OCC v B & T

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns public law proceedings involving two children, aged 3 and 2 years, with the Local Authority initiating care proceedings due to concerns about domestic violence, parental capacity, and child welfare. The children's mother is deaf and communicates using British Sign Language (BSL). The father has a history of criminal offences and a diagnosed borderline personality disorder. The children were subject to child protection plans and placed in foster care following concerns about domestic violence and parenting capacity.

The Local Authority made interim care orders in 2014, and a series of assessments and interventions were conducted, including expert psychological evaluations and tailored parenting support for the mother, involving deaf-specific professionals. The mother initially made progress, leading to rehabilitation of the children to her care in April 2015. However, incidents in May 2015, including unauthorized telephone contact between the children and the father, and concerns about the mother's ability to manage the children’s behaviour, led to the children being removed back into foster care.

The Local Authority seeks final care orders with plans for adoption, while the mother seeks return of the children to her care. The father has withdrawn his request for the children’s return but seeks limited contact. The Guardian supports care orders and further work before placement decisions. The court has conducted a detailed review of evidence, including expert reports, social work assessments, and witness testimony, over several hearings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Local Authority has met the threshold for care proceedings under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.
2. Whether it is in the best interests of the children to return to the care of their mother or to be placed outside the family.
3. The adequacy and appropriateness of support and interventions provided to the mother, taking into account her deafness and communication needs.
4. The impact of domestic violence and the father's mental health and criminal history on the children’s welfare.
5. The appropriate contact arrangements between the children and their father.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• The Local Authority contends that the threshold for care proceedings is met due to risks of significant harm from domestic violence, parental inability to protect and consistently parent the children, and the father's history and behaviour.
• They submit that despite tailored support and interventions, the mother has not demonstrated sustained parenting capacity or sufficient understanding of risks posed by the father.
• They propose final care orders with plans for adoption, with the current foster carers as preferred long-term carers.
• They argue that contact with the father should be limited and carefully managed due to safety concerns.

Mother's Arguments

• The mother seeks return of the children to her care, asserting that the Local Authority has failed to provide adequate deaf-specific parenting support as recommended by expert reports.
• Counsel for the mother contends it is unfair to criticise her parenting given the lack of appropriate tailored assistance and requests either refusal of care orders or adjournment to allow for further deaf-specific support.
• The mother acknowledges some difficulties but emphasizes progress made through parenting courses and support services.

Father's Arguments

• The father initially sought return of the children and resumption of contact but changed position before the final hearing, no longer seeking return but opposing placement with current foster carers.
• He requests a single goodbye contact with the children, which the Local Authority is prepared to consider subject to safeguards.

Guardian's Position

• The Guardian supports the making of care orders and endorses the Local Authority’s plan to carry out further work before deciding on placement orders.
• She emphasizes the children’s best interests and the need for permanence without further delay.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a comprehensive review of evidence, including expert reports, social work assessments, and witness testimony. It acknowledged the mother’s deafness and the necessity of tailored communication and support, referencing the principles set out in Re C. The court found that prior to the involvement of the specialist clinical psychologist, the Local Authority’s work with the mother was inadequate and failed to meet her communication needs.

Following the expert recommendations, the Local Authority commissioned tailored support from a deaf social worker and provided parenting courses with sign language interpretation. The mother made measurable progress during this period, demonstrated by improved parenting during supervised contact and rehabilitation phases.

However, after the children were returned to her care, concerns arose regarding the mother’s ability to sustain appropriate parenting, manage the children’s behaviour, and maintain boundaries, particularly regarding unauthorized contact with the father. The court found the mother’s evidence on these incidents not credible and noted her lack of insight into the risks posed by the father and her inconsistent engagement with professionals.

The court balanced the advantages and disadvantages of the two realistic options: return to the mother or placement outside the family. It found that despite the mother’s love and some progress, she had not demonstrated the capacity to consistently provide a safe and stable environment. The risk of harm from domestic violence exposure and inconsistent parenting was significant.

The court also considered the children’s welfare checklist, noting the emotional and behavioural impact on them and the importance of timely permanence to avoid further disruption. It found that further delay in placement decisions would be detrimental to the children’s welfare.

Accordingly, the court concluded that all reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the children to the mother’s care had been made, and the only realistic option remaining was placement outside the birth family under care orders. The court accepted the Local Authority’s and Guardian’s plans for contact and permanence, with adoption as the care plan.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED care orders in respect of both children.

The effect of this decision is that the children will remain in foster care with plans for adoption, providing them with stability and permanence. Contact arrangements with the father will be limited and carefully managed. The mother’s application for return of the children was refused due to her inability to sustain safe parenting despite tailored support. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies established principles concerning child welfare, parental capacity, and the special considerations required when a parent is profoundly deaf.