses her temper, and the trigger for this is often a trivial matter which would not affect other people. On one occasion, for example, she describes losing her self control simply because she was irritated by the noise of someone eating a packet of crisps.

4. When she does lose control, she behaves in a physically violent way, normally towards inanimate objects, utensils in the kitchen, other matters of that sort. Sometimes she can detect the onset of these symptoms and make arrangements for the children, if they are at home, to go outside the house or go to be with someone else. On other occasions she is not able to have such foresight and it is plain from what the children have said that they have witnessed the distressing spectacle of their mother behaving in this way

 

Whilst that must be distressing and upsetting, what prompted the proceedings was that on two occasions, things went further than that.

 

what led to the proceedings being issued by the local authority were two instances relatively close together where the children reported on separate occasions being injured as a result of the mother’s behaviour. The first occurred on 2 February 2015, when the mother threw a shoe and it hit one of the older children. She accepted that and she indeed accepted a caution at the police station as a result of that behaviour. She accepted that she had thrown the shoe and thrown it at the child but she asserted that she was not deliberately intending to hurt him. She said she had lost control. The second occasion on 20 March 2015 was when the mother’s foot came into contact with the 7 year old girl. The judge heard some evidence about that. The mother accepted that, physically, her foot came into contact with her daughter but was not accepting that this was deliberately in order to cause injury. The child nevertheless was injured, albeit not very seriously. Following the second of those two outbursts, the local authority issued the proceedings.

 

What the Court had to do at that interim care order hearing was to determine whether the test for separation had been made out, and whether the risks could be managed in another way, applying the least interventionist principle.

 

Three of the children were found placements within the family, which were a decent compromise. That left one child, T, and a decision had to be taken about whether she could stay with mother, somewhere, or go into foster care.

There is a law geek point about whether the Court could have made an injunction under the Human Rights Act 1998 to make the LA manage the risk by keeping mother and child together.  The Court of Appeal closed this down by saying that it wasn’t sufficiently argued before the Judge to be an appeal point, so it is not resolved  (for my part, I think that the order that the Court can make in that regard is the straightforward Interim Supervision Order OR to compel them to place in residential assessment, a section 38(6) direction, and there’s no need to monkey around with esoteric HRA injunctions, but there may be a better case where the point really does arise)

 

10. In the course of the robust and constructive representation that the mother had at the hearing provided by Ms Kochnari, her counsel who represented her before the judge and before this court, Ms Kochnari drew attention to the jurisdiction that the Family Court may have in certain circumstances under the Human Rights Act 1996 to grant an injunction requiring a local authority to take a particular course of action. That jurisdiction in part is based upon, obviously, the wording of the Act itself but also decisions of this court, in particular Re: H (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1009 and a decision of the High Court: Re: DE (A child) [2014] EWFC 6. In short terms, Ms Kochnari’s submission was that the judge should grant an injunction requiring the local authority to keep the mother and child together, leaving it up to the local authority how that should be achieved.

11. That describes the position of the parties, mother and local authority, before the judge. The children’s guardian has plainly given this matter a great deal of anxious consideration. Both the guardian and the judge (and it is particularly important to stress that this was the judge’s perspective) saw the value for young T, particularly at the age she currently has reached, in remaining together with her mother. They have a good attachment and it would be seen as a detriment to that attachment, and a detriment to that important aspect of her best interests, for mother and child to be separated for any significant period at this juncture of her life.

12. But the question was how a maintenance of maternal care could be achieved. The guardian indicated that she would support a placement of the mother and child together in a foster home or some other form of residential accommodation if that could be achieved. The judge agreed with the guardian. The judge apparently said during the course of submissions that “heaven and earth” should be moved by the local authority to try to find a suitable placement and indeed an hour and a half or so was allowed during the course of the court day for the local authority to make enquiries. Those enquiries failed to identify any placement on the local authority’s books that could provide a mother and child placement at that stage. The local authority, however, took a more principled stand in addition to the practical difficulty of finding a particular placement. Their submission to the judge was that it was simply inappropriate to consider a mother and child foster home for this sort of case, this sort of case being one in which there is no real concern about the mother’s ability to provide day to day, hour to hour ordinary parenting, the concern being about her mental well being and the local authority indicated that it would be difficult to find a foster carer who would be prepared to accept the risk of having an adult, namely the mother, in the foster home when what is said about her behaviour is being said and is being said in the current period of time.

13. So the judge did not have an option before him for a mother and baby placement if he was to make an interim care order.

 

That left a rather stark choice

1. Grant the ICO and separate T from mother

2. Make no order / ISO and the child remains with mother at home

Or

3. Make no order, but adjourn for fuller enquiries about a placement that might have allowed a section 38(6) application for residential assessement to get off the ground.

