Case No. LV21C01158

Courtroom No. 2535 Vernon StreetLiverpoolL2 2BX12.04pm – 2.02pmBefore:HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKERSITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT PURSUANT TO SECTION 9(1) SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981B E T W E E N: A LOCAL AUTHORITYandC AND FMISS N ROSS appeared on behalf of the ApplicantMISS EDMUNDS appeared on behalf of the Respondent MotherMR POVOAS appeared on behalf of the Respondent StepfatherMS SCARISBRICK appeared on behalf of the Child through his GuardianJUDGMENTThis Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.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.HHJ PARKER: 1.I am dealing with a child called A. He was born on 8 June 2014 and is aged eight. He appears through the Children’s Guardian and B and is represented by Ms Scarisbrick. A is a Gabonese international. He arrived in this country speaking Gabonese French.2.The Local Authority are represented by Miss Ross. They apply for a care order in respect to A on the basis of a care plan of long-term foster care. The plan is for A to remain with his current foster career. He will also continue to enjoy contact with his father and his mother, and I will say more about that later in this judgment.3.The mother is C, and she is represented by Miss Edmunds. She is a Gabonese international who also speaks Gabonese French. She opposes the Local Authority plan and wishes to have A returned to live with her in Gabon or alternatively to be placed with D, who she says is her uncle. 4.A man called E appears on A’s birth certificate as his father. However, the mother claims that his father is actually a Polish national who cannot be identified due to the lack of details provided by the mother. 5.F is the mother’s husband. He was married to the mother in Gabon by way of local custom in July 2015 and by way of a civil ceremony in November 2015. He appears to have parental responsibility for A by virtue of a parental responsibility order made in Gabon. He is represented by Mr Povoas. He does not oppose the Local Authority plan and agrees threshold, save in one narrow aspect. The Children’s Guardian also supports the Local Authority plan. 6.The background is set out in the judgment of MacDonald J in his judgment on jurisdiction, which is reported at [Warrington Borough Council v W (Care Proceedings: Jurisdiction) [2021] EWFC 68]. That can be found at paragraphs one to 21 of his judgment, and I need not repeat it here. 7.The matter has been listed as a composite final hearing before me, which took place between 13 and 17 June, and I now deliver an oral judgment on 4 July 2022. In reaching my judgment, I have had the benefit of an extensive bundle of documents with additional documents that have been sent through to me through the currency of the case. I have also had very helpful written submissions from each of the parties.8.I also heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses and the key parts of their evidence are summarised below where I make a comment or express a judgment about their evidence or any part of it that follows a holistic evaluation of all the evidence presented to me in the case. 9.The Gabonese Embassy were notified of these proceedings by email on 14 April 2021 from the Local Authority. A response from the embassy was received on 23 June 2021 in the following terms:“The embassy would also like to indicate that at this point in time, as much as it is deeply concerned about this situation, it will not seek to have a representative attend the next hearing on 9 July 2021 but will carry on working very closely with you in order to preserve the best interests of the child”. 10.It transpired that there had been no further correspondence between the Local Authority and the embassy from then. I directed the Local Authority to further notify the embassy during the currency of this final hearing. The Local Authority received no response. 11.The solicitors for the mother also attempted communication but were told that the person who would deal with it was not in the office. Having heard submissions from Miss Edmunds, it was agreed by all parties that an appropriate course would be for the Court to proceed to hear supplemental oral submissions on day five, the Court having received written submissions that morning, and to give the embassy until 4pm Tuesday 21 June to indicate whether it wished to be heard. 12.If no such indication was given by then the Court should simply proceed to formulate its judgment and deliver it. If the embassy did indicate or wish to be heard, then the Court would accommodate that and also give the advocates the opportunity to supplement their closing submissions having heard the views of the embassy. Suffice it to say they have not been asked to be heard.