|
|
1.
|
We are considering an application X Council for interim
care orders in respect of two children F, who is nearly 12 years of age and N
who is almost 5 years of age.
|
2.
|
The Local Authority is represented by Ms W who is
accompanied by the Social Worker Ms C and the Team Manager Ms J.
|
3.
|
The children’s parents are Mrs G and Mr G who are married
and share parental responsibility for their children. Mrs G has attended
court and she is represented by Ms H of counsel. Mrs G has been assisted by
an interpreter throughout these proceedings.
|
4.
|
Mr G has attended court and he represents himself in these
proceedings and does not require the assistance of an interpreter.
|
5.
|
The Duty Children’s Guardian is Miss MD and Miss B
represents the children.
|
6.
|
If the application is granted the Local Authority’s
interim plan is for the children to remain placed with their current foster
parents. The Authority intends to complete their core assessment which
initially was to have been completed by the 6th August 2010 but will now be completed by the 13th August 2010. The interim plan
of the Local Authority is for the parents to have contact with their children
three times per week for a period of one hour but this contact is to be
supervised. However in evidence both the Social Worker and her Team Manager
conceded that they would look to extend the time for contact and also look to
set up some appropriate activity based contact. The Social Worker indicated
that contact will be continually reviewed to ensure it meets the children’s
needs. The Social Worker also told us that telephone contact between the
children and their parents had taken place when the children were voluntarily
accommodated by the Authority but when the Emergency Protection Orders were
made on the 9.7.10 and the Authority shared parental responsibility for the
children this telephone contact was stopped.
|
7.
|
The parents’ cases are essentially the same. They both
oppose the application, they ask this court to consider carefully whether the
threshold criteria for the making of an interim order are met and they seek
the immediate return of their children to their care. They believe that the
Local Authority have over reacted to the injuries seen on F. It is the
parents’ position that they can not give any further information as to how
the injuries were caused. They saw the bruises on F but they were not
concerned about them because F was not concerned about them. Both parents deny
causing the injuries to F. If the court finds that the threshold criteria for
the making of an interim order are met then the parents submit that the court
should look at the least interventionist approach that is proportionate to
the identified risk. The parents submit that the children are suffering more
harm in foster care and should be allowed to return home to their parents’
care where they will be safe. The parents submit that if the court has
concerns then these can be addressed by the making of an interim supervision
order together with a written working agreement or contract of expectation.
The parents case is that they have no difficulty working with Social Services
and if the children were returned home to their care then the Social Worker
could visit whenever she wanted to in order to check on the children. If the
court makes interim care orders at the conclusion of the hearing then the
parents ask the court to make a defined contact order to ensure that they have
considerably more contact than the Local Authority proposes. They would like
the court to give an indication to the Local Authority in the terms of a
defined contact order that contact should take place at a level of not less
than 2 hours for each session and whenever possible for a longer period and
to include activity based contact sessions.
|
8.
|
The Duty Children’s Guardian and Children’s solicitor
support the Local Authority’s application for interim care orders at this
early stage in the proceedings. However they agree with the submissions made
by the parents that the proposed level of contact is insufficient to meet the
children’s needs. The Guardian believes that especially as the school
holidays are nearly here consideration should be given to either more
frequent contact arrangements or longer sessions of contact with
consideration being given to some of the contact sessions being activity
based although she was clear that all contact should remain supervised.
|
9.
|
We have read all the documents filed in this case. We
have heard evidence from Dr B, a Consultant Community Paediatrician, Miss C,
Social Worker, Ms J, Team Manager, Mr and Mrs G, Mr J and the Duty Children’s
Guardian Ms MD. We have also heard submissions from all the parties.
|
10.
