 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Plymouth City Council v M & Ors [2023] EWFC 345 (B) (19 January 2023) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2023/345.html Cite as: [2023] EWFC 345 (B) |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
be published on condition that in any report, no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name, current address or location [including school or work place]. In particular the anonymity of the children and the members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that these conditions are strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. For the avoidance of doubt, the strict prohibition on publishing the names and current addresses of the parties will continue to apply where that information has been obtained by using the contents of this judgment to discover information already in the public domain.| 2023] EWFC 345 (B) | ||
| 2023 |
B e f o r e :
____________________
| Plymouth City Council |
Applicant |
|
| - and - |
||
| M |
First Respondent |
|
| and |
||
| F2 |
Second Respondent |
|
| and |
||
| F1 |
Third Respondent |
|
| and |
||
| A,B and C Through their Children's Guardian Liza Barry | Fourth-Sixth Respondents |
____________________
For the Applicant : Jennifer Phillips, Counsel
For the First Respondent : Christopher Godfrey, Counsel
For the Second Respondent : Rachael Parkhouse, Counsel.
For the Fourth to Sixthh Respondents : Philip Thorneycroft, Counsel.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
being handed down in private on 19th January 2023.. HER HONOUR JUDGE SEARLE:
boys: B and C. B and C are both under the age of 8 and attend primary school.. They are the children of M their mother, and F2 their father.
by their older half-sister A against primarily the father. Those allegations led to a fact-finding where findings were made that reflect, in this court's view, one of the worst cases seen of abuse of a child. It included findings of physical assault, sexual assault, coercion and control, and emotional harm. A, who was brave enough to bring her allegations to the attention of professionals and eventually the local authority, was the victim of those findings. This judgment should be read alongside the schedule of findings made.
been hoped that at the IRH listed on 13 January the court would be able to make final orders. However, although the care plan of the local authority was that the two boys should be made subject to care orders, and although that care plan was supported by the guardian and by the mother, the previous order listing that IRH on 13 January did not make it plain on the face of the order that if any party was absent for that hearing, final orders may be made.
been a lack of engagement on the part of the father and although the father's solicitors had left messages for the father that final orders might be made at the IRH in his absence there was no order stating that. it was felt safer to ensure that an order was made setting that out so that that order could be served on the father . Therefore the matter was adjourned to a one hour hearing before me today.
been attended by the local authority through counsel, the mother through counsel, the father is not present, and the guardian is represented through a solicitor.
before the court setting out the efforts made to contact the father ..
been confirmed to me through counsel this morning that the mobile number that was used, has been contacted repeatedly but to no avail. The court being told that it is a mobile number that historically has been used by the father to communicate with his solicitor about court proceedings.
been made to contact the father to ensure that he is aware of what is going on within these court proceedings . The court notes at para.4 of that statement that there was an indication on the phone that was used to send the message that the message had, in fact, been read. However, the father himself has kept in the shadows. He has made sure that he has not been active in engaging with his solicitor.
being required to make final orders whether there should be an adjournment. Ms Parkhouse, who has represented the father throughout, albeit being led by then Queen's Counsel for the fact-finding, attended on the last occasion. She is without instructions and she is not in a position to ask for an adjournment as she has no instructions as to why father is not present and not able to give instructions.
been involved. This father, the court has found, has tried to deceive those who have engaged with him with regard to his ability to engage.
been as extraordinary case. The court recalls that within the fact-finding, there were numerous occasions when the father attempted to avoid engagement by claiming that he was sick or unable to engage, but those claims were found to be on all occasions, completely untrue. This court has no doubt that the reality of the situation now is that the father simply chooses not to engage and it is possible that the father just wants to delay matters. The court is aware that criminal proceedings have been started against the father and the court has been informed that even at the last criminal hearing, the father attended so late that, effectively, no proper court work and decisions could be made within that hearing.
