Judge makes child arrangements order following refusal of mother initially to cooperate with proceedings and her “frankly ridiculous views” on court and social services
A County Court judge has ruled that an infant child’s welfare “does demand removal” from the care of his mother into the care of the father, in circumstances where the child’s mother initially refused to cooperate with proceedings concerning the child’s welfare.
In Cumbria County Council v A Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 196, His Honour Judge C Baker found that the child is “steeped in the environment where certainly there is evidence that there is a very real risk that the family have some frankly ridiculous views, and views that put them directly in conflict with both the court, society in general and child protective services”.
Outlining the background to the case, HHJ C Baker said the case concerned a boy, ‘Ben’, who was born in 2021.
The judge noted that all names have been changed to ensure anonymity.
HHJ C Baker said that the first person to come to court in respect of Ben was his father, James. “He made an application dated 18th February 2022 for a child arrangements order in respect of Ben. At that time he was not having any contact with his young son."
On 11th March 2022, Amy, Ben’s mother, made an application for a non‑molestation order pursuant to the Family Law Act 1996, in respect of James, seeking to keep him away from her.
“In pursuit of that non‑molestation order application, she made allegations about James's behaviour, including primarily an allegation of an incident of rape following an evening of drinking in which she accused James of spiking her drinks and thereafter having non‑consensual sex with her”, said the judge.
The police took no further action, having seen various text messages and communications between Amy and James.
The injunction application came before the Lay Justices on 1st April 2022. Both parties were represented and a non‑molestation order was made on a ‘without prejudice’ and interim basis.
Provision was made for the parties to file a schedule and statements in support of their allegations or response to allegations, with a view to the factual disputes being determined at a later hearing, said the judge.
HHJ C Baker then set out a number of proceedings that followed, including the child arrangements order and the injunction applications, whereby the mother did not attend, remotely or in person. She was not represented.
HHJ C Baker said: “It is recorded on the 15 June order that the Court had warned the mother on 5th May 2022 that, should she fail to attend, that the matter could proceed in her absence and legally binding orders could be made. It records that it is satisfied it has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute relating to Ben, included, but not limited to, making orders regarding his living and contact arrangements.”
Amy did not attend the hearing on 5th May, having sent an e‑mail to the court questioning the court's jurisdiction.
The judge added that she “failed to attend further hearings, again having sent similar e‑mails, and she had failed, in essence, to progress her allegations in relation to James”.
“Accordingly, District Judge Todd discharged the non‑molestation order that had been in place against James up until that point.”
On 30th September, the Local Authority having filed a Section 37 report, District Judge Todd transferred the matter to His Honour Judge C Baker, the present judge, as the Designated Family Judge for Cumbria.
On 10 October, HHJ C Baker made Ben subject to an interim care order, granting the Local Authority shared parental responsibility for Ben.
He said: “I ordered the mother to attend court on 24th October and I made it clear that she could ask for special measures, such as screens and separate waiting areas, in respect of her attendance, and I provided for the mother to be personally served by a process server in respect of that hearing."
On 24th October the father again attended and was represented. The mother did not attend.
On 7th December, an order recorded the mother's failure to attend court and recorded the fact that:
“The father made it clear to the Court he would prefer for Ben to live with his mother and for him to have contact with a view to stepping up to shared care arrangements in the future, but the fact that mother is unwilling to even attend court or speak to the social worker is making that impossible.”
The order listed the previous non‑attendances at court by the mother and listed the matter for a hearing on 14th December 2022.
HHJ C Baker made an order for the mother to be personally served. He said: “That attempt at personal service took place on 12th December and the process server makes it clear that the mother was not present but someone else was present.
“She identified herself as the mother of Amy i.e. the maternal grandmother. She indicated that she was the only person present at the house and that she was, indeed, Ben's grandmother.”
On asking to speak to Amy, the grandmother indicated that Amy was out. The process server recorded as follows:
“I did inform her that it was important I contacted her and that there was a further court hearing on Wednesday, 14th December, that she needed to attend. The [grand]mother declined to accept any papers on her behalf.
“During our conversation on the doorstep, the grandmother stated that if I came back to try and serve her with the papers, they would not answer the door and that her daughter, [Amy], would not accept any papers as 'the Court and social services are all corrupt.' She also stated to me that they were being assisted and given advice by a 'family friend', and that Ben had no birth certificate, because if he had one, he's then 'owned by the government', and that this case is 'using an act and it is not law'. Clearly, whilst her mother was not shouting at me, she clearly had some 'irrational views' which 'may' have influenced her daughter in apparently not being willing to accept any orders.”
HHJ C Baker said that the mother sent an email to the court on 14th December 2022.