|
During the proceedings a request was made by counsel for
Mrs G and supported by Mr G in person that they should be allowed to call the
child F as a witness on their behalf. This application was opposed by the
Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian. It was submitted to us that in
order to reach a decision on the best possible evidence the court needed to
hear from F. We were referred to the guidance on this matter contained in
the analysis of Re W ( Care Order: Sexual Abuse) 2009 in the Family Court
Practice Red Book. Counsel accepted that this would be an unusual course to
take particularly at an interim hearing but the parents believe that this is
the only way the court will get to the bottom of this case. The parents do
not want their children remaining in foster care for any longer than
necessary. Mr G submits that it is contrary to the UN Convention on
children’s rights if F is prevented from appearing in court. The parents
believe that F wants to give his story to the court and have his views heard.
|
11.
|
The Local Authority opposes this application; they submit
that to bring this child to court to give evidence is too much responsibility
to put on the shoulders of a child. The child has already given an
explanation for the cause of the bruising, which he has not changed and he
has not provided any further details whatsoever. His explanation is not
accepted by Dr B. The court should deal with the application on the evidence
already before it. The Local Authority submits that the court should be slow
to grant this application given the distress and harm this could cause to F.
|
12.
|
The Children’s Guardian opposes this application. The
Guardian is concerned that there has not yet been any direct in- depth work
done with the child in terms of his explanation for the injuries. It is
submitted on behalf of the child that the case law all appears to relate to
hearings where a court is determining what findings it can make, and this is
the first interim hearing where the court should not make specific findings.
It is the Guardian’s belief that if F were to be asked to give evidence this
could be seen as a “ fishing exercise”. It is the Guardian’s submissions that
it is wholly premature to bring a child of F’s age to court and that this
course of action could cause F harm.
|
13.
|
We agree with the applicants that there is not a
presumption that a child will not give evidence in family proceedings but
this issue is a balancing exercise. We have had to weigh the advantages that
having F give evidence will bring against the damage it might do to the
welfare of him and his sister. We remind ourselves that this is the first
hearing of an application for interim orders where we are not making any
specific findings. We acknowledge that F is almost 12 years old and his
parents tell us that he wants to give evidence to the court. We balance this
against the view of the applicants and the Guardian that at this stage in the
proceedings it is unnecessary and likely to be traumatic and harmful to him.
The parents’ case does not challenge the child’s account of how the injuries
were caused and the Local Authority and Children’s Guardian accept that he
has given an explanation for his injuries which he has not changed. We are
satisfied that bringing the child to court and asking him to give evidence is
likely to put him in a traumatic situation which would be seriously
detrimental to his welfare. We agree with the submissions of the Local
Authority and Children’s Guardian in this regard and having considered the
analysis of the leading authorities we refuse the application for F to be
called as a witness by the parents.
|
14.
|
The history of this case is not disputed. On the 18 th June 2010 bruising was found on F’s arm when he was at school. The
school referred the matter to Social Care and when the Social Worker spoke to
F on his own at school he said that he did not know how the bruises had been
caused. F was examined later that day by Dr B, Consultant Paediatrician who
concluded that the bruises were significant non-accidental injuries and it
was possible that these were due to being gripped. Dr B found that the injuries
were not consistent with the explanations given by F or his parents. When
asked by Dr B how he got the bruises F said that he could not say for certain
when he had got injured but possibly 3 days ago when he tried to jump off a
swing and the swing hit him on his left arm.
|
15.
|
After the medical examination the parents agreed to the
children being voluntarily accommodated until further assessments of the
family were completed. On the 21st June the parents were informed
that the Social Worker would be undertaking a core assessment of the family
which would consider risks and whether the children could return home but
that until the assessment was completed Social Care requested that the
children remain in the care of the Local Authority. The parents were told
that if they did not agree to the children being voluntarily accommodated
then the Local Authority would commence legal proceedings. The parents
continued to agree to the children being voluntarily accommodated. A home
visit took place on the 24th June where the core assessment was
further discussed and the Social Worker told the parents that she would
telephone them with the assessment dates. The Local Authority accepts that
no further contact regarding the core assessment had been made with the
parents by the 5th July 2010. It was conceded in evidence by the
Team Manager that the parents had at least left one letter at social services
offices because a copy was provided to the court showing the date it was
received by them with a request to pass this letter on to the social worker.
