T (Children) (Rev 1)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- LORD JUSTICE LAWS
- LADY JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Lady Justice King, with Laws and Moore‑Bick LJJ concurring, dismissed MT’s appeal against care and placement orders relating to her youngest children, J and O. Hertfordshire County Council’s child‑protection involvement escalated after non‑accidental injuries and allegations of violence and neglect. Despite agreements to prevent BT’s unsupervised contact, MT breached them, and the children were placed in foster care. A FAST parenting assessment and an exemplary social work report concluded MT lacked basic parenting skills and insight into past harm, and recommended adoption. Applying the qualified “nothing else will do” approach from Re B‑S and Re B, the court held that supported rehabilitation was not a realistic option given MT’s denial and minimisation, and that adoption was the only realistic alternative in the children’s interests. The judge’s welfare analysis was holistic and properly reasoned; the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Lady Justice King:
This is an appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Waller made on the 21 st February 2014 whereby he made care and placement orders in respect of two children: J, born 14 May 2012 (30 months) and O, born 7 June 2013 (17 months).
On the 23 rd June 2013, Hertfordshire County Council issued proceedings under s31 of The Children Act 1989 in respect of the six children of MT, (the mother) of whom J and O are the youngest. MP is the father of the eldest four children (MP), who range in age between 2 and 8 years. The father of J and O is BT (the father).
On the 21 st February, at the conclusion of a five day final hearing, the Judge made care and placement orders in respect of O and J, dispensing with the consent of the parents to the placement order.
A residence order supported by a twelve month supervision order in favour of MP was made in respect of the four eldest children.
The mother was represented by Counsel at the trial but thereafter, unrepresented, applied for permission to appeal by way of a notice of appeal dated 1 July 2014. The notice sets out four grounds of appeal against the care and placements orders made in respect of J and O. Permission to appeal was granted by Lady Justice Gloster on the 9 th October 2014. The mother’s skeleton argument is found in a lengthy statement filed by her, dated the 16 th July 2014.
Counsel, Ms Michele O’Leary, having been lately instructed to represent the mother in this appeal, seeks only to advance one of the original grounds; namely that the judge did not adequately assess the evidence in relation to the mother’s ability, with appropriate support, to provide a home for the two youngest children. In failing to do so, it is said, the judge failed to follow the guidance in Re BS (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146
Background
The mother, who comes from a difficult background, was 14 when she met MP and became pregnant with her eldest child. By the time she was 22 she had had 6 children. There were concerns about the children’s care from as early as March 2008. The Judge found that a social service chronology extending to over seventy pages, dealing with the events over a period of five years, was a fair reflection of what was happening within the family.
From 2011 onwards but particularly through 2012 and 2013 the catalogue of concerns accelerated; by this time the relationship with MP had come to an end and the mother was living with, and subsequently married to, the father. A ca