![]() |
[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) >> M v F & Anor [2024] EWFC 371 (B) (17 December 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/371.html Cite as: [2024] EWFC 371 (B) |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
SITTING AT OXFORD
Judgment Date: 17 December 2024 |
B e f o r e :
____________________
| M |
||
| - and - |
||
| F |
||
| - and - |
||
| A, through their Children's Guardian |
____________________
The Applicant, M, represented by: Miss Lavis, Counsel
The First Respondent, F, represented by: Miss Henry, Counsel
The Second Respondent, A, acting through their Children's Guardian, represented by: Ms
Davies,
Counsel
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment is being handed down in private on 17th December 2024. It consists of 20 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge.
Introduction
Background
Parties' positions
Relevant legal considerations
Analysis
a) Summer holidays – where the time that A spends with F during term time flows into week 1 of the school summer holidays, A will spend Friday to Tuesday of that weekend with F, and then of weeks 3 and 5. Where the weekend that A spends with F during term time flows into week 2 of the summer holidays, she will spend Friday to Tuesday or weeks 2 and 4. From summer 2026 this will continue in the same pattern as to which week she spends with F but will extend to a full week in the same pattern. The parties were unable to agree the start times for summer holidays, though the time for A to return to live with M is agreed as 3pm. F proposed a 9am start time, M and the Guardian 2pm. Noting that there is actually an absence of evidence about the potential welfare impact on A of any of the proposals, but F submits that his suggested time was used in summer and October this year, I will order that the difference between the proposed times is broadly split to allow for there to be a properly planned transition for A from the care of M to that of F. The start time for A spending time with F for the summer holidays will therefore be 11.30am.
b) Easter holidays are not agreed between the parties, but I agree that what the Guardian has proposed at D280 is in A's welfare interests. In particular, it links to a major holiday that both M and F agree A really enjoys and F submitted can include "epic" Easter Egg hunts. This addresses the recommendation of the Guardian in her oral evidence to me about the need to link and focus special occasion contact for A to a special event or action as a way of mitigating the impact of further change on her. Therefore, the order will be that the usual term-time alternate weekend with F that falls during the Easter holidays will be extended to run Friday to Tuesday. This is the minimum arrangement for A spending time with F from 2025 onwards, if the summer holiday arrangements above have provided settled arrangements for A then the time A spends with F from Easter 2027 will extend to one week with F by way of an extension to the usual term-time alternate weekend time that A spends with F to run from Friday to Friday, subject to the same 'buffer' time that is specified in relation to Christmas holidays at para e) below.
c) Half-term holidays shall also be as recommended by the Guardian and therefore shall continue as during term time to avoid a reduction in the important 'buffer' time that both Dr Schoeman and the Guardian's evidence demonstrates A needs.
d) In terms of Christmas arrangements, for the key Christmas dates the parties have agreed 26th to 29th December 2024 and 24th December 2025 to 26th December 2025 but have not agreed the remainder of those holidays. Taking into account my findings earlier, for 2024 the time that A will spend with F will be by way of an extension to the time that she would normally spend with him under the term-time alternating weekend pattern, so from 9am on 26th December 2024 to 3pm on 29th December 2024. For 2025 this will be A spending time from 2pm on 24th December 2025 to 9am on 26th December 2025 with F. For the remainder of the Christmas holidays in 2025 the time with F will follow the usual term-time alternating weekend pattern. From 2026 onwards, since by that point A should have moved to spending a week at a time with F during the summer, she should be able to spend longer with him at Christmas providing she has a sufficient buffer between the end of the time that she spends with F and her return to what is hoped to be receiving education in a formal setting. To strike this balance, and noting that school holidays will also normally encompass the new year public holiday, I find that arrangements for Christmas 2026 onwards should allow A to both alternate spending Christmas with each parent (though she should also be able to see her other parent either on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day to exchange gifts and fulfil her need to celebrate Christmas with both of her parents), and be able to spend up to a week with F during the Christmas school holidays but that she must return to live with her mother at least 48 hours prior to the start of the school term to try to provide her with the sort of buffer she needs prior to the start of school. The normal alternating weekend term-time arrangements for A to spend time with F will thus be suspended for the Christmas period from 2026 onwards.
Davies,
the Guardian has highlighted significant concerns about the actions of the Local Authority in this case. The Guardian is of the view that the evidence from the Local Authority still does not demonstrate that they have grasped the seriousness of the situation for this family. She has had significant difficulties contacting the allocated social worker. The Team Manager was not able to provide any evidence to counter this. The Guardian is the one who has coordinated the work with LINK, rather than the Local Authority, and this is a concerning lack of coordination of services in a case where one of the main concerns that one would expect to underpin the necessity of a Child In Need Plan is the need for multi-disciplinary and professional input for the family in light of A's complex needs. The Guardian also noted that the most recent Child and Family Assessment (CAFA) at E9-E20, completed on 25th November 2024, does not accurately reflect work done and focuses heavily on the need for the parents to engage with professionals. As I noted when seeking to clarify the Team Manager's evidence to me, that CAFA also seems to still refer to concerns that were found not to exist in the fact-finding part of the proceedings, for example allegations of physical abuse of A. I heard nothing from the Team Manager to explain those deficiencies, and I was appalled to hear from him that neither he nor the social worker were aware of the fact-finding judgment or outcome in this case. The Guardian in fact told me that the solicitor for A and she herself had sent that judgment to the Local Authority at least three times. The CAFA also failed to acknowledge that M has been engaging in the therapy recommended for her. In a case of high conflict and with parents who focus on inaccurate details it is really not helpful to A to have these sorts of errors, but it is more concerning in terms of what it suggests about a lack of robustness on the part of the Local Authority plan. Put bluntly, if they are not aware of the factual context, they are risking drawing the wrong conclusions about what work is needed to protect A. The Team Manager conceded in cross examination by Ms
Davies
that a Child In Need Plan normally lasts for up to three months, and there is no guarantee that it would not be closed sooner if the Local Authority assessed that the work required under that Plan had been completed. The Guardian in this case recommends that A and her parents need a longer period of professional support to ensure that arrangements for her are settled and that her parents make the necessary changes to protect her from future harm. As noted by the Guardian in her evidence, and by Ms
Davies in her submissions, this is a Local Authority who have also failed to provide required assistance before and the CAFA has failed to include relevant information and input from other professionals and the Plan proposed identifies actions which have already been addressed. As a result of this evidence, and having heard from the Team Manager myself and read the evidence in section E and the two statements produced by the Team Manager, I agree with the Guardian that this family needs robust support from the Local Authority for longer than a Child In Need Plan would usually provide. I also have concerns that the Local Authority needs to ensure that any social worker allocated to work with this family has the right level of experience and expertise in working with complex families and with multiple professional and agency input. A Family Assistance Order is not just to ensure that a family are assisted with contact arrangements - it is also about the Local Authority advising, assisting and (where appropriate) befriending the family. Strikingly, those words of advising and assisting a child are identical to the words used in section 35 of the Children Act when a Supervision Order is made. And the evidence in this case overwhelmingly shows that this family need professional advice and support to tackle the issues that have led to the conflict which has been so harmful for A. In light of this, I have no hesitation in concluding that a Family Assistance Order is necessary and proportionate in this case, appointing the Local Authority to assign an officer under that order, and that the duration of the order should be for the maximum 12 months given the length of these proceedings and the duration of the conflict between the parents. M consents to the making of this order and, since I have found it necessary, F was also clear through Ms Henry that he consents too. A lives in the area of Oxfordshire County Council so the consent of the Local Authority is not required to make the order.
Conclusions
HHJ Owens
17th December 2024