 

The Court of Appeal set out why option 3, the adjournment, was not feasible

 

20. Dealing with the question of adjournment, the position before the judge is not altogether plain. It is clear that Ms Kochnari invited the judge in her closing submissions to afford more time for a more comprehensive search to be undertaken. She, in her submissions to us, urges us to interpret that as being really a request for the judge to consider adjourning the case for a period of a day or more to allow the sort of search that has now been undertaken to be conducted. The judge may have interpreted it simply as a matter of a further short time. For my part, given no doubt (although we have not got information about this) that that submission was made late during the course of the court day because this process will have taken up most of the court day, a request for more time almost inevitably meant more time when office hours are open and therefore another day, so in Ms Kochnari’s favour I assume that was the import of her submission to the judge.

21. But, in my judgment, the judge had to face up to the application before him and he did so without any consideration that another day or two could change the landscape and produce a firmed up and clear alternative for him to consider. He, with the reluctance that the choice of words that he used in his judgment clearly demonstrates, considered that it simply was not safe for this child to be at home with the mother for any period of time after the day on which he was giving judgment. In my view, he was entirely justified in coming to that view. I have referred to the psychiatric evidence, such as it was, that was available to him. He had evidence of the two recent episodes where the mother’s behaviour had flared up to the detriment of the children. A factor that I have not mentioned is that the older children had indicated a clear wish not to return to their mother’s care. He will have understood that for children, even if they were not physically injured by any particular deterioration in the mother’s behaviour, simply to watch their mother, the person upon whom they relied, behaving in this way, will have been totally bewildering and frightening. The judge did expressly take account of the fact that the older children had been able to be protected by the actions of the local authority because they had spoken up, they had gone to school or they had gone to other carers and said that their mother had behaved in the way that is now established she had behaved. But young T, aged two and a half would not be in a position to blow the whistle, as it were, on any such behaviour.

22. The final factor, and to my mind it is the crucial factor, is that it is impossible for an outsider to predict whether the mother will or will not flare up at any particular moment of any particular day. It is not a risk that can be predicted, contained or controlled, either by the mother or by any outside agency.

23. With all of those factors in mind, the judge was, in my view, entirely justified in saying that the risk was not one that could be taken in T’s best interests and immediate separation was required. So, even on the basis that a fully formed application for an adjournment had been made, in my view the judge’s decision not to adjourn but to make the order that day could not be said to be wrong and indeed on his analysis of the evidence it would seem hard to justify an alternative conclusion.

 

 

What could, perhaps, have been done but that wasn’t expressly considered here was for the Judge to make a short order – say a week, to allow that search for an alternative placement to take place and then revisit if there was any way to safely manage mother and child together.

 

The Court of Appeal, whilst acknowledging how difficult a situation this was and expressing hope that a longer term solution to mother’s difficulties might be found so that the other very good aspects of her parenting could prevail, were driven to conclude that the Judge’s decision to make an Interim Care Order was not only not wrong but actively right.

 

27. We are therefore left with the judge’s decision to make the interim care order in the circumstances that he did. This is a worrying case. I explained the basis of the worry at the very beginning of this short judgment. It is a case that will require very careful evaluation by the authorities and by the court over the course of the next 2 or 3 months as material is prepared for a final hearing. Crucial will be a full psychiatric assessment of the mother’s underlying mental health difficulties. At the end of the case, a judgment will have to be made as to the long term welfare of these children and as part of that judgment the many positives that can be said about this mother will come into play. But all that the judge was doing and, all that we are contemplating, is making a decision about the child’s welfare for the very short term under the interim order. In that context, important though the decision is, I regard the judge’s determination as being unremarkable. It was a decision made carefully by a judge on the correct legal test, supported by the evidence and one which amply was justified by the welfare of this young child. 

 

I’m sure that all of us would wish this mother well for the future and hope that a solution can be found that would let her parent in the way that she would wish to and be free of what must be a terrible inability to control those outbursts.

Advertisements

Tape recording paying off

Prepare to be very shocked. And then very angry.

At the Transparency Project Conference on Monday, a question was asked about whether parents should be allowed to tape record discussions and conversations. Both Lucy Reed (www.pinktape.co.uk) and myself gave the opinion that where a parent wants to do this, they should be able to.  Social work can involve an imbalance of power with a parent, and where a parent feels that they want their own record of what was said, or to be able to go back to it later to hear it again, they should be able to.  That’s my own opinion, I don’t speak (as always in this blog) for anyone other than myself. But I think that the mood and the ground has shifted on that.

It is easier and easier for a parent to record conversations, and I can absolutely see why they might want to do it. I’ve always said to social workers that they should never say or write anything that they wouldn’t be happy hearing being read out loud in Court. Good social workers have nothing to fear from a parent recording them. It is awkward, it feels uncomfortable, but if you put yourself in the parents shoes for a moment, that must be how they feel all of the time. If it levels the playing field a little, that may be a good thing.

