Local authority approach to case amounted to “serious failure in its child protection responsibilities”, Family Court judge finds

A Family Court judge has criticised a London borough for its approach to a child arrangements case involving three children, finding that it demonstrated a “startling lack of engagement” with findings of the court.

In SR v RT [2024] EWFC, HHJ Reardon found that two reports produced by Tower Hamlets Council were a “completely inadequate response” to findings previously made by the court of serious physical, sexual and emotional domestic abuse perpetrated by the father against the mother, and physical and emotional abuse by the father to the children.

The case involved cross-applications for child arrangements orders for the three children - A, a boy aged 13, B, a boy aged 11, and C, a girl aged 5.

In November 2023, HHJ Reardon gave judgment following a fact-finding hearing. She found that the father (RT) had perpetrated very serious domestic abuse against the mother (SR). That abuse had included “coercive and controlling patterns of behaviour, rape, and non-fatal strangulation”.

The father had also manipulated the two older children to copy his behaviour towards the mother, and had “seriously undermined her relationship with them”, the judge found.

At the time of the fact-finding hearing, the children were living with their father and had not seen their mother in person for several months.

The mother sought the return of all three children to her full-time care. She said that their current living arrangements put them at risk of harm. She proposed that she should return to the family home to care for the children, and the father should move out.

A direction was made for the local authority, Tower Hamlets, to prepare a report, and the matter was listed for a directions hearing.

The s37 report was received in February 2024. The local authority said that it did not intend to issue public law proceedings, but it would escalate the case to child protection and enter the Public Law Outline (“PLO”) process.

A hearing took place later that month. After hearing submissions from the parties, HHJ Reardon determined that the issue of the child arrangements could not await the completion of the assessments the local authority proposed should take place within the PLO process.

The case was listed for final hearing in late April 2024 and the local authority was directed to prepare a s7 report setting out its recommendations in respect of the living arrangements for the children.

Looking at the relationship between the local authority and the court, HHJ Reardon noted it is “well established” that a local authority is not entitled to reject the factual findings made by the court, and must adopt those findings as the factual basis for its assessment.

She said: “I observed in my judgment following the fact-finding hearing that during their involvement with the family, both the police and the local authority had struggled to form a clear view about a situation where serious allegations had been made on both sides. I said that I did not criticise either agency for that and observed that sometimes it is “only through the forensic process of fact-finding undertaken by a Court” that the truth emerges.”

“That observation should have given a clear steer to the local authority that whilst it was acceptable for professionals to have kept an open mind about allegations made in the early stages of their involvement, once findings were made by the court these should form the factual basis for its future work with the family.

“Unfortunately, the local authority’s approach has been very different.”

The judge observed that the local authority’s s37 report demonstrated a “startling lack of engagement” with the findings of the court.

She said: “The finding of non-fatal strangulation, which is now well recognised as a very high-risk behaviour, is not mentioned at all.”

The local authority had an opportunity to review its approach, and was directed to prepare a second report.

The judge said: “The s7 report prepared in April discloses no discernible difference in the local authority’s approach. Much of the report is cut and pasted from the earlier s37 report. If anything, the court’s findings are less prominent in the second report than they were in the first.”

She noted that a strong theme in both reports was that despite the findings of the court, the local authority did not believe the father to have perpetrated abuse.

She described both reports produced by the local authority as a “completely inadequate response” to findings made by the court, and found that the authority’s approach amounted to a “serious failure” in its child protection responsibilities.

She said: “I rely on the local authority’s evidence of the children’s wishes and feelings, as they have been expressed to the social worker during her direct work with the children. Otherwise, it seems to me that I have no option other than to reject the local authority’s analysis of risk, and that I can put no weight on its recommendations.”

Conducting a welfare examination, HHJ Reardon set out the current wishes and feelings of the three children, which were summarised in the local authority’s s7 report:

She said: “A has said that he does not want to spend time with his mother because he has not forgiven her for what she did to him. He has said that he loves both parents, but prefers his father because of the way he cares for him and takes him to his football activities. When asked directly about his living arrangements, A said that he was not sure if he wanted to see his mother regularly. He then said that he would harm himself if he were asked to go and live with her.”

She continued: “B’s most frequently expressed view is that he would like his mother to return to the family home and his parents to live together as a family. When asked he said that if he had to choose between his parents he would choose to live with his father, but then said that he did not really want to have to choose but would prefer his family all to live together.

“C has told the social worker “unequivocally” and on different occasions that she wants to live with her mother. When the social worker observed contact she was reluctant to leave her mother at the end, kept asking to stay and was extremely clingy to her mother.”

Discussing the children’s physical, emotional and educational needs, the judge noted that all three children had suffered harm through exposure to serious domestic abuse perpetrated by their father towards their mother and directly towards them. The boys had also been harmed by their mother’s behaviour towards them.