being adjourned. Every effort has been made to give him notice of this hearing . The court reminds itself that under the Children Act 1989 that these children are its paramount concern and that delay, as a general principle, is not in the interests of these children. Therefore, I am satisfied, and it will be recorded, that the court being satisfied that the father's team has done everything it can to contact the father .
back into this remote hearing, she informed the court that : She had spoken to her instructing solicitor and that her instructions were that F2 has been in hospital; that he is now no longer in hospital ; that he is able to give instructions; that he does not oppose the making of the care order and wishes that the children be told that he loves them .
being known by the surname of their foster carer, which the court notes is not technically an application to change their surnames, Ms Parkhouse informed the court that the father was not particularly happy
be adjourned There was no application behalf of the father for an adjournment. There is perhaps a slight ambiguity with regard to the father's instructions with regard to the applications 2 and 3, but the court's view is that there has been ample time for the father to give instructions and that, in any event, the merits of this would suggest that orders need to be made.
been given proper notice of this hearing. He knows that the hearing is taking place and he knows that final orders are taking place. I therefore proceed to consider the applications before me.
both B and C. The guardian agrees, and the father's position we now hear is that he does not oppose.
be satisfied that threshold is met. Here, the findings clearly cross threshold. The court considers the Children Act 1989 and reminds itself that each child is its paramount concern, that delay as a general principle is not in the interests of the child.
been a parenting assessment of the mother but the mother does not stand in the way of these orders and stands back from proposing to care for these children. I have read the final statement of the social worker which is supportive of the placement and read the final care plan and the guardian's analysis.
boys. The mother no longer puts herself forward as a carer. They have a relationship with the mother and it is agreed that the contact will be set at six times a year for two hours.
be care orders. There will be a regular statutory meetings in order to keep contact under review .
boys. I therefore have no hesitation in approving the care plan and making full care orders in relation to both children.
but that they should be known by the surname of their foster carer. Considering the welfare checklist, the overwhelming need of these boys is to have a loving, healthy, calm existence. . The court notes that the application has been made in view of the pending criminal trial of the father, on the basis that if the children continued to be known by their father's surname – its unusual spelling would put the boys at risk of being associated with harmful headlines .
been seen in this court . That view was also expressed by other legal representatives in court. This court has no doubt that there is a real risk that when criminal proceedings start properly that there will be much publicity and that those who bear the same name, are at risk of being associated with the horrors of this case. I consider the welfare checklist, consider and conclude that it is in these children's welfare interests to be known now by the name of the foster carer.
by the guardian on behalf of A. In my judgment in the fact finding hearing, I indicated that she should be given credit for what she has done in bringing these allegations to the attention of professionals. There is no doubt on the part of this court that she has suffered hugely whilst being in F2's household. The application is made on the basis that it is right that she has an opportunity of seeking advice and that she needs to have access to the papers and needs to be able to show the papers with her advisers at Enable Law.
25 The court looks at the prejudice that there would be to any of the parties. The local authority supports this application. The mother supports this application. The guardian supports this application.
be known by a different surname means that although their involvement and their presence at the time of abuse is noted in the papers which is prejudicial to them, the court's view is that it is of limited prejudice on the basis that no one would be able to identify who those boys are because of the fact they will be known by a different name.
but it is necessary to consider his views as he is mentioned at length in the case papers. When dealing with the position of the prejudice to F2, the reality is that there is going to be publicity as a result of the criminal proceedings. I anticipate that much of the detail will be splashed across the press. I cannot see, therefore, that to the extent that he is prejudiced, that there is anything more than minimal prejudice to him for any details to be provided to Enable Law.
birth father. He has parental responsibility. I have been informed that attempts have been made to contact him but there has been no response
been reminded this morning of the very limited references to F1 which are his position statement of 10 November 2022 and his parenting assessment of him of October 2022. It is accepted that such documents would not be relevant for the purposes of Enable Law and they will be deleted. Therefore, there is no prejudice to F1 in any event .
be disclosed to Enable Law in order that they may advise her about possible legal redress.