This case, decided by Her Honour Judge Lazarus in Medway County Court is a good example of how that really paid off.  Without the recording, would the mother have been believed? Hard to know, but it certainly provided incontravertible evidence of the most appalling behaviour that she was subjected to by those who were supposed to be helping her.

The case involves a huge catalogue of errors and lessons that need to be learned, and I think I’ll tackle it in two posts rather than one.

This particular issue of recording (both written records and sound recording) is worthy of its own piece, I think

Medway Council v A and Others (Learning Disability: Foster Placement) 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B66.html

 

The case involved a mother with a learning disability, and an IQ of 54, who was British but of Indian origin.  The case began very poorly with the Local Authority placing the child in care through a section 20 agreement.  It seems that the lessons about misuse of section 20 are still not being learned. She eventually went to a mother and baby foster placement. There were arguments about whether that placement was the right sort of placement for someone with the mother’s needs – it wasn’t a specialist placement or one experienced in teaching and supporting parents with learning difficulties or disabilities.

 

  1. I find, and the SW accepted, that this was not an appropriate placement. I accept that Ms McG is an experienced foster carer and has successfully cared for children including her current charges for many years. I also accept that in the first couple of weeks she described getting on very well with the parents. However, Ms McG was not a specialist foster carer with specific training and/or expertise in working in partnership with parents with learning disability, as is recommended in the DoH Guidance (at 2.2.15). This placed A and the Mother, and indeed Ms McG, at a disadvantage which it was Medway’s responsibility to avoid. Ms McG explained that she underwent two days training a year as a foster carer, and that this contained elements relevant to learning disability such as having to speak slowly and make sure that parents understood. It was absolutely clear from her oral evidence that any comprehension she had of Mother’s difficulties was extremely limited. She described her as ‘unwell’ or that ‘she wasn’t well’. And she also, at the strategy meeting described the Mother as trying to ‘turn the tables on me’. She repeated this in her oral evidence, saying that Mother was ‘devious’, and ‘building [a case] up so that she would be removed from the house’ and that her actions had been ‘calculated to provoke me’. This implies a degree of cleverness, cunning and forethought that it is clearly beyond the Mother’s abilities, and thoroughly demonstrates Ms McG’s lack of understanding of learning disability. It is clear to me that Ms Mc G’s lack of experience and understanding in this area, and the attitude to Mother’s learning disability that she betrayed in her evidence, must have meant that her interactions with Mother were unlikely to have been sympathetic to Mother’s needs and therefore unlikely to have been successful in supporting Mother.
  2. I also accept that it was not ideal to place Mother in a non-Muslim household. While Ms McG had a Muslim teenager placed with her, this is vastly different to living in a Muslim household and being in an environment geared to and familiar with the practices and expectations of a very different culture. Ms McG was asked about her accommodation of Mother’s needs as a Muslim and gave three practical examples in that she had provided a mat for prayer and had bought halal food and not cooked pork, and had provided separate eating utensils which were not used after the first occasion. These were appropriate steps and I do not criticise the foster carer for doing her best in this respect. Parents cannot always expect to be placed in culturally matched placements, and it should not necessarily have determined whether this placement should be used, but it was an additional difficulty for an already vulnerable mother to cope with in an otherwise ill-suited placement in terms of meeting her and A’s primary need for an environment skilled in supporting parents with a learning disability.
  3. The SW acknowledged that a specialist foster placement or a ‘specialist placement setting’ (as in her email of 10.9.14 to her managers) should have been provided. She asked for a specialist foster placement and was offered this placement. I appreciate that Mother and Baby placements are a scarce resource, but if it was not suitable it was not suitable and an alternative resource should have been pressed for. The success of Mother and Baby placements often relies heavily on the direct relationship forged between a mother and the foster carer. This will become all the more crucial and potentially fragile where the mother suffers from a difficulty such as a learning disability. I find that Medway fundamentally let down A, his Mother and indeed Ms McG, by placing them together in what should have been evident at the time was an unsuitable arrangement.

 

 

Additionally, there were differing accounts of a dispute between the mother and foster carer. Each said that the other had been aggressive and hostile during an incident towards the other.  I am sure that parents who read this will be imagining how that plays out – the foster carer has recordings and credibility, the parent won’t be believed.

What happened in this case was truly extraordinary.

