|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Derbyshire County Council v SH  EWFC B102 (16 June 2015)
Cite as:  EWFC B102
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE MATTER OF s.31 of THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF A and K-F
B e f o r e :
|DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL|
Lucy Sprinz (Counsel) instructed by Goodman Ray for SH
Vince Beckworth (solicitor) of Elliot Mather for the Mother
Kevin Tomlinson (solicitor) of Banner Jones for the Father
Liz Newbold (solicitor) of A&N Care for the Child
Crown Copyright ©
i. CK was in a relationship with HH characterised by domestic violence
ii. A had been exposed to that violence
iii. CK had breached a written agreement by allowing A to be in contact with HH as well as another person known to be a risk to children
iv. There were concerns about deficiencies in CK's parenting skills
v. CK had been on occasions hostile to social care and had failed to engage with support services
vi. KH had not acted upon advice to protect A from significant harm.
"The report of an expert is necessary to assist the Court to resolve the proceedings as
i. SH puts herself forward as a carer for the children
ii. There is no other realistic option for the children other than adoption.
iii. The complex history of this case dictates that a further ISW assessment is necessary to avoid the prospect of any further delay in these proceedings in circumstances where it might otherwise be argued that the conclusions of the previous assessment (by Tina Pugh) were unduly influenced by the decision of the Justices which has been subject to a successful appeal."
" I do not intend to address the couple's relationship suffice it to say it is imbued with ambivalence : both having many commonalities emanating from their histories that create what could be a long lasting connection or alternative relationship that are a reflection of this. Such is this connection they may collude to undermine the placement."
" In narrowing down the issues [SH] clearly believes that paternity issues had a significant interplay on [KH]'s ability to say no to the mother. However she has taunted him (sic) the idea of paternity before A was placed with [KH]" Interplay is a word frequently used by Tina Pugh (paras 2.13, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22) . I think it can be more understandably translated as "impact" or "effect".
foster carers. Tina Pugh did not meet the children at all. Nor did she meet the foster carers. Jane Pinder met SH's wider family and observed SH with D-L, her granddaughter. Tina Pugh did not meet any of SH's wider family. As I understand it Tina Pugh's assessment was based simply on her reading of the papers and her 2 meetings with SH.
(The judge addressed the parents directly emphasising the importance of doing nothing to undermine or sabotage the placement of A and K-F with SH. He invited Mr Semple for the local authority to draw the necessary Orders to reflect his findings)
[JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 16th JUNE 2015]