|
16.
|
On the 7th July 2010 the parents’ withdrew
their consent to the continuing voluntary accommodation of their children and
took the children home. The Local Authority submits that this is an
indication of an unwillingness to continue to co-operate on the part of the
parents. It is the parents’ case that their actions were as a result of
their frustrations at what they saw as a lack of action on behalf of the
Local Authority and unwillingness by anyone at the Local Authority wanting to
speak to them. Social Care made an urgent home visit and the police removed
the children from the family home under a police protection order. The
children were placed back with the same foster carer where they remain. The
Local Authority issued an application for an emergency protection order which
was heard by this court on the 9th July 2010. At that hearing the
parents had an opportunity to discuss the matter with a solicitor but chose
to represent themselves and oppose the application. At the conclusion of the
contested hearing an emergency protection order was made for 7 days. The
Local Authority issued an application for an interim care order and this is
the first hearing of that application.
|
17.
|
In our judgment it appears that the crucial issues for us
to decide at this hearing are whether the threshold criteria for the making
of an interim order are met, if we find that they are met, what is the most
appropriate order which will be the least interventionist and most
proportionate response to the identified risks. Can the identified risks be
managed and the children’s welfare safeguarded by making interim supervision
orders or is the risk so great that only interim care orders and the
separation of these children from their parents can adequately safeguard and
protect them. It is not the purpose of this hearing to make findings about
how the injuries were caused and who if anyone caused them.
|
18.
|
The parents ask us to consider carefully whether the
threshold criteria are met in this case. We have to be satisfied that the
threshold for making an interim order are met namely that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the children are suffering or are
likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is
attributable to the care given to the children or likely to be given to them
if the order were not made not being what it would be reasonable to expect a
parent to give him.
|
19.
|
We first heard evidence from Dr B, Consultant Paediatrician
who examined F on the 18.6.10. Her report is filed in the court bundle and
can be found at pages C1-6. Dr B confirmed that the contents of her report
were true to the best of her knowledge and belief and that she had taken the
photographs of the injuries that have been made available for us to consider
during this hearing. Dr B in her evidence confirmed that she was concerned
because of the pattern and clustering of the bruising and that finding
bruising on softer parts of the body area is very uncommon for non-accidental
injuries.
|
20.
|
Dr B maintained her opinion that the bruises were caused
by blunt trauma but that it is difficult to be entirely certain of the
mechanism. Dr B could not be certain as to whether the bruises were caused
by a punch or a grip. Dr B concede that in one of the clusters of bruises it
was not the pattern of implement trauma and it was not typical of a hand
print either but she believed that two or three of the smaller bruises could
be due to forcible impact with fingertips. Dr B said that the measurements
would suggest this but that she could not be certain. She would expect it to
have been caused by a stronger person than F but she could not exclude an
adult or a stronger child.
|
21.
|
Dr B confirmed that in her opinion a substantial amount of
force would have been needed to cause the bruises and that the history
provided by the child and the parents did not match what she saw. In her
opinion if the injury had been sustained by part of a swing hitting the arm
then she would have expected a singular and linear injury rather than the
cluster of bruises. Even under cross-examination Dr B maintained her
opinion that the bruises were caused by a non-accidental injury, in her
opinion being hit by part of the swing did not explain any of the bruises she
saw on F.
|
22.
|
When cross-examined on behalf of the first respondent Dr B
accepted that other than the bruises there were no concerns about the child’s
presentation and that having examined F and noted the bruises she decided that
no further medical treatment was needed. Dr B maintained her opinion that
the bruises were sustained in two separate incidents although she accepted
that it was difficult to age bruises.
|
23.
|
When cross-examined by the second respondent Dr B maintained
her opinion that the injuries were out of all proportion to what she would
expect to be sustained in normal play. She confirmed that F had told her
that the bruises on his upper arm happened when he jumped of a swing and it
hit him but he could not give any explanation as to how he sustained the
bruises on his lower arm.