 

Firstly, the foster carers notes:-

 

  1. The foster carer’s records and statements gave me great concern. Her initial recordings are in the form of brief and informal emails. These recordings progress in late August/early September to more formal notes using a set form. The first set of her records filed by Medway in these proceedings was missing all her notes from 8.8.14 to 3.9.14 and the note of 14.9.14 and the document entitled My Personal Statement dated 15.9.14. By day 3 of this hearing most of those missing documents had been provided, at my direction, but notes for 11, 12, 19, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 August, and 3 and 8 September were still missing.
  2. When the foster carer attended to give her evidence, I directed her to email and bring on the following day any of those remaining missing notes that had been emailed at the time in August and September. I stipulated that these should only be the original emails bearing the original notes to ISP, so that we could be quite clear that they had been sent at the time and what they had said at the time. I also clearly explained that they should not be newly written up, but that I was directing the provision of only the original recordings sent at the time in August and September. This was not done by Ms McG. Instead she chose to bring newly written notes of most of those dates, unconnected to any emails. She confirmed that they had not been sent at the time, but she had written them up that night before returning to court with them, and had done so from her handwritten notes that she had found for the purpose.
  3. This was concerning in a number of respects. Firstly, they had not been written up at the time and thus were not sent, but neither ISP nor the SW noticed that these dates were missing. This is indicative of poor management and supervision of this placement by ISP and Medway. Secondly, she had claimed the day before that she had shredded all the hand-written notes that she had made, but was now claiming that she had found some notes. She had also claimed that she used a ‘diary’ to record her observations. This then became a ‘notebook’, the pages of which she tore out and shredded, and so she said she was unable to bring any original notes to court. I have taken into account her submissions that this was all a misunderstanding, and that she meant that she had only shredded the notes she had written up and sent. This was not what she told me during her oral evidence, and I find that Ms McG was dishonest and actively misleading about her note-keeping practice. I find that I cannot rely on her assertion that none of her original notes could be inspected, as she clearly then found some in order to cover up her gaps in recording. I also find that she did not regularly write up her notes each evening as she claimed, or there would have been no such gaps.

 

 

[This would have been a good point to deploy the nice bit of case law which was excavated in the Mirror phone-hacking case –  Armory v Delamarie  1722 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html  a case in which a chimney sweep boy went to a jeweller to ask him to value a jewel. The jeweller pocketed the jewel and would not return it. Because the jeweller then concealed the jewel, how could one establish how much it was worth and what the chimney sweep was owed?

“. If the wrongdoer prevents the innocent party proving how much of his property has been taken, then the wrongdoer is liable to the greatest extent that is possible in the circumstances.”  

 

In short, if a foster carer shreds her notes, then the Court is entitled to take the dimmest view possible of what might have been contained within them.  ]

 

I have not before encountered a finding that a foster carer had been dishonest and misleading about their records. It gets worse

  1. The document My Personal Statement dated 15.9.14 (N45-46) differs from the placement recording note she completed bearing that date (N21-22). It appears to have been sent to Ms Down at ISP either late that night or the next morning as Ms Down attaches it to her email to the SW at 09:01 on 16.9.14. Ms McG claimed in her oral evidence that she thinks she wrote it several days later over the following weekend (20-21.9.14) and that is why it was not in her foster placement recording of that date. I do not believe that it was written so long afterward given Ms Down’s email. I note that My Personal Statement contains an inaccurate reference to the conversation in which Ms McG viciously shouts ‘piss off’ repeatedly at the Mother before slamming the door on her, characterising it instead in both the note recording and My Personal Statement as a rude attack by Mother to which Ms McG claims she mildly responded.
  2. We know however, having listened to the recording and read its transcript, that in fact the Mother was calmly and fairly meekly pointing out that the conversation was noisy for the baby and that Ms McG was ‘shouting so loud’ and that she did not ask who Ms McG was talking to as Ms McG claims. After a few exchanges of this nature Ms McG explodes against the Mother, shouting and using a remarkably vicious, loud and nasty tone:

    R….. piss off out I’m getting it on the phone piss off out R….. piss off out I’m on the phone when you on the phone chatting loud in your in your Pakistani language I don’t say anything I just grin and bear it yeah I don’t (indistinct) so piss off out and leave me on the phone piss off. Piss off when (indistinct) your Pakistani language I not saying anything I leave you (indistinct) but get with I don’t say anything to you right, so get lost”

    This is then followed by the sound of steps walking away and a door loudly slammed.

    Ms McG accepted that this is her voice and this was how she behaved to Mother on this occasion. She was unrepentant during her oral evidence, but in her submissions indicates she has now reflected on this and accepts that she behaved inappropriately, for which she now apologises and will be seeking support from her fostering agency. She claims that this inappropriate behaviour was as a result of repeated provocation and the breakdown of the placement. I shall return to that assertion later.

  3. I find it is significant that My Personal Document is written after this incident and is then sent to Ms Down, and contains an allegation against the Mother that she had slapped Ms McG that is not in the recording note covering that period; and that it also contains an inaccurately anodyne account of this wholly inappropriate loss of temper and swearing at Mother. I do not understand why its content about Mother slapping her was not included in the recording note of 15.9.14, unless it simply had not happened and so had not been written up into it earlier that evening.