Extracts from the email included:
“We will not be attending your hearing today. This is because again the court has failed to provide us with evidence of the authority that grants them power to make demands of any man or woman. The threats we have received from yourselves and social services have been relentless, so we decided to visit the police station with all paperwork we have received, the paperwork that clearly states numerous times that there are no concerns regarding Ben.
“I must remind you that the police are public servants and are not lawfully permitted to get involved in civil matters, which they confirmed.
“The police take an oath to uphold common law and protect the public, which they again confirmed. They do not take an oath to uphold Roman civil Law, otherwise known as Maritime Law. Acts Statutes and Legislation are not laws, they are corporate/government rules that apply to the legal fiction only, NOT a living man or woman.
“[…] The court and social services seem to believe that they, along with judges who are just civilians in black robes, have some type of special power that enables them to interfere in peoples lives and remove their property without their consent, you lawfully cannot. You are not above the law.
HHJ C Baker said that the Court is faced with the following situation: “James has in the past stood accused of the most serious of domestic abuse in the form of an allegation of rape as well as other assertions about his behaviour. That is an allegation which is not in any way prosecuted by any party in front of the Court today or, indeed, for months.
“The mother failed to engage with the court to provide substantive written or oral evidence in relation to those allegations and, indeed, has simply failed to engage with the process which would enable the Court to come to a determination as to the truth of those allegations.”
He noted that the social worker provided evidence that Ben's physical needs were being met. He added: “Given his age, it is also fair to say that no doubt his immediate emotional needs, for nurturing love and care are, in all likelihood, met as well. Ben's short‑term immediate needs appear to be satisfied.”
However, he said: “When one draws back and looks at the situation with respect to Ben's medium and long‑term welfare, in my view, the situation is different. Ben is steeped in the environment where certainly there is evidence that there is a very real risk that the family have some frankly ridiculous views, and views that put them directly in conflict with both the court, society in general and child protective services”.
Considering the options available to the court, the judge noted that James, the father, had been assessed as a suitable carer for Ben and there was no substantive evidence to dislodge that assessment.
He added: “The choice between the parents engages the Court's consideration of Ben's short, medium and long‑term welfare, and certainly his welfare throughout his minority.
[…] If the Court does nothing, all the evidence suggests that Ben will continue to be exposed to an entirely negative view of his father; he will have no relationship, and no prospect of a relationship, with his father or paternal family. On the other hand, if Ben were to go and live with his father, then in the medium to long‑term, I have no doubt whatsoever that James is willing and, indeed, certainly at the moment, with the support of the Local Authority, able to provide a positive view of Ben's mother and to cooperate with arrangements for contact between Ben and his mother.”
He noted that the analyses of the Local Authority and the guardian set out “the potential for short‑term harm to Ben if Ben is moved to live with his father”, due to the fact that he has known no other care other than that provided by his mother and other maternal relatives.
HHJ C Baker posed the question: “Is it proportionate to remove a child from the care of a mother and place that child in the care of his father in circumstances such as these?”
He concluded yes, outlining the following reasons:
i) The child is not being removed into foster care;
ii) The child is being placed with (a) a parent and (b) someone with whom he is very likely to have a long-term and enduring connection both in the abstract (James will always be his biological father) and in reality - there currently exists no substantive impediment actively advanced by any party to that relationship being a ‘real’ and day to day relationship;
iii) That placement will admit of and promote (on the evidence I currently have) an ongoing relationship with the mother both in the short and medium-term;
iv) The situation will be neither final nor irreversible;
v) There is no other step the court (or the local authority and the children’s guardian) can reasonably employ to prevent the identified harm; and
vi) It is both legitimate and in the medium to long-term welfare interests of the child to seek to prevent or ameliorate the identified harm.
HHJ C Baker concluded that “Noting the mother's very vociferous and clear repudiation of the authority of the Court I am satisfied that, in order to protect Ben’s welfare, it is appropriate for me to make two further orders at the same time as today's decision.
“The first is a recovery order authorising a police officer to find and gain access to the child. […] Secondly, given the unorthodox (a mild characterisation) views expressed by Amy, I believe James requires the protection of an exclusion order.”
Following the original judgment given orally on 14 December 2022, Ben was removed from the care of his mother and placed with his father pursuant to the interim care order.
According to HHJ C Baker, the mother attended all subsequent hearings and was legally represented. She did not pursue allegations against James.
He said: “Amy indicated that she had been badly advised (not legal advice) in respect of her approach to the court. A psychological assessment of Amy concluded that she was vulnerable to adverse influence by others.”
The public law proceedings ended on 19th June 2023. At the final hearing the court made a child arrangements order and a supervision order for 12 months.
On the issue of whether a supervision order was “necessary and proportionate”, HHJ C Baker said: “I determined that it was the appropriate order in particular in light of the history of the matter and the risks that I determined remained extant concerning Ben’s future welfare.”
Lottie Winson
