TG (A Child : future care arrangements)

1. This court is concerned with deciding the future care arrangements for TG, born in 2016 now less than 2 years old. Her mother MM (‘mother’) and her father FF (‘father’). TG was removed from her mother’s care in July 2017 and placed with foster carers.

2. I am giving this short judgment to explain the reasons for the orders I am going to make. It is not necessary to set out a large amount of detail as there is a case summary which I approve and have attached as an annex to this judgment. That summary sets out the relevant history and provides cross references to the papers before the court today. Before going on to say any more I would like to express the courts enormous gratitude to the parties in the case, in particular the allocated social worker Ms Pierce and MGM, for all they have done to make sure this hearing could go ahead and be a final hearing. As a result of all their efforts there is no further delay in securing the final long term care arrangements for TG

3. These proceedings were started by Brighton and Hove City Council (‘the local authority’), due to their concerns that the care TG was receiving from her parents placed her at risk of significant emotional and physical harm. In summary, this risk was due to the volatile and unstable relationship between the parents, their use of drugs and the mother’s inability to consistently take up the support that was offered to her or finally separate from the father. The local authority provided considerable support to the mother to try to help her provide safe care for TG, but by July the risks of significant harm to TG became too high due to the mother’s behaviour and they sought, and were granted, an interim care order so they could place TG with foster carers, where she remains. The parents have had some contact with TG but, sadly, have not been reliable about when they have attended.

4. Following assessments of the parents, the local authority concluded that TG should not return to either of her parents’ care. In addition, they undertook assessments of the wider family. The wider family included MM’s mother, MGM, who is TG’s maternal grandmother. MGM lives in The Gambia. The initial assessment was over the telephone, a more in depth assessment was undertaken by an independent social worker, Ms Coker, who visited MGM at her home, spoke to her referees and undertook other enquiries regarding the care MGM could provide. Ms Coker’s two detailed reports provide a comprehensive assessment of MGM’s ability to provide long term care for TG. Ms Coker makes a clear and reasoned recommendation that TG’s welfare would be met by being placed in the long term care of MGM in The Gambia.

5. Initially the parents supported this proposal, however at a court hearing on 3 November 2017 they informed the court they had reconciled and sought to put themselves forward as joint carers for TG. However, they failed to comply with directions from the court to file a statement setting out what they proposed, and did not participate in updated drug tests. As recently as a few days ago, the police had to be called due to arguments between the parents. The current position is they are separated again. The mother now supports TG’s placement with her mother. This was confirmed by the mother who attended court today. She said her separation from FF is final, she is working and, as her counsel Mr Campbell put it, is ‘getting her life back together’. FF has not been in touch with his solicitors since 3 November, despite their efforts to contact him. He knew of these hearing dates, as he was in court in November when they were fixed. The Children’s Guardian reports recent text messages she received which appeared to be from the father.

6. The proposal of the local authority is to place TG in MGM’s care under a Special Guardianship Order (‘SGO’) pursuant to section 14 A Children Act 1989 and for her to be given leave to remove TG from the jurisdiction to live permanently in The Gambia. The court is invited to make an SGO of its own motion pursuant to section 14 A (6) (b). This provides the court can make such an order where the court is considering family proceedings (such as the care proceedings issued by the local authority) if the child’s welfare requires such an order to be made. Although this does not require MGM to apply for leave to make a SGO I am satisfied if she had needed to make such an application it would have been granted. As TG’s maternal grandmother she has a close connection with her, MGM’s position is supported by the local authority and whilst there will be some disruption to the child by what she proposes, TG would not be harmed by it. An SGO will give MGM parental responsibility, which she will share with the parents but pursuant to section 14 C (b) she can exercise that parental responsibility to the exclusion of any other person with parental responsibility. It is what has been called enhanced parental responsibility; that is the final decision as between her and the parents regarding the exercise of parental responsibility in relation to TG rests with her. She is able to override the exercise of any parental responsibility by the parents.

7. MGM has filed an application seeking leave to remove TG from the jurisdiction to live with her in The Gambia and has filed a statement setting out what her plans for TG are. As described in more detail in Ms Coker’s assessment TG will live with her in the family home. MGM is 58 years, her husband died in 2005. They had three children, her other two children live and work in Canada although visit The Gambia at least once a year. Two of her nieces currently live with her and she has domestic support in the home. Following her husband’s death in 2005 she receives a pension from his employment, with additional support from two of her children who live in Canada. Details as to the available schooling are set out in Ms Coker’s report and in her statement MGM details the school she has chosen for TG to attend. MGM recognises the importance of the parents in relation to TG’s identity but it also alive to their respective failings as regards their care of TG. Ms Coker’s report is very positive and concludes that the care MGM proposes is highly child-centred and will help address any earlier omissions of care TG may have experienced whilst in her mother’s care.