 

So not only had the foster carer shouted at mother and racially abused her, but she lied about it in her notes and made up an allegation that it had been the mother who behaved badly towards her.  It isn’t easy to be sympathetic to a professional who has said the things set out above – and I’m afraid that I can’t manage it.  I do, however, place it in the context that this was a wholly unsuitable match from the outset and the blame for that doesn’t lie at the foster carers door.

 

I am afraid that it continues to get worse.

 

  1. Ms McG tried to claim in cross-examination that her tirade against the Mother on 15.9.14 that I have set out above did not use swearing, and that it was not ‘abuse’. This is obviously an absurd minimisation in the face of wholly inappropriate behaviour. She was thoroughly and vehemently unrepentant, claiming she would do ‘absolutely nothing’ differently. She also tried to claim that this was the only occasion she spoke this way to the Mother, and that the Mother had deliberately provoked her by coming down and asking her to be quiet. In her submissions she further claims that the parents began a campaign to complain about her and repeatedly provoke her in order to bring about the end of the placement so that they could live together and thereby preserve the Father’s immigration status. I do not accept these assertions. A good point well made by the Children’s Guardian’s advocate was how unlikely it was that on the occasion that Mother tries to record the foster carer it happens to be the only occasion the foster carer swears loudly and viciously at her. The Mother’s case is that she was recording her as she was not being believed about being treated abusively and that this was a regular occurrence. I find that it is highly unlikely that this was the only occasion, and that the Mother was indeed trying to record her following a series of such occasions of verbal abuse and mistreatment that she had tried to complain about. I also consider that it is highly unlikely that the parents could have planned such a campaign, hoping to get such a response from the foster carer, or could have predicted what outcome would arise from highlighting the problems they were experiencing.
  2. Ms McG also submits that her allegations against the Mother that the Mother was abusing and slapping her were not properly investigated and so she could not present her explanation fully. Ms McG attended a strategy meeting on 17.9.14 at which she repeated at least some of those claims, and was assisted by Medway’s legal department to prepare her first statement filed in these proceedings. Her agency ISP has supported her in making her statements and by attending court to support her attendance. Until a point in this hearing after Ms McG had completed her evidence, Medway itself was pursuing these findings against the parents. Ms McG was the source of these allegations and has been able to set them out in statements and repeat them to me and be questioned about them, and therefore I do not follow and reject this submission.
  3. There is no contemporaneous written note by the foster carer of her allegation that she saw Mother shaking the baby. It only appears via the recordings of professionals involved at the time and in the foster carer’s first statement dated 11.3.15 which provides little clarifying detail. The foster carer’s oral evidence was inconsistent with accounts recorded by those professionals. She said it took place soon after midnight and she demonstrated two slow shakes by Mother while saying ‘shush shush’ to A. The records suggest she claimed there were three shakes to the SW and paediatrician, and she subsequently accepted she may have said three shakes to them. ISP worker Ms Hannett’s account of what Ms McG told her was noted by the duty SW in the early hours of 17.9.14 and state that Ms McG told her she saw Mother holding A under the arms but with her hands behind his head. The call from a PC French also set out in the duty SW recording at 04:51 states that ‘the actual shaking incident did not involve the baby’s head moving separately from its body’. I conclude from these recordings made very soon after these professionals had spoken with the foster carer that they are recounting a description given by her of a limited kind of shake involving some protection of the head from moving, although it is difficult to imagine someone both holding a baby under the arms and holding their hands behind his head. This contrasts with the ‘vigorous shaking’ described by the foster carer to the paediatrician and repeated in the strategy meeting notes. Finally, Ms McG’s submissions refer to seeing Mother “jolt the baby whilst trying to shush him”, and this is a slightly different version again, and certainly not one shared at the time with the child protection and medical professionals. These descriptions were not greatly assisted by Ms McG’s oral evidence where she demonstrated two limited forward and backward movements. She was unclear when pressed about the position of Mother’s hands. She said she had not seen Mother’s face as Mother’s back was to her. She described Mother as holding A out in front of her, in which case I am not convinced that she could have had the clear view of what was happening in front of Mother’s body as she claims. For these reasons, and as outlined already in conjunction with the timing of her extremely abusive reaction to Mother on the night of 15.9.14 and the timing of Mother’s complaint against her on 16.9.14 of being pushed and hurt, I do not consider that this can be seen as a reliable account by the foster carer of having witnessed Mother shaking A. I was unsurprised when Medway chose not to pursue these allegations against Mother further.
  4. The second conversation, in which her adult son can be heard speaking, I also find to have been wholly inappropriate. The foster carer claims that some disrespectful comment by the Mother precedes the start of the recording and led to her son’s reaction challenging the Mother not to disrespect his mother. I acknowledge that her son does not raise his voice and I accept that on one level they do simply point out that she is not prevented from leaving but if she were to do so they would have to inform social services, but the foster carer does not intervene to control or limit the conversation which repeatedly challenges the Mother and in which she is accused of being attention-seeking. She joins in the conversation with a number of challenges and some sarcastic laughter. However, it is all conducted with a level of inconsideration bordering on scorn for her predicament and her learning disability. Ms McG claimed that there was nothing wrong with this conversation and that the Mother was attention-seeking. She should not have permitted or conducted such a conversation with the Mother, and (until receipt of her submissions) has clearly failed or refused to see why. As I have already discussed, this conversation is likely to have taken place some time on the morning of 16.9.14 before the situation escalated further.
  5. I am asked to consider whether the foster carer was racially abusive to the parents. She denies it, claiming that as she is black she is aware of how inappropriate it would be, and countering with her own accusations that the Mother called her a ‘black bitch’. In her oral evidence she added that the Mother had called her a ‘black bastard’ and said that she had never wanted to live in a black home. Being called a ‘black bastard’ has not featured previously in any account given by the foster carer. I am aware that the parents were indeed very unhappy at not being in a Muslim household, but given the manifest difficulties with the foster carer’s evidence and that Medway do not seek such a finding, I do not consider making such a finding against the parents.
  6. In her oral evidence the foster carer made some notable remarks. She repeated several times, and with almost as much venom and resentment as in the recording I have quoted above, that she had to ‘grin and bear it’ while the Mother was talking on the telephone ‘in her Pakistani language’. Mother speaks Urdu and is British of Indian origin. She never once in her recordings or her evidence correctly used A’s name, but dismissed this due to the name having been changed. She denied using the terms ‘Indian dog’ or ‘Pakistani dog’. She described the parents as ‘reeking’ of body odour that permeated her home, and in her emailed note of 15.8.14 wrote that they ‘absolutely stink’, a phrase she repeated more than once and with emphasis in her oral evidence. While I accept that she needed to draw attention to examples of poor hygiene, I find that the manner in which she did so was vindictive and pointed, and not simply a straightforward observation. Overall I find that there was an ongoing vigorous antipathy to the very physical presence of the parents in her home, that she resented listening to Mother speaking in Urdu, and I do find that she demonstrated in court gross racial insensitivity and a visceral dislike of the parents, nastily expressed. The evidence is however insufficiently clear to make any finding of racial abuse and I do not make such a finding against the foster carer.

