SB v London Borough of Redbridge v LB & Ors

This is an appeal by a young mother, SB, from a small, but important, part of the decision and order of the Redbridge Family Proceedings Court made on 11th September 2003. At that hearing, in the context of current care proceedings, the mother sought permission to disclose the papers filed in these proceedings to a very well-known organisation, the Jamma Umoja in Beckenham, Kent. The justices refused to make such an order and the mother now appeals.

The essential history for the purposes of this appeal is as follows. The mother was born in January 1985 so even now she is still only aged 18. The father is IK who is aged 25. They had a relationship although they never lived together. From their relationship a child, Bethany, was born on 12th February 2002. BB is now about one and three-quarters. It is relevant to mention that at the time of BB’s birth, the mother was only just 17. After BB was born, the mother and BB lived for a period at the home of the maternal grandmother and then in June 2002 they moved to live in bed and breakfast accommodation.

On 1st October 2002 the local authority were very concerned about the conditions in which BB and indeed the mother were living and, with the agreement of the mother, BB was moved to live with the maternal grandmother. Just over a month later, on 8th November 2002, the mother and BB went to live at a residential unit called Thackeray Drive. This, however, only lasted a few days and by 13th November 2002 BB was back living with her maternal grandmother. The next day, 14th November 2002, the local authority, the London Borough of Redbridge, commenced the present proceedings for a care order.

Early in January 2003 BB moved from living with her grandmother to live with foster parents. Around this time, the mother was clearly hoping that BB might return to live with her and, indeed, her solicitors -- who have been very active on her behalf -- investigated a number of units or organisations with whom the mother and BB might live or by whom they might be assessed. These were the Legard Centre, the Breslaff Centre, Highlands Family Centre and the St. Michael's Fellowship. The first two appear to have been unwilling to offer a place to the mother and Bethany. The last, St. Michael's Fellowship, had no space at the time. In the case of the Highlands Family Centre, the mother failed in February 2003 to take up their offer of a full interview.

It is right to say, however, that during the spring of 2003 the local authority were actively considering whether BB might move to live with her father, IK, and his wife, SK. I have been told that although no doubt she longed to bring up BB herself, the mother was supportive of BB moving to live with her birth father. BB did indeed move to live with her father on 5th June 2003, but that proved to be short lived. At the end of July 2003 the father left the home, and his wife, Mrs. SK, asked the local authority to remove BB the next day. On 31st July 2003 BB was placed with a foster family with whom she still remains. Her mother has contact with her twice a week for two hours on each occasion.

At a hearing on 26th June 2003 it was conceded on behalf of the mother that the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 had been established in this case. Accordingly, arrangements were made for what is sometimes known as a disposal hearing but what I prefer to call an outcome hearing. That has now been fixed before the justices for 4th and 5th December 2003.

As there is now no prospect of BB living with her birth father nor with her maternal grandmother, the care plan of the local authority is firmly that BB should now be placed with strangers (although no specific family has yet been identified) with a view to adoption by them. The mother strongly opposes that outcome and dearly wishes one last chance to demonstrate that she, herself, now has the maturity, capacity and ability properly to bring up BB herself.

So, despite the very unpromising outcome of the referrals early in the year to the four bodies that I have mentioned, the mother asked the justices at a directions hearing on 11th September 2003 to give permission for the papers to be disclosed to Jamma Umoja. The justices, as I have said, refused permission. Their reasons are appropriately concise and I think it is best if I quote them in full. They said:

It is important to stress that this is an appeal from justices sitting in a family proceedings court. I have no right or power to intervene with the way in which they exercised their discretion unless it seems to me that they made some error of law or took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take account of relevant matters or in some other way reached a decision that was plainly wrong. Inevitably, the judicial reaction (whether of justices or of a judge) to an application of this kind has, to a considerable degree, to be one of impression. I make it crystal clear that I do not for one moment consider that the justices made any kind of error of law in this case.

However, it does seem to me that in their list of reasons they perhaps took into account matters which were irrelevant to what they were being asked to determine and they failed to take into account some matters which were relevant. Additionally or alternatively, I am satisfied, viewing the case as a whole, that they reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong.

There is no doubt that in view of BB’s age and the considerable number of changes that have already taken place in her life, as I have briefly described, time is no longer on her or indeed the mother's side. There is no doubt that it is extremely important in the interests of BB that there be an early final resolution of whether BB can return to live with her mother or must, really inevitably, be placed with a view to adoption.

So the references to the case having been in the court lists since November 2002, and to BB’s age, and to the need to have the proceedings concluded as quickly as possible might all have been in point if the mother's application would or might have involved any delay in the final hearing. However, that date has already been fixed and, as my own order will make clear, must not be allowed to yield to or be postponed by any process of provisional assessment by Jamma Umoja.

The justices went on to say that they were of the opinion that a sufficient number of professionals had already been involved in the case. It is, no doubt, true that a considerable number of professionals have already been involved. It was not suggested, however, that any financial burden would fall upon the local authority or indeed anybody from the proposed provisional assessment, and there is absolutely no question of Jamma Umoja seeing BB herself at this stage. So it seems to me that the fact that a considerable number of professionals have already been involved is largely immaterial to the decision.

What does not feature in the justices' reasons is any reference to the finality of the proposed care plan or to the still young age of BB’s mother or to the needs of justice that a mother, in this situation, should be permitted to explore any reasonable residential assessment unit. Further, although the justices refer to the earlier history and the rapid breakdown of the assessment at Thackeray Drive, and to the fact that the mother had earlier agreed that BB should be cared for by her father, they make no reference to the dramatic change that BB now cannot live with and be brought up by her father. It seems to me of great importance in this case that this young mother explains her renewed desire to investigate residential assessment by the very fact that she now knows that BB will not live with her father and the only alternative to living with herself is adoption.

All that is sought by this application is permission to disclose the papers to Jamma Umoja. They may indeed wish to interview the mother but that, of course, is a matter between them and the mother and does not, of itself, require the permission of the court. The local authority fear that this is a prelude to a formal application for a direction for a residential assessment under section 38(6) of the Children Act 1989 and that that, in turn, will lead to delay in the final resolution for Bethany. Of course, it is a prelude to a hoped for application for a direction for residential assessment; but the mother must clearly understand that it will only be if the Jamma Umoja Centre, after full consideration of the papers and (if appropriate) an interview with the mother, consider that there is a real and good prospect of them successfully and enduringly reuniting mother and child, that there could be any court-imposed residential assessment in this case.

That, however, is for the future. I, for my part, am quite satisfied that the limited step that the mother wished to take should have been permitted, on a clear basis and understanding that, of itself, it will not in any circumstances lead to a delay in the final hearing which has been fixed for 4th and 5th December 2003.

For those reasons I propose to allow this appeal and make an order in detailed terms that I have already announced.

If you wish, Ms. Orriss, you can have a look at what I have written, if you can read my writing. Who supplied the big bundle; your side?