|
24.
|
Dr B was clear in her opinion in respect of the injuries
she saw on F. These injuries were caused by the use of a substantial amount
of force and they would have caused significant discomfort to F, she believed
that there were two separate incidents and she believed that the injuries
were non-accidental injuries. None of the explanations provided by F or his
parents were consistent with the injuries seen.
|
25.
|
The parents accept that when F was examined the bruises
that Dr B has told the court about could be seen on F’s arm. F’s mother
accepted that she probably first saw two bruises on F’s arm on the Sunday
after the incident in the park with the swing. This would be the 13.6.10. F’s
mother told us that she had spoken to F about it but because he was not
concerned about it she wasn't. She told us that she was upset about the
bruises and that she had heard Dr B evidence and accepted it. Mrs G went on
to clarify that she knew that the doctor believed that the bruises were
caused by a non-accidental injury and that someone could have caused the
injuries to F deliberately but it was not her. She still believed the
bruises might have been caused accidentally because F sometimes does things
he shouldn’t do and he often gets bruises. When children of 11 or 12 are
playing they can break arms or noses or get burns this does not mean that the
parents have done this.
|
26.
|
We did find Dr B’s evidence compelling. Dr B maintained her
initial opinion under cross-examination. On the evidence we have summarized
above and applying the relevant test we are satisfied that the threshold
criteria for the making on an interim order are met.
|
27.
|
The Social Worker confirmed her full details and that the
contents of the statement she had filed dated 16.7.10 were true to the best
of her knowledge and belief. She confirmed that she had only known the
family since the 18.6.10 and that she had seen the children on one or two
occasions per week since then. She confirmed that she had seen F on his own
when she first met him and after initially telling the teacher that he didn’t
know how he had got the bruises he then said he got them from when the swing
had hit him. He has maintained this explanation ever since and can’t explain
how he got the bruises to his lower arm. The social worker told us that she
was trying to build up a relationship with F. She had seen him at school,
had transported him to school, has seen him in his foster placement and also
seen him at contact with his parents.
|
28.
|
The social worker confirmed that she found F to be a
confident child who if he had concerns he would tell her about them. He had
told her about a concern at the placement when he was told off for telling
off his sister. The Social Worker told us that F consistently says that he
wants to go home. When asked what he likes most about home he said his
mother and father, he relaxes at home and likes watching television he loves
his mother and his father. The social worker conceded that there were a lot
of positives from the parents care, there were no concerns in terms of the
punctuality and attendance of the children at school and also their
cleanliness and home circumstances. The family was not known to the police
or to Social Care before this incident.
|
29.
|
The social worker confirmed that Social Care relies upon
the evidence of Dr B and the parents’ lack of engagement in the core
assessment to submit that the only order that is appropriate for the court to
make is an interim care order implementing their interim plan of the children
remaining in foster care pending the conclusion of assessments.
|
30.
|
Under cross-examination she accepted that for these
children newly arrived in this country one of whom is not 5 years old and has
limited understanding of this language the removal into foster care and away
from their parents must have been a traumatic experience. There has been
some emotional upset to the children witnessed by the school. N is upset if
a different escort comes to collect her and she is upset at the end of
contact. N relies on her brother for translation in the foster placement.
|
31.
|
The social worker’s position is that leaving the children
at home is too greater risk given the evidence of Dr B.
|
32.
|
The Team Manager Ms J gave evidence confirming her details
and that the contents of her statement were true to the best of her knowledge
and belief.
|
33.
|
Her evidence was on the narrow issue of contact between
the parents and Social Care. She concedes under cross-examination that
certainly the parents had appeared to make efforts to contact the Social
Worker who was unavailable to see them. She accepted that a letter was sent
to parents telling them the next review date would be the 16th
July and she accepted that there appears to have been a breakdown in
communication with the parents which has led to a breakdown in the
relationship between Social Care and the parents.