Considering the parenting capacity of the mother, the judge said: “First and significantly, there is the fact that until 2022 there were no concerns raised about the mother’s care of the children. […] The local authority’s initial assessment, carried out in August 2022 after the mother’s first allegation of rape, identified no concerns about the mother’s basic parenting skills. The children’s health needs were appropriately met, the mother was well engaged with the school, and the assessment recorded warm and loving interactions between the mother and the children.”

She added: “The mother’s parenting deteriorated sharply and suddenly in late 2022. This was as a result of the years of abuse she had suffered, which finally took their toll.”

In her fact-finding judgment, HHJ Reardon said that she thought any risk posed by the mother towards the children had “diminished” since the end of the relationship and that it was “highly unlikely” she would act in that way again.

Turning to the parenting capacity of the father, HHJ Reardon observed that the father had “in many ways” done a good job of adjusting to the role of primary carer since the mother left the home in February 2023.

She said: “He has provided the children with stability and has ensured that their basic needs are met. They have always presented as content and happy since they have been in his care.”

However, she noted that the father’s capacity as a parent is, “significantly compromised” by her findings that he has perpetrated very serious domestic abuse against both the mother and the children themselves.

She observed: “The father’s behaviour in encouraging the boys to copy his abusive behaviours towards the mother creates a particular risk to them. The local authority has ignored this finding but I consider it to be significant. The longer the boys are exposed to their father’s attitudes, the more likely it is that their relationship with their mother will be damaged beyond repair. In the longer term I consider it likely that the father’s influence over the boys will impact negatively on their own future relationships.”

Turning to the children’s living arrangements, the judge noted that the local authority’s view was that the children were currently “well cared-for” by the father and there was no reason to disturb their living arrangements for the time being.

She said: “I disagree with that view. The risks posed by the father to the children are significant. If they remain in his primary care the abusive dynamics in this family will be entrenched and the harm they have already suffered will be perpetuated”.

She concluded: “In my judgment, the least harmful outcome for all three children is that B and C should move to the mother’s primary care now. A, I accept, should not do so immediately but there should be a clear plan for him to join his siblings as soon as that can safely be achieved.

“In the meantime, the mother suggests that the maternal grandmother should support her with the care of A. She lives near to the family home and the mother and children have been spending substantial time there since February. She is willing to have A stay with her. I am hopeful that she will be able to assist with a transition plan, so that A’s return to his mother’s care takes place at a pace that he is able to manage.”

HHJ Reardon directed the local authority to produce, as soon as possible, a plan to assist the family to implement the orders which she determined to be necessary.

She said: “The local authority will continue to work with the family under the PLO. It is of course not for me to tell the local authority what assessments it should be commissioning or to express any view about the outcome of the PLO process. I have made decisions about the children’s living arrangements based on my assessment of their welfare; any future decisions taken by the local authority within the scope of its statutory powers and obligations will be a matter for the local authority alone.

“However it is necessary, in my view, to make it clear that any assessments conducted within the PLO process or otherwise must be done on the basis of an accurate and secure understanding of the factual findings made by the court and the court’s evaluation of risk. That may mean that some further disclosure of the judgments in these proceedings is necessary, and I would invite the parties and the local authority to consider this.”

Earlier this month (May 2024), the local authority produced a transition plan setting out its proposed arrangements for the younger two children to move to the mother’s care.

It was agreed by the parties that the occupation order would take effect on 17 May, when the mother would return to the family home and the father would move out. The local authority agreed to assist the father in his attempts to secure temporary accommodation, the judge noted.

However, HHJ Reardon said in her postscript: “A has remained resistant to the prospect of living with his mother and has told the local authority recently that if he is required to do so, he will kill himself. When the alternative plan of a temporary move to the maternal grandmother’s home was discussed with him, he gave a similar response. The local authority recognises that A may be in need of urgent therapeutic support and has put in place arrangements to commence therapeutic work with the family from next week.”

She continued: “I determined that although my order would take effect from Friday [17 May] in respect of all three children, I would also make a direction that the order should not be enforced in respect of A for such period as the local authority is working with the family to support a planned transition for him to the mother’s care.”

Her decision took into account:

1. The “extreme distress” shown by A and the strength of his expressed views, which needed to be acknowledged by the court;
2. Her previous finding that the father had manipulated and influenced the boys, and that this had impacted on their relationship with their mother;
3. The harm A would be likely to suffer if “compelled” to live with his mother before he was ready to do so, balanced against the ongoing harm arising out of his placement with a father who had perpetrated serious domestic abuse, particularly if that placement were permitted to become the status quo.

She noted that she “remains hopeful” that once the mother is back in the family home caring for the younger children, and A has had time to adjust to the decision that the court has made, A will see his way to a return to her care.

A spokesperson from Tower Hamlets Council said: “We have accepted the outcome of the court order regarding this difficult case and are complying with the court order.

“The safety and wellbeing of families is our priority, and we are continuing to provide suitable support and intervention.”

Lottie Winson