This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: BB14C 00155
IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT LEYLAND

Leyland Courthouse
Preston
11/06/2015
B e f o r e :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE DUGGAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
	Lancashire County Council	Applicant	
	- and -		
	P	Respondents	

LANCASHIRE CC v P (injured child; welfare stage)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGEMENT
His Honour Judge Duggan
1.	On 10 April 2015 I found that T, the younger child of this family had suffered injuries inflicted by one or both of her parents in Burnley. The full details are set out in my reported judgement, see Bailii website [2015] EWFC B37. In this second stage of the case I determine the future of both T born in 2014 and L born in 2012. The welfare of the children is my paramount concern. 

2.	The finding of the court was that T had sustained a metaphyseal fracture to the femur and bruising to 3 separate parts of her body. It was not possible to identify which of the parents was the more probable perpetrator but I found that these were inflicted injuries indicating frustration and rough handling in a difficult domestic setting. I found that any non-perpetrator knew what the perpetrator had done but had concealed this out of a sense of loyalty. In a short judgement on 12 May 2015 I clarified that the risk I perceived was that without support, full-time care of two children would produce another dangerous incident of frustration and rough handling. This was not a family of habitual child abusers in which the parents were looking for an opportunity to torture their children. The local authority commissioned an assessment from an independent social worker Deborah Pedder. She recommends that the children return to their parents with a strict support program under a Care Order. The parents urge me to accept this recommendation. The local authority do not accept it and would prefer that the children remain with their maternal aunt, under a Care Order. This is acceptable to the aunt who is not criticised by the parents in any way. However she would prefer to see the children in the parents’ home. The Children’s Guardian supports the position of the local authority.

3.	The relevant material has been assembled in bundles with which I am familiar. I have heard oral evidence from the local authority social worker, from Ms Pedder, the parents and the Children’s Guardian. I have already referred to the welfare principle and I have the welfare check list in the forefront of my mind. My task is to determine whether it is necessary and proportionate for the children to live away from the parents.

4.	As during the fact-finding hearing, I have followed advice as to how the mother can be assisted to overcome the anxiety which arises from her autism and dyspraxia.

5.	The parents assert that they accept my judgement but in truth neither accepts responsibility for the injury or blames the other. Very significant is their attitude to my finding that the injuries arose from frustration in a difficult domestic setting. The father clearly rejects this. Paragraph 6 on page C 95 is only the start of a consistent presentation in which he told me that he was not conscious that childcare was a struggle in this household where there were no major issues. The mother has recognised that she had problems implementing boundaries for L who was exposed to inconsistency between the parents. She has also recognised that she suffered from a lack of confidence with the children.  Ms Pedder explored this and records the parents asserting that they did not find parenting their children stressful. They did acknowledge that L had begun to present challenges to the mother, for example getting him into his own bed. Caring for L and T was not untypically stressful and they generally felt that family life was stable. In oral evidence both parents minimised the concerns I expressed in my original judgement as to the lack of support following the birth of T. 

6.	In developing a support plan the assessment turned to the identification of periods in the day which were more likely to be stressful. Morning, evening and bath time were identified as periods for support but the parents’ evidence was low key and did not acknowledge that these were periods creating a risk of harm. The tone is set by the mother’s statement at C130 where she refers to “support at the trickier/busier times of the day”. Even the mother’s recognition of boundary issues for L carried with it no acknowledgement of any impact for T.

7.	These injuries were an unexpected occurrence in this family. There was a favourable core assessment in 2012 and the case was closed. The health visitor had no reason to be concerned, describing a support network and a bond between parents and children. The parenting assessment reflects the general view that the parents have a committed, stable relationship. There are secure attachments with the children and contact sessions are warm and natural. Home conditions are good. The parents have cooperated with the authorities. The parents have fully engaged with the Reedley Children’s Centre and further assistance is available from that source. The mother’s early life was difficult but the assessment identifies protective factors at E228.

8.	The support plan has high expectations of family members. They would provide support and report any concerns. Acceptance of the judgement is asserted but this is a particularly difficult area of the family members in the context of the attitude of the parents. Different family members at different times have indicated their faith in the parents with one raising her own theory that injuries were caused by co-sleeping. It must be very difficult for them to proceed on the basis that the parents are lying.