 

 

Bear in mind that not only was the mother having to live in a home with this foster carer, but that this foster carer was (a) going to be a large part of the assessment of how mother was doing and whether she could parent AND (b) was supposed to be providing her with support and guidance, and one can see just how catastrophic a failure this placement was.  It must have been utterly unbearable.

 

The Council were rightly criticised for their failure to investigate the complaints made by mother about the placement and to take action

  1. It will be evident from what I have set out so far, that Medway did not adequately investigate these complaints by the parents. It is unclear whether Ms Down of ISP was requested to look into the earliest set of complaints, which included verbal abuse by the foster carer, or whether she was simply informed of these complaints and looked into them automatically as part of her role as supervising SW at ISP. It can immediately be seen that the SW of the agency being paid by Medway to provide this foster carer is in a compromised position with an obvious conflict of interest in doing so. The brief discussion of the complaints at the pre-proceedings meeting and LAC review meeting on 3 and 4.9.14 were not adequate: full details were never sought from the parents, nor their complaints properly noted in the social work records; the only forum for exploring the issues was at formal child protection meetings primarily concerned with other matters; no complaints process was offered or explained to the parents; and even the ‘agreement’ referred to at the end of the LAC review minutes was never pursued. This forms part of my concern that the parents’ complaints were never properly attended to or taken seriously by the professionals, but were dismissed as insignificant or unworthy of proper attention. This was a serious corporate failing by all concerned.
  2. It beggars belief that after the events of 16.9.14, when the foster carer was claiming that she had been slapped by Mother and Mother was claiming she had been pushed and hurt by the foster carer, that the SW encouraged Mother to return to the placement and her management sanctioned its continuation. Notwithstanding where the truth of those allegations lay, this was clearly not an appropriate environment for A, nor his vulnerable Mother. As I have already mentioned in considering the Children’s Guardian’s evidence, I find that this environment would undoubtedly have had an extremely negative effect on Mother, depriving her of the support of the Father, exposing her to unskilled and unsympathetic foster care, and in a hostile environment about which she complained but where her complaints were dismissed. It is unsurprising that she became anxious, upset and distressed and that the placement broke down.