8. MGM arrived here on 14 December and is being accommodated at the expense of the local authority. Her visa lasts until 18 January and she has a flight booked to return to The Gambia on 16 January. The parties have been able to agree the following arrangements: (1) An application for a British passport for TG. The application was made yesterday, and the passport is expected to be ready by 3 January 2018; (2) Suitable arrangements for TG to receive the necessary immunisations, with the expectation that the last one will be given on 11 January. (3) MGM plans to secure a Gambian passport for TG once they are back in The Gambia. (4) If the court makes an SGO today MGM agrees to TG remaining in the care of the foster carer whilst the agreed transition plan takes place, building up the time she has with TG prior to the move to The Gambia. (5) A SGO support plan has been agreed between MGM and the local authority whereby the local authority will make regular financial payments to MGM until TG is 18 years and provide other support as set out in the plan, such as managing contact between TG and her parents on any visits to this jurisdiction and providing financial support to enable MGM to make applications to secure her legal status in relation to TG in the Gambian courts.

9. When it looked like placement of TG with MGM was a realistic option the local authority sought legal advice from Sagar C.T. Jahateh, a lawyer who practices in The Gambia. There are two written opinions from her in the papers, dated 19 October 2017 and 8 November 2017. In addition, there was a joint telephone call with her and the lawyers in this jurisdiction. I can summarise the advice she has given as follows: (1) On arrival in The Gambia the best option is for MGM to apply for TG to be made a Ward of the High Court of The Gambia pursuant to ss191 – 197 (Gambian) Children’s Act 2005 pending a hearing and determination of an application for a Guardianship Order in The Gambia. The wardship would be a temporary measure and for its duration the child would be directed to live with MGM and there could be orders providing some protection against removing the child from the care of MGM. (2) MGM can also make an application for a Guardianship Order under the Children’s Act 2005 ss 179 – 181. This application will, according to Ms Jahateh, take more time as it requires a welfare investigation to be undertaken prior to the court being able to make a final order. If such an order is granted in favour of MGM she will, as a matter of Gambian law, acquire parental responsibility for TG.

10. MGM is fully committed to making the necessary applications to the court in The Gambia to secure her legal status in relation to TG as a matter of Gambian law and the local authority have agreed, as set out in the SGO plan, to provide the financial assistance to enable her to do so. Such assistance as the courts in The Gambia can give to securing TG’s placement with MGM, particularly by way of a wardship order in the short term pending the determination of an application for a guardianship order, will undoubtedly meet her welfare needs. Such orders would provide for the legal security and stability that her welfare needs demand.

11. The plan in relation to continuing contact between TG and her parents is set out in the documents. MGM plans to visit this country approximately once a year and will facilitate contact between TG and her mother. In between time there will be indirect contact, which may include contact by skype or whatsapp. In relation to contact with her father MGM has set out her concerns about that and seeks support and guidance from the local authority. Whilst MGM recognises the importance of TG maintaining contact she has well founded concerns that direct contact with her father may not be in TG’s best interests.

12. Any order this court makes regarding TG is governed by her welfare needs, that is the court’s paramount consideration as set out in section 1 Children Act 1989 , having regarding to the considerations set out in section 1(3) .

13. The options for TG’s future care are either to be returned to the care of her parents, be placed with MGM outside the jurisdiction in The Gambia, to remain in long term foster care here or to be placed for adoption.

14. It is clear neither of TG’s parents are able to provide her with safe and secure care. This is accepted by the mother. The father has not participated in the proceedings since early November 2017. Bearing in mind his past behaviour, in particular his drug use and very unstable lifestyle he is not in a position now to provide the day to day care TG would require, nor is he likely to be in that position in the foreseeable future as there is no sign he recognises any need to change.

15. The assessments of MGM, which I accept, are united in their recommendations that she will be able to meet her long-term physical, emotional and psychological needs. Inevitably there will be a change for her being placed in MGM’s care and moving to another jurisdiction but it is quite clear MGM has sensitively considered the right care for her, made plans in relation to schooling and will be able to provide the long-term stability within the wider family that meets TG’s best interests. Of course, a consideration is that, by placing TG out of the jurisdiction (in The Gambia) will limit the opportunities she will have for direct contact with her parents, but I am satisfied that the arrangements for future contact for TG with her parents will be honoured by MGM. She recognises the importance for TG, in relation to her own identity, of the need for her to grow up being fully aware of how she came to be placed with her and the background and circumstances of her parents. That security and stability that MGM can offer outweighs any loss of opportunity of additional direct contact with her parents.

16. Whilst the option of long term placement with foster carers here would have the advantage of TG remaining in the same jurisdiction as her parents and the close support and monitoring of the local authority, such a placement would not provide the long-term stability she requires and would deny her the opportunity of being brought up within the maternal family.

17. A plan for adoption could provide long term security as it would be a permanent placement, and it would be in the same jurisdiction as the parents, but the effect of it would be to sever the links with the birth family, both here and in The Gambia.

18. Having balanced the advantages and disadvantages of the placement options for TG I fully support the plan to place TG in the care of MGM under an SGO and for leave to be given for MGM to remove TG from the jurisdiction for the purposes of living permanently in The Gambia. Only that order will provide the long-term security TG requires, with the benefits of being brought up within the wider maternal family and her identity needs regarding her Gambian heritage would be met. She would continue to have contact with her mother, and maternal aunt and uncle. This will benefit TG’s emotional and psychological needs. MGM has a good understanding of the position of the parents and has shown herself willing to take advice and support from the local authority here about maintaining TG’s contact with them.