N-F (Children), Re

Lord Justice Thorpe:

The local authority in Somerset have been burdened for 20 years or so by a troublesome family. The parents are at a very low level on the scale of cognitive competence, and the children born to their relationship are five in number: T, R, C, Tk, L and W. The parents have also children by earlier relationships, and any recording of the performance of these children and of the parents in caring for the children suggest that the prospects for C, Tk, L and W are pretty poor. So the local authority were moved to action, and on 29 October of last year there was a Public Law Outline meeting. A care order application in relation to all four children was issued in December, and the management of the case was the subject of an attempted consensual resolution when the local authority drew up a list of their requirements of the parents and an agreement to incorporate that list for the signature of the parents to enable the three youngest children to remain in the home. The local authority were in no doubt that C had to move into foster care, but they were prepared to leave the three youngest children where they were if the parents signed up to the contract.

The Guardian saw a clear distinction between the risks to C and Tk and the risks to L and W, so the Guardian would have drawn the line under Tk and not above Tk, as the local authority proposed. However, the distinction in their respective assessments fell to no import when the mother point blank refused to sign any sort of agreement with the local authority, and the father produced a response which indicated his disinclination to sign up to not only the requirements that were arguably unreasonably extensive but also to requirements that were clearly in the children’s interests.

So there was, therefore, a contested interim hearing before HHJ Stephen O’Malley in the Taunton County Court. He heard evidence from two social workers on behalf of the local authority, the mother and the Guardian. The father’s performance was far from impressive, since he lurked in the building and did not show his face before the judge.

At the hearing on 5 February the judge made the order and delivered the judgement that reviewed the three days of evidence he had heard. He granted the interim care order in relation to both C and Tk, no doubt to the relief of the Guardian, but to the disquiet of the Guardian and the local authority he made only an interim supervision order in respect of L and W. The local authorit