![FD25P00127/ZC25C50084 - [2025] EWHC 2040 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
Fact Finding
Fact Finding
Turning then to the disputed facts. Much of the hearing was taken up with the factual disputes between the applicant and Mrs Z. Normally I summarise the written and oral evidence of the witnesses, but having reflected it is not necessary to do so, as the facts were clear by the end of the hearing and there was no real dispute between the parties.
The applicant’s schedule of facts and the mother’s responses are set out below. Mrs Z’s responses on factual matters are straightforward and largely true. She has, however, failed to realise the impact on her son of her neglect.
At the time care proceedings were issued on 18 February 2025 (all facts averred below are averred to be true to that date, unless otherwise stated), for the following reasons, [ZE] was suffering, and was likely to suffer, significant harm and that harm was attributable to the care given to him or likely to be given to him, if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give, and would likely do so were ZE to return to his mother’s care.
Response
The mother does not accept that ZE has suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care she was able to give him. The mother does not in any event accept that this is the appropriate test to be applied as the case is now within wardship and as such the threshold test within the Children Act 1989 is not determinative.
Failure to meet ZE’s medical needs
ZE has a heart condition, Sinus Tachycardia. Ms Z failed to engage with the cardiology team or take ZE for a medical review since 2019. Due to Ms Z failure to take ZE to his appointment, ZE was discharged from cardiology in 2022.
ZE was not been seen by any health professional including his GP since 2019 despite his know heart condition.
Response
The mother denies that she has failed to engage with the cardiology team or other mental health professionals. It is evident from the documents filed by the local authority that this assertion is not true.
Neglect and emotional harm due to Ms Z Mental Health
ZE was out of education since 2017 when Ms Z removed ZE from school. Ms Z since refused to engage with the Elective Home Educations Team or provide ZE with a formal education.
Response
The mother denies that ZE was out of education since 2017. She accepts that he was out of formal education since that time but that she was home schooling him.
The home environment was in very poor condition. In August 2024 a referral was received from the Fire Bridge reporting severe hoarding and significant black mould on all the walls.
Response
The mother accepts that the home environment was in a very poor condition. The mother was trying to secure alternative accommodation for herself and her sons.
ZE was socially isolated and spent most of his time sleeping or playing games consoles. Ms Z provided ZE with no social opportunities and or supported/encouraged activities, services and experiences which would benefit ZE.
Response
The mother denies that ZE was socially isolated, he had many on-line friends and he also went out with his two brothers. He also had contact with his father and with him met up with his paternal family members.
The home was (and remains) overcrowded. ZE shared a bedroom with Ms Z which was locked at night. Ms Z was offered alternative accommodation, but this was refused by Ms Z.
Response
The mother accepts that the home was overcrowded and as already stated the mother was trying to secure larger and more suitable accommodation. Alternative accommodation was offered but was not suitable. The mother accepts that she did from time to time share a bedroom with ZE. The mother accepts that there were locks (bolts) on the internal rooms. This was because the front door was insecure after an intruder tried to gain access. The bolts would not prevent anyone leaving a room, rather they provided protection from intruders.
Ms Z has a history of delusional paranoia. Ms Z continues not to accept that she has mental health difficulties and continues to refuse to engage with CMHT or court assessments of her mental health.
Response
The mother does not accept that she has a history of delusional paranoia or other mental health difficulties and so does not consider it necessary or appropriate to engage with the CMHT.
On 22.08.24, Ms Z was sectioned under S3 of the Mental Health Act and admitted to the [M] Unit. ZE was placed under police protection.
Response
The mother denies being sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act as alleged. The mother was sectioned under section 2 of that act for assessment and successfully appealed to the First Tier tribunal against her section. She was discharged on 06.09.24, 15 days after the original section was made.
Ms Z failure to address her mental health issues continues to impact on her ability to parent ZE.
Response
The mother engaged fully with the [M] Unit as is evident from the Tribunal decision. She denies that she has mental health issues and so does not have anything to address. She denies that there is anything to prevent her from being able to parent ZE.
Removal of ZE from the Mother
On 07.03.25, when ZE was removed from Ms Z’s care, upon arrival Ms Z was armed with a meat cleaver and hammer which were taken from her by police officers. Police officers had to restrain Ms Z in order to gain access to ZE.
Response
The mother was not ‘armed’ with a meat cleaver and hammer as alleged. There were those items within the home close to the door but at no time did she pick up or attempt to pick up the items and the police report records that there were no threats during the incident. The mother does accept that a police officer did hold her by her arm for a few moments but this was not because the mother had threatened or assaulted any of those attending the home.
Mother’s Non engagement with professionals
Despite extensive efforts Ms Z failed to work with CMHT, children social services or the child protection process, and has failed to fully engage with these proceedings.
Response
The mother denies that she has failed to engage in these proceedings. She has attended every hearing since ZE was removed and has instructed solicitors. The mother accepts that she has not worked with the CMHT, this is because there is no need for her to work with that team. In relation to children’s social service and the child protection process, the mother has found the local authority’s involvement as being extremely unhelpful as they continuously focus on her mental health when this is not justified.
As I have said, Mrs Z was a straightforward and honest witness. The documentation which has now been produced, but was not available to the applicant earlier (although it plainly should have been) fills in further blanks. The following facts are derived from, the evidence:
Mrs Z removed ZE from school in 2017. He never returned to formal education. Given the opportunity, ZE has now, with his father’s help, enrolled himself in college and will commence formal education once more in September 2025.
His mother tried to home educate him. She engaged on and off with the EHE Team. She has produced evidence of Key Stage Three education in the home setting but nothing further.
Whilst in his mother’s care, ZE had no friends other than on-line friends.
ZE lived with his mother in a cramped and mouldy flat.
ZE shared a bedroom and a bed with his mother until the age of sixteen.
ZE was taken to medical appointments sporadically over the years. His cardiology team discharged him in 2022 after he repeatedly missed appointments.
Mrs Z has wondered whether her neighbours have practised witchcraft on her. She was detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for two weeks for assessment but was released by the First-tier Tribunal on her own application. She was not found to be suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warranted detention for assessment.
Mrs Z’s response to professionals has been variable.
The applicant’s response to ZE’s neglect has been variable.
Mrs Z was not armed with a meat cleaver and a hammer when the police entered her home.
The applicant placed incorrect and incomplete information before DJ Hudd in March 2025 which led to the recovery order being made.
The applicant continued to ask this court to make findings which were obviously wrong up to the final hearing in this matter.
These conclusions are clear from the evidence. They are not really disputed. No further reasons are required as the parties know why these are my findings. Given the long history of neglect, it is hard to understand both the sudden ‘urgency’ and the requirement for eight police officers being required to use force to enter the home and remove ZE in March 2025. I did not find the applicant’s case clear on this issue. It was harmful for ZE. Mrs Z accepted she made the situation worse and was right to apologise in the witness box. The applicant’s team also need to reflect on its role.