|
34.
|
Her evidence explained her dealings with the parents’
requests to see the Social Worker or a manager on the 5th, 6th
and 7th July. The Local Authority submits that because of the
parents cancelling two of assessment appointments and withdrawing their
consent to the continued voluntary accommodation of the children this
demonstrates an unwillingness to co-operate with Social Care.
|
35.
|
We have considered her evidence, together with the
concessions made about the breakdown in communication that has occurred, the
language difficulties and we have looked at this together with the parents’
evidence about the efforts they have made to contact the social worker and
talk to her or her manager. The reasons the parents have given in evidence
for withdrawing their consent to the voluntary accommodation namely their
frustrations at the delay in the assessment process and the delay in anything
happening or in anyone talking to them and explaining further the process.
The evidence that they knew that by withdrawing their consent the police
would be called and the children would be removed again but this would lead
to a court hearing within 2 days which would give them an opportunity to
explain their position to someone other than the social worker. The parents’
evidence, which is supported by the Children’s Guardian on this point
persuades us that there is still a willingness on the part of the parents to
co-operate with social services.
|
36.
|
We have also been provided with a number of written
testimonials and references from the parents. The parents also called a
witness Mr J. His evidence related to what he had seen when he shared
accommodation with the family. The references and school reports have
provided us with information about the family and their life in their home
country and in England. Whilst they indicate that the family does have
support networks this evidence has not assisted us with the disputed issues
|
37.
|
The mother gave her evidence well with the assistance of
an interpreter. She explained why the family had come to this country namely
to provide a better standard of living for their family, and why she had come
before the rest of the family. She told us that she had obtained a Batchelor
Degree in Education in her own country but was having to work in a factory in
this country. She told us about the family life while they were staying in
shared accommodation and the tensions that arose between their family and
their landlady. She told us about the incident in the park and what she had
seen. She also told us that she had probably first seen bruises on F on
Sunday the 13th June. She explained to us that because F wasn’t
concerned about these bruises she wasn’t. She had discussed the incident in
the park later that day with her husband. He had been working at home. To
her it was an unremarkable day.
|
38.
|
The mother went into details about her attempts to contact
the social worker and why she had agreed to the voluntary accommodation of
the children and how initially she thought it was just over the weekend but
then she understood from discussions it would be for a short period of time
but then it seemed as if nothing was happening. She explained that she had
not attended the core assessment sessions because she had appointments with
her solicitor to prepare for this court hearing. There had been three lengthy
appointments during the week of the 12th of July.
|
39.
|
The mother under cross-examination accepted Dr B’s
evidence and told us that when she saw the bruises on F she was upset yet she
still thought the bruises could have been caused accidentally.
|
40.
|
The mother told us that she wants her children home, they
will not be at risk, she is happy to allow social care to see them whenever
they want and she will co-operate with any assessment. The assessments can
be done with the children at home because she is certain that is where they
want to be. She told us about how the children were in contact and how their
reactions could not be role play they were genuinely pleased to be with their
parents and did not show any signs of being fearful of them. The evidence
was in fact accepted and confirmed by the social worker who had observed
contact.
|
41.
|
She told us that she hadn’t contacted the school about F’s
bruises because she didn’t know that she had to. F would have told me if he
was having trouble so I was not concerned about the bruises because he
wasn’t. At nearly 12 F would want to sort out his problems but if he was
unable to do so and the problems were continuing he would have come to us and
we would have sorted them out. F is an open child and if something is
bothering him I can tell. I wasn’t looking for bruising the two bruises I
saw were as a result of the swing incident.