9.	A particularly important role is proposed for A who has offered to move in with the parents. This is a selfless gesture of generosity motivated by concern for the children. Her acceptance of the judgement is undermined by her misinterpretation of the supplementary judgement which she believes concluded that the parents were not child abusers. If she was required to report a cause for concern the difficulties she would face should not be underestimated. Her boyfriend is a brother of the mother. This is a close family committed to the return of the children to their parents. The maternal grandfather was a powerful figure at the outset and I was forced to make findings of dishonesty against both grandparents in the original judgement. The grandfather’s rejection of social services continued at a recent encounter. When A was interviewed by the social worker she saw fit to make a covert recording. The evidence establishes that this was instigated by family members upset by the challenging approach taken by the social worker. I am clear that the social worker was seeking an unrealistically high level of commitment at this time. There seems to have been over reaction to the original fact finding judgement. However the trusted protective role offered by A is undermined by her covert recording of the session at the instigation of critical family members. It is also troubling that she lied to the social worker when asked what she was prepared to do. The aunt is of course trusted to be the carer for the children but if the children return, her part in the support plan is limited to occasional visits.

10.	Deborah Pedder is a highly regarded author of assessment reports. She completed the assessment work for the local authority while her critics only spoke to individuals and did not gain her overview. She acknowledges that the risks remain in the context of the history of injury. However she concludes that the risks can be managed by the provision of support for the parents and the part-time presence of protective adults. I agree that any more input into her plan in its final form would be unrealistic. Equally the local authority’s preference for 24 hour supervision fails to reflect my judgement as to the nature of the risk. 

11.	I cannot accept Ms Pedder’s belief that there is sufficient acknowledgement of the events of November 2014. At E 261 she appears to accept rather than condemn the parents’ denial of assault. At E 265 she praises the parents for honesty and not minimising concerns. This is not my analysis. The parents remain essentially dishonest about the injury which makes them unreliable in work with the local authority. They cannot be trusted to report problems themselves. When the parents continue to lie and mislead, the challenge for these protective adults is too high. It is not enough that protective persons do not rule out inflicted injury. It is established that the family dynamic undermines their crucial role.

12.	I accept that it may be possible to address the deeper causes of the injury without an admission of guilt. However the account of life at home is not consistent with the stress related incident she is working to avoid. It is not realistic to address high level domestic stress as the deemed cause of the infliction of injury without acknowledgement of that degree of stress and of the need to change it. 

13.	There are only two realistic options, returning the children to the parents or leaving them with their aunt. They are settled with their aunt although L clearly misses his parents. I accept the Guardian’s advice that there is nothing to indicate he is not coping with the separation. Contact will mitigate the position and this is a family placement but this does not have the inherent advantages of a placement at home. Difficult issues lie ahead explaining why. 

14.	The disadvantage of return to the parents is the likelihood of significant harm. The harm was serious and is firmly based in my previous finding of injuries to a three-month-old baby including a fracture. The parental denial not only of what they did, but of the circumstances leading up to the event make it difficult to work to avoid repetition. I have found the proposed support plan to be inadequate. The children remain young and vulnerable so without relevant change the risk of repetition is unacceptably high.

15.	I conclude that the local authorities plan is necessary and proportionate. The best interests of the children will be served by remaining with their aunt.

16.	The proposal is that parental contact be gradually reduced and kept under regular review. The local authority have been persuaded by the Guardian to work initially towards a frequency of once a fortnight. I am asked to find that this is insufficient. There is a need for the children to settle permanently in their new home and excessive contact will obstruct this process. However L asks about contact every day and is disappointed on non contact days. There is probably a conflict between the needs of the children although it would be difficult to treat them differently. The local authority recognise the need to keep this difficult issue under review. Any order would involve speculation as to how L will react to the reduction process. I urge the local authority to pause and question the need for further reduction when their reduction program reaches a frequency of once a week. Under the proposed care order they are obliged to provide reasonable contact.

17.	Conclusion

The threshold for public law orders is clearly met by the findings I made in April. I have approved the local authority plan and accordingly I grant the Care Orders necessary for its implementation. I have distributed an order in draft and invite consideration as to the precise terms.

Approved 11.6.15
RD