Judges in the court of appeal have upheld a decision to send a four year old girl into care. This is on the grounds that the child’s long term emotional care and life chances are threatened by the mother’s inability to control her behaviour.
In August 2016, the child, also known as ‘Child B’, was placed for adoption following a hearing in a private family court in Oxford. There, the judge decided that the mother had failed to put reasonable boundaries in place for her child and provide adequate parenting. The child and her elder brother, ‘Child A’, have been monitored by the social services since 2011. This was incited by the domestic violence of Child B’s father to this mother. Both children have been subject to child protection plans and the mother consented to Child A being placed in full time foster care from this year.
Child B is reported to display aggressive and “extremely challenging” behaviour. She did not trust or respect her mother and this was often coupled with inappropriate language being used towards the mother. Furthermore, a social worker that conducted parenting assessments noted at least 8 counts of “worrying behaviour” from Child B. In one instance the child was seen moving across car parks in an ‘uncontrolled way’ and was almost hit by a vehicle that had to brake suddenly when the girl ran across the road.
The mother accepted that she had not done enough to put boundaries into place or guard her daughter from emotional abuse. However her lawyer argued that it was merely “a common or garden matter” for a child to disobey boundaries and so a care order was disproportionate. Furthermore she stated that the mother’s parenting skills had improved and no longer put the child at risk of significant harm.
Despite this, the order has been ruled as justified. A social worker evaluated that “the children behave when they want to and are the ones largely in control”. The guardian affirmed this concern, highlighting the lack of both a ‘calm, consistent and predictable environment’ and ‘emotional responses’ at the children’s expense. Moreover, Lord Justice McFarlane said that this case “is totally outside the norm” and it was essential that Child B was taken into care in order to repair the emotional abuse she suffered. Heconcluded that the mother “largely lacks the ability to be in tune with her children’s needs…to the extent that she wholly fails,across the board, to establish a safe structure to regulate their behaviour.”
Therefore, the judgement withstands.
Oxford LA v Child B
(COA) 2016