Case No. SA21C50004

London, WC2A 2LLBefore:MS JUSTICE RUSSELL DBEBetween:Lucy Leader (Counsel) (instructed by Lucy Moore of the City & County of Swansea) for the Applicant Local AuthorityRhys Jones (Counsel) (instructed by Vici Clarke of CJHH Solicitors) for the 1st Respondent MXMatthew Rees (Counsel) (Instructed by Caroline Davies of T Llewelyn Jones Solicitors) for the 2nd Respondent FZ (father of F)Cennydd Richards (Counsel) (Instructed by Josie Rogers of GEP Legal Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent F (by her Guardian)Hearing dates: 17th, 18th &19th January 2023A further hearing took place on 6th February 3023Approved JudgmentThis 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.The Honourable Ms Justice Russell DBE:Introduction & previous findings1.These have been complex public law proceedings of which this is the final judgment in respect of the welfare of the youngest of the subject children, F, who is now three and a half years old. The proceedings started as private law proceedings involving six children of varying ages of 3 inter-connected families. The Court handed down a fact-finding judgment in March 2022; multiple findings were made in respect of all the children and the s31 threshold of the Children Act (CA) 1989 crossed. Those findings included findings made against the parents (MX and FZ) of F, the subject child of this judgment. Final orders were made in respect of E (who is not related to MX, FZ or F) on 5th July 2022 and care orders in respect of her four older siblings on 9th September 2022. All those orders were made by consent.2.These public law proceedings were issued by the Local Authority as it was already involved in the private law cases; the situation for the children had deteriorated to the extent that the four older siblings of F had to be accommodated by social services. E remained with her mother, as did F because she was still an infant. MX had been living with FZ, who moved out to ensure that F was able to remain with her mother. To protect the children the identities of the children and their families have been remain anonymised.3.As I have said above, this judgment concerns only F, a little girl of now three and a half whose mother is MX and father FZ. It is essential that the judgment is considered in the context of the facts already found but I shall not rehearse all of my previous decisions here; in brief the background is that MX had previously lived with her husband FX and their four children. F was born following MX’s relationship with FZ which began shortly after FX had left the family home and moved in with the mother of E. The four children of MX and FX remained living with their mother but visited their father and would stay with him at the home of E and her mother. It was when they were there in July 2020 that the four children (F’s older half-siblings) complained of domestic abuse at their mother’s home perpetrated by FZ. They complained that FZ had also abused them.4.This judgment, then, is to be read in conjunction with the fact-finding judgment of the Court [Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EWFC 12], to which I shall return but, in brief, the relationship MX and FZ was found to be one by blighted by domestic abuse. Although there was physical abuse, it was not only that but also the coercive and controlling behaviour of FZ that extended to the children which crossed the s31CA 1989 threshold. MX was herself found to be the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by FZ and she was found to have failed to protect the children from the behaviour and abuse of FZ and to have neglected and abused them herself. MX made limited concessions at the end of the fact-finding hearing, but she has since effectively retracted some if not most of those concessions and in any case MX has consistently demonstrated little if any insight into the harmful effects of their upbringing on her older four children who are all the subjects of care orders. MX has always vociferously denied that FZ has been violent and she continues to deny the extent of his abuse both to herself and to her children.5.When FZ moved out of what had been the home of MX and her five children in February 2021 it was only F, then an infant, who remained in her mother’s care; her older siblings were accommodated by the Local Authority. It was considered that it was in the best interests of the four older children (A, B, C & D) to be placed outside the family; all five children, including F, were made the subjects of interim care orders. F remains subject to such an order with the Local Authority sharing parental responsibility. After the fact-finding judgement was handed down, both MX and FZ refused to accept the findings made and this remains their position in February 2023. At the time of the final hearing in January 2023, FZ was refusing to take up his contact with F, and had not done so since before Christmas in December 2022; he said that he found it too distressing. The Local Authority’s care plan is supported by F’s guardian: it is that F should be placed within her father’s family with her paternal uncle and his partner in the West of England. There has been a thorough and positive assessment of this kinship placement. Thus I do not have to consider F being placed permanently outside her family (see under Law below).6.I must now make reference to matters that arose on 2nd February 2023, after the final welfare hearing in January 2023 and on the day the parties’ counsel were to submit their final submissions. On 2nd February it was brought to the attention of the social work team manager (MW) that an Assessor Practitioner from Local Primary Mental Health Support Services (CJ) had just spoken to FZ who was described as being in an emotional state; he had made threats against social workers, FX (MX’s ex-husband) and his partner. MW made a statement dated 3rd February 2023 which has been provided to the Court and to the parties in which it was reported that he had told CJ “I am living here, but I shouldn’t be. I am not meant to, because I am classed as a danger to children. I do have supervised contact with [F]”. CJ asked FZ to confirm this address that he said he was living at and he had given MX’s address. FZ confirmed this as F’s address and said “I shouldn’t be here, they wouldn’t re-house me during Covid, I had nowhere to go”. CJ explained that she has a duty of care to report this to safeguarding to which FZ responded “I am not living there now, can you just forget I said that”. CJ reiterated that she had a duty of care to report it, to which he said “I understand. My life has gone now honestly, they will take [F] from us straight away, there is no point now. I don’t see the point now in carrying on with this”. CJ has since made a statement herself to this effect, it is dated the 7th February 2023 and has been filed and served.7.On Friday 3rd February, the matter went before the Designated Family Judge at the local Family Court. He approved the Local Authority’s interim care plan and F was removed from MX’s care and placed with her paternal aunt and uncle where she currently remains pending the final decision of the Court. The case came before me on Monday 6th February 2023; I too approved the interim plan and F was left in the placement with her paternal aunt and uncle where, I was told, she had begun to settle. I considered it was not in her best interests to be subject to two precipitate moves in such quick succession and a possible third move when judgment is given. I have made it clear that the Court’s final decision will be decided on the evidence I heard in January 2023 and the previous fact-finding decisions of the Court as a whole and not on events which took place at the beginning of February. The decision in respect of F’s welfare and future placement cannot be decided on evidence which has not been challenged in court and in any case the events of 2nd February 2023 would not even if proved constitute of themselves sufficient reason for the ultimate decision this Court must make.8.At the hearing in January 2023, which had been adjourned part-heard from September 2022 to allow for further assessment of MX (having heard from the expert witness Dr White in September 2022: see below), I heard from MX and FZ; on behalf of the Local Authority I heard from the social worker and I heard from F’s guardian. I shall return to their evidence below.9.As I have said, this is the final welfare hearing in this case. Of the six subject children final orders have been made in respect of all five older children; a final supervision order was made in respect of E who had always lived with and remains with her mother first, followed by final care orders made in respect of A, B, C and D in September 2022. These care orders were not opposed by FX and MX agreed that her older four children would remain in Local Authority care. The care orders were made on 9th September 2022. 10.At the time of the September 2022 hearing MX and FZ were still in a relationship but assured me that they had not lived together in the former family home since FZ moved out in February 2022, which he had done to ensure F could remain with her mother. It is not in dispute that when FZ moved out it was not because he and MX felt there were any real reasons for him to do so but because they felt they were given no choice and that if FZ remained in the home F would inevitably be removed. In other words, it has been clear that for the past two years their motivation for living separately has had nothing to do with what they themselves wanted or understood to be necessary; quite the reverse. From what the Court is able to make out as it is not clear from his evidence, it is FZ’s case has been living on and off with a sister of MX and her husband AS. AS featured in the fact-finding judgment when it was found he had been overinvolved in the case and in the hostilities between the family of MX’s and FX.