Under cross-examination she denied causing the bruising
and was unable to give any other explanation because she had not seen
anything else.
|
42.
|
The father’s evidence was similar to his wife’s. He
accepted that she had told him about the incident in the park. He told us
that he probably saw the bruises on F on the Sunday. It was his wife that
dealt with the medical examination. His evidence confirmed hers in respect
of the attempts made to contact Social Services and the frustrations
experienced by them. He told us that he had not given his consent to the
voluntary accommodation but supported his wife’s decision 100%.
|
43.
|
Under cross-examination he was adamant that he had not
caused the injuries to F.
|
44.
|
He told us that he was concerned the children were being
deprived from their right to a family life and also that their religious
needs were not being met in foster care. It was important to the children
that they attend the nearest Orthodox Church. His evidence in respect of
this was supported by the Children’s Guardian who felt it important that the
Local Authority made provision for their religious needs.
|
45.
|
He told us that the children were suffering in foster
care, they should be with their parents unless there is hard evidence against
them and that if they were returned to their parents care then social care
could visit as often as they want even if that is 24 hours a day 7 days per
week.
|
46.
|
Under cross-examination he did accept that the parents
worked different shifts and that there were times when the children were left
in each parents sole care.
|
47.
|
He asked the court to allow the
children home and he and the family would work with the social services under
an interim supervision order because they have co-operated in the past.
|
48.
|
We heard from the Duty Children’s Guardian Ms MD who
confirmed that she had prepared and initial analysis and recommendations
report for the court dated the 19.7.10. Ms MD confirmed that the contents of
this report were true to the best of her knowledge and belief. She confirmed
that she had been the duty guardian at the court hearing for the emergency
protection order. She confirmed the enquiries that she had made in this case
and told us about the conversations she had with both children’s teachers.
It had not been possible for her to see the children, because it was her
opinion that an in- depth piece of work needed to be done with them rather
than for her to see them for a short time where she felt they may feel
isolated and this would cause them further distress. She accepted that the
children’s wishes and feelings had been consistent and relied upon the evidence
of the Social Worker in this regard.
|
49.
|
Ms MD also confirmed that she had spoken to the foster
carer who explained that the placement was not without difficulties but that
on balance the foster carer though they were settling.
|
50.
|
The Guardian’s clear evidence to us is that she supports
the Local Authority’s application for an interim care order with the children
remaining in foster care. The Guardian is concerned about the level of
contact and supports the parents’ position that this should be increased.
The Guardian welcomed the evidence of the Team Manager that they would look
to promote contact at a level of not less than 2 hours 3 times per week but
also to look at arranging some activity based contact which might be for
longer periods particularly during the school.
|
51.
|
The Guardian told us that she had heard Dr B evidence and
the evidence of the parents and their witness together with the evidence of
the social worker and team manager. The application is for an interim care
order with the plan for children remaining in foster care. Her view is that
clearly F has unexplained injuries which can't be attributed to the
explanations given with the bruising described as significant and the doctor
is clear about the level of force needed and clear it couldn’t be attributed
to a swing and also that F would be in significant discomfort as a result of
these bruises. Her first place is to protect the children which she believes
can only be done by removing them from their parents. Secondly she told us
there is a need to identify the type of assessment and significant cultural
issues together with difficulties with language and lack of understanding.
It was the Guardian’s view that the children should remain in foster care
until the assessments have been completed. The Guardian didn’t feel she
could support an interim supervision order at this stage in light of the
clear evidence of the doctor and the lack of information about whether the
order and support package would safeguard the children.
|
52.
|
We now turn to the need for an order. In reaching our
decision we have had regard to the welfare checklist contained in the
Children Act. We remind ourselves that it is the children’s welfare that
must be our paramount concern. We have carefully considered the impact on
these children of being uprooted from the family home and placed with people
who do not speak their first language and in particular the impact this must
have on N who does not yet speak any English and is barely five years of age.
|
53.
|
We also remind ourselves of the no order principle and the
need to take the least interventionist approach possible. We find ourselves
satisfied that an order is necessary at this stage in the proceedings to
safeguard the welfare of these children. The key decision for us to make is
would and interim supervision order be a proportionate response to the risk
presented or is the risk so great that only an interim care order and
separation of these children from their parents care will adequately safeguard
and protect them.