 

 

This is the most dramatic of the failings of the case, but there were many many others, which I’ll deal with in part 2.  This case is a perfect illustration of the benefits of the President’s drive for transparency.  Her Honour Judge Lazarus is not (yet) in a position to make binding case law [though she does earn herself a Tag in ther blog], and so a case of this kind three years ago would not have been reported, I would never have seen it and the dreadful catalogue of poor practice and decisions would have been brushed under the carpet.  Never has the President’s motto of “sunlight is the best disenfectant” been truer.  We need to drag cases like this into the light, and hold them up to public exposure.

What happened here was dreadful and the only hope of stopping it happening again is to make sure that everyone sees just how bad it was.

If you want to know the outcome – the Local Authority were seeking a Placement Order – to place the child with adopters, and the Judge instead granted the application that mother and father should be placed with their child in a specialist assessment centre who could report fairly and accurately on whether they would be able to care for their child with the right support.

 

 

So tired, tired of waiting, tired of waiting for you

 

 (A quick look at four cases that have been decided, but that I’m still waiting for transcripts of judgments on , and one that I’ve been waiting for for ages, and which turns out to be crushingly disappointing)

 

 

Not worthy of full blogs, until I see the full transcripts, because as lovely as summaries are, they do lose the subtleties of having the entire judgment to rifle through for gems.

 

But anyway, here are four up-and-coming interesting cases.  (and I am aware that the section 37 case – is it an abuse of process to make multiple ICOs pegging them on s37 directions when the LA haven’t made an application, went to the Court of Appeal last week, and there will be a judgment on that in due course. I blogged about that one previously here :-

 

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2012/08/31/ive-got-section-thirty-seven-problems-but-a-aint-one/   )       [And where else in legal blogging do you get both the Kinks and Jay-Z?  Can I get an encore/do you want more/cookin raw / with the Brooklyn Boy]

 

 

The first, and most recent is RE H (A CHILD) (2012)

 

CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Lewison LJ, Hedley J) 26/10/2012

 

In this case, the LA were seeking final orders, and the trial judge instead made an Interim Care Order, adjourned the proceedings for three months, and directed a placement at a parent and baby foster placement. The Court of Appeal refused the LA appeal, and determined that the Judge was entitled to make those decisions, having weighed the negative and detrimental impacts on the child of delay against the potential positives to the child.  

The interest for me on this one will be  (a) how much of a bulwark it might be against the  “26 weeks is our aspiration, finish things off quicker” philosophy that is currently so “popular” and (b) whether it is actually authority for the Court having power to compel a Local Authority to place in a parent and baby foster placement. 

I assume that this, if there is such a power, derives from s38(6) and the Munby LJ decision in Cardiff, where he determined that a s38(6) placement didn’t have to be in a residential assessment centre, but could be with a family member.  

 

There are two schools currently, one is that the Court CAN compel a Local Authority to place in a mother-and-baby foster placement (or parent-and-baby foster placement) using the Munby decision, and the other is that the Court CAN’T compel, but generally achieves it by rejecting a plan of ICO and separation, and making the LA decide on the ‘lesser of two evils’ between that and having the child at home under ISOs. 

[I have to confess, that I am not at all sure which of those is right. My reading of the Cardiff case is that the Judge was stretching s38(6) very creatively to get an outcome that everyone in the case desired, but that it might reach snapping point to try to do it in a case that is actively litigious. But, there are passages in Cardiff that would support s38(6) being used to place a child whereever a Judge thinks fit]

 

I will be interested to see if the Court of Appeal grapple with that issue at all.  And of course, Cardiff was only a High Court decision, so if so, it will be Court of Appeal backing for that authority.

 

Next up

 

RE M (A CHILD) (2012)

 

CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Lloyd LJ, Rafferty LJ) 22/10/2012

 

This one may fall entirely on its own facts, or it might be incredibly important, which is why I am so keen to read the full judgment and find out.  It was an appeal against a finding of fact hearing. The child was a few weeks old and had 8 separate bruises, left forearm, right arm and right thigh.  No explanations for the bruises were provided. The medical opinion was that they were non-accidental, in the absence of an accidental explanation. The Judge also found the parents evidence to not be credible and found that the injuries had been caused by them.

 

The Court of Appeal considered, on the brief note I have available, that this amounted to a reversal of the burden of proof and that it was not for the parents to explain how the injuries were caused accidentally, but for the LA to prove that they were caused non-accidentally.

