WSCC v M & Ors

(The 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents by their Children's Guardian) Anna McKenna (instructed by WSCC Legal Department) for the Applicant Rohan Auld (instructed by Anthony Morris Solicitors) for the 1st Respondent Jacqueline Roach (instructed by Mahany & Co.) for the 2nd Respondent Richard Tambling (instructed by John Stebbing at Stephen Rimmer LLP) for the 3rd Respondent Peter Horrocks (instructed by Jane Dahill at NLH Solicitors LLP) for the 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents (their Children's Guardian) Hearing dates: 19th July 2010 ____________________

It follows from that that Section 1(1) is engaged and Section 1(3) is available for the assistance of the court but its use is not mandatory. The court makes it clear that the consequences of giving permission (i.e. discharging interim care orders) do not determine of themselves the nature of the application. In other words the focus is on permission not on discharge.

That is an important perspective not to be lost in the evaluation of this case. Happily no-one has ever suggested that the father is a violent man but one has to conclude that the mother is quite emotionally dependent whilst at the same time having a history of violent and unsustainable relationships with P, Q and R. Sadly these consequences of early life abuse are all too well known to the court.

She then sets out the facts from the medical records and her own involvement upon which she relies to justify that opinion. She ends her first letter thus -

Clearly any responsible local authority would in those circumstances have to take action. This local authority decided to institute care proceedings and to seek a removal. The question then arose as to when to engage with the family. Dr. Atkinson was quite clear about that. In her second letter she wrote-