|
54.
|
In submissions we have been referred to The Case of
L-A( Children) 2009 EWCA Civ 822. The parties submitted an agreed position in
this regard. They relied upon the analysis at paragraph 7 which sets out the
relevant criteria for an interim hearing and our considerations.
|
55.
|
We were also referred to the case of Re D which reminds us
that if the court is to depart from the opinion of the Guardian then the
court must give its reasons for so departing.
|
56.
|
We remind ourselves that the object of an interim order
should normally be to hold the balance so as to cause the least possible harm
to the children and that it is not a step involving any advance judgment of
the final issue of the case. An interim care order may be used as a
temporary measure to safeguard the child’s welfare while sufficient
information is gathered to inform future or final decisions. We believe that
the separation of a child from its parents should only be ordered if the
child’s safety demands interim protection.
|
57.
|
We have been told that repeatedly both children are saying
they want to return home to their parents. F is nearly 12 and his wishes and
feeling must be given greater weight than N’s because of his age and
understanding.
|
58.
|
All the professionals concur that contact is positive with
no anxiety and fear shown on the part of the children and with appropriate
interaction and a close relationship exists between the children and their
parents.
|
59.
|
The parents are educated people. In their evidence to us
we found that they were caring parents who have had a longstanding
relationship for a period of 13 years. The parents take great pride in their
children’s school achievements, record of attendance and their development.
|
60.
|
Despite the parents language difficulties in our judgment
they have shown a willingness to co-operate with the authorities from the
start of this process and have made every attempt to understand the legal
process they are involved in as well as their rights. We are satisfied that
they were frustrated in the delays that have occurred which brought them to
the point of withdrawing consent and welcoming the courts intervention so
that their case can be heard. The Children’s Guardian agrees that their
approach to withdrawing their consent is not indicative of a lack of
co-operation. We are of the belief that whatever order is granted the
parents will continue to work with the Local Authority as they have told us
in their evidence.
|
61.
|
We have found that the threshold criteria are met. It is
not the purpose of this hearing to determine how these injuries were caused.
What we do find is that F has suffered because we have accepted Dr B’s
evidence.
|
62.
|
We accept that there could be a number of possible
explanations for these injuries based on the current evidence before us. The
parents can’t be excluded as perpetrators nor can bullying be excluded or the
action of any other adult or larger child.
|
63.
|
Returning to the second proposition of L-A and the
Guardian and Local Authority’s concerns that the safety of the children is of
great importance hence interim plan for the children to remain in foster
care. We must be mindful that the Local Authority in seeking to justify the
continued removal it must meet a very high standard and at an interim stage
the removal of a child should not be sanctioned unless the child’s safety
requires interim protection.
|
64.
|
In our opinion given the children’s recent move from their
country to England this in itself has been an emotional time for the whole
family. Particularly in the case of the children to have been deprived of
their parents’ emotional support and presence must have been a traumatic
experience. We accept the Guardian’s evidence that being placed in foster
care in a placement where N does not speak the language must be having an
emotional impact on the children. We need to balance the emotional trauma to
the children of maintaining this position with the risk of physical harm to
them if they are returned home. We believe that if they were returned home
the identified risk is manageable by intervention of the social services. We
do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the Local Authority and the
Children’s Guardian that the risks in this case are so great that only removal
into foster care will protect the children. We believe the emotional damage
to the children of continued separation from their parents for a significant
period of time persuades us that on balance we agree with the submissions
made on behalf of the parents.
|
65.
|
We are satisfied on the evidence that the right orders
that are proportionate to the evidence we have heard are interim supervision
orders.
|
66.
|
Accordingly we make interim supervision orders to X
Council in respect of both children. We propose to make those orders to the
next court hearing date. We do agree with the representations on the
allocation and transfer this case to the county court.
|
67.
|
Hear before Lay Magistrates on
the 16th July 2010, 19th July 2010 and the 20th
July 2010.
|