 

[This quote from the summary, on a well known law reporting website, not necessarily an extract from the judgment itself – my underlining, to illustrate what seems to be a current direction of travel on medical cases]

 

“The medical evidence was that the marks were imprints or pressure marks from an object, but it was not possible to say what object or even what kind of object or how the pressure was exerted. Nor was it possible to say whether there was a momentary infliction of pain or a sustained pressure. The instant case was not one of a broken limb, or a cigarette burn or finger pressure. The court simply did not know what had happened or how. The judge had accepted the evidence of one of the doctors that in the absence of a benign explanation from the parents it could be concluded that the injuries were not accidental, but that conclusion did not follow, unless the burden of proof, which lay on the local authority on the balance of probabilities, was wrongly reversed and the parents were required to satisfy the court that the injuries were non-accidental. The judge had erred in finding that the parents had deliberately caused the injuries”

 

It may be that the case is entirely case and original judgment specific, but it would not surprise me, given the movement of the Court of Appeal in recent months away from “listen to the doctors” towards “the Court should actively contemplate the possibility that medical opinion is not always right, even if there is consensus” if it contains some important principles.

 

 

Next

 

RE C (CHILDREN) (2012)

 

CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Munby LJ) 12/10/2012

 

Which involves private law, and a finding of fact hearing / change of residence hearing. The trial judge stopped the father midway through his evidence [after he had finished in chief] and gave judgment about the allegations the father was making, essentially dismissing them and the application for a change of residence.  The father appealed, in essence saying that had the Court heard mother’s evidence and he had the opportunity to cross-examine mother, his allegations would/might have been proved.

 

The Court of Appeal determined  (again, the quote is from the summary of the case, and not the transcript itself)

 

 

Given that the judge had heard F’s evidence in chief, it was entirely appropriate for him to direct himself as he did, namely that F had to establish on the balance of probabilities that there were compelling reasons why the children should be moved. It was the correct exercise of his discretion for the judge to say F had failed to meet that test. There was no error of law or approach either in his determining the standard by which F’s evidence was to be evaluated or to say he was satisfied that F had failed to prove any of the matters to satisfy the court that the residence order should be changed. It was a matter for the judge to determine the form of procedure to satisfy the welfare needs of the children and he was not obliged to listen to evidence if it was not appropriate and the process would be of no advantage to the children. The judge’s view was robust, but he did not exceed the ambit of his discretion. There was no error of law or misdirection in what he had said about the burden of proof or in taking the course that he did. He had taken a decision that was plainly open to him in all the circumstances and it could not be said that he was plainly wrong.

 

 This may be a gratefully received judgment for all Judges dealing with private law cases faced with clearly threadbare evidence for serious allegations, as they may be able to cut them short when it is clear they are going nowhere.  [I shall not speculate as to whether the number of such cases will increase or decrease as a result of certain political decisions about funding of family legal aid]

 

And this one

 

RE P (A CHILD) (2012)

 

CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Lloyd LJ, Black LJ) 05/10/2012

 

 

Where essentially, very serious allegations of sexual abuse was made against the parents. The parents indicated that they did not seek the return of the child or any contact, and that on that basis, embarking on a judicial determination of the allegations was unnecessary   (as they were content for the Court to make a Care Order and did not seek any orders in relation to contact)

 

This is interesting, because it throws up what the role of the Court is – is it to get to the truth, or is it to determine the applications that are placed before it? If having a fact finding hearing doesn’t materially affect the order to be made, how can it legitimately take place on the one hand.  On the other, isn’t it important for the child’s care and future to know whether he or she was the victim of sexual abuse?

 

The Court of Appeal remitted the decision back to the trial judge who had decided not to have a finding of fact hearing, for further consideration – notably of the expert report that having resolution of this issue would be beneficial for the child and that future uncertainty would be detrimental to the child.  They also considered that the parents stance on contact might shift (and may have already shifted) and that it was appropriate for all of these issues to be taken into account.

 

 

 

And oh, I see that another one I was waiting for is now up

 

RE (1) B (2) H (CHILDREN) (2012)

 

[2012] EWCA Civ 1359

CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Kitchin LJ, Dame Janet Smith) 01/08/2012

 

This case goes to the issue of having a finding of fact hearing where the suspected perpetrator had considerable learning difficulties. It is pertinent for me because I had similar issues come up with a potential intervenor in a case and the law wasn’t entirely clear on how the Court should decide whether to compel them to give evidence, and how the balancing exercise should be conducted.

 The trial judge in this reported case  decided not to go ahead with the finding of fact hearing, and was appealed.

 

Sadly, the appeal was unopposed, so the judgment is very short.  In effect, the Court of Appeal were persuaded that the role of a finding of fact hearing is twofold  (and this may feed into the case above)

 

The outcome of a fact finding investigation is not only to determine whether the section 31 threshold has been crossed, but also to provide an essential foundation for the trial of the welfare issues that lead to the management decision for the future of the child.

 

 

I can therefore suggest nothing further than the tack I used in my case, which was that the Court should weigh the article 6 right to a fair trial against the rights of the vulnerable person and would have to give leeway to the witness when considering confusion about dates, times, details and sequence of events where their learning difficulty impacted considerably