By Lucy Caulkett-
A judge has ordered for the return of two children to their mother’s care after evidence emerged during proceedings that left an independent social work assessment of care options “wholly inadequate”.
Judge Moradifar said the assessment submitted by Slough children’s services as the best evidence in support of the children remaining in the care of their father’s partner, was undertaken on the basis that the mother had deliberately injured one of the children.
The judge categorically stated that the claim had been proven to be entirely inaccurate,” and made reference to a report disclosed on the first day of a fact-finding hearing, showing support from experts that the injury had been accidental.
“I am also told that [the social worker] spent an inadequate amount of time undertaking that assessment. I do not take that into my consideration in having come to my decision, because that is a matter that has not been put to the assessor, but it is fundamentally obvious to me from her assessment that the principle premise of her assessment is now proved to be wrong.”
Slough children’s trust, were involved in the case following a cigarette burn mark found on the hand of the eldest child. The trust’s subsequently made an application for an interim care order which was unsuccessful. The children were later placed in the care of their father’s partner under a child arrangements order.
Accident
The independent social worker’s assessment was carried out on the basis that the mother deliberately caused the burn. The assessment concluded it was in the best interest of the children to stay with the father’s partner- a position the judge opposed. In light of the finding of the mistaken view, the children’s trust sought to withdraw from the proceedings on the grounds the case would no longer meet the child protection threshold.
However, the children’s guardian urged the judge to stop the trust from withdrawing , arguing that the situation was one of “the very few exceptional cases” and warranted further investigations of the mother’s circumstances before the children were returned to her care. The judge disagreed, citing the need for ”wider issues’ outside the case to be considered.
“The local authorities are stretched and under-resourced. In circumstance where there is no prospect of a local authority establishing the conditions under S.31 (2) of The Children Act (1989), it seems to me wholly unreasonable to insist on a local authority’s continuing [involvement].”
Following evidence that the burn mark had been an accident, the judge ordered the immediate return of the children to their mother’s care, despite the partner having applied for care and special guardianship orders.
“It is a significant factor in cases such as this that any parent must be able to rely upon and give consideration to any interim arrangements without the threat or worry that those interim arrangements may, but for any other reason other than the passage of time, become full time arrangements.
“In my judgment, to approach a case otherwise would be a wholly contrary approach to the welfare interests of a child or children.
“In circumstances where the foundation for a child’s interim removal has been proven to be wrong and in the absence of any other evidence that would justify the continuing separation of a child and his/her parents, that child must return to the care of the parents.”
The question that arises in this case is how one can be sure that the mother’s defence that the burn was accidental can be trusted. Further, without a witness actually seeing the mother deliberately burn the child with the cigarette, it is impossible to be certain it was deliberate. Altogether, it still looks very bad on the mother that her child had a cigarette burn, how on earth can such error be explained away? If the mother is dangerous to her child, it is safe bet that something else that is serious will occur down the line.