Justice For Families

Below are the two cases in reference to the thread on General Chit chat by Avenger, these are substantial judgments but the best readings are from the latter half of the judgment, Anyone from Bath or Northeast Sommerset who are involved in the L.A through the social services these Judgements need showing to their respective legal reps prefrably the parts at the end of J 1 in red

I was just going to put up the links but I feel it would be best putting up the whole judgments.

******


BAILII Citation Number: [2008] EWHC B10 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
BRISTOL DISTRICT REGISTRY
IN THE MATTER OF CHILD, 1, CHILD 2 AND CHILD 3
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

22nd December 2008


B e f o r e :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BARCLAY
____________________

BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

Applicant

- and -

MOTHER
1st Respondent

FATHER A
2nd Respondent

FATHER B
3rd Respondent

CHILD 1, CHILD 2 and CHILD 3
(by their Children's Guardian)
4th-6th Respondents

FATHER B'S MOTHER
7th Respondent

FATHER A's PARENTS
8th-9th Respondents

LYNDA BARNES
1st Intervener

SOCIAL WORKER C
2nd Intervener

____________________

Tape Transcription of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,
6th Floor, 12-14 New Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1AG.
Telephone No: 020 7936 6000. Fax No: 020 7427 0093

____________________

MR. STEPHEN BELLAMY QC and MISS CLAIRE ROWSELL, Counsel appeared for the Applicant Local Authority
MR. JONATHAN BAKER QC and MISS LOUISE O'NEILL appeared for the 1st Respondent Mother
MISS JANE MILLER QC and Miss CAROLINE HARTLEY appeared for the 2nd Respondent Father A
MR. CHRISTOPHER SHARP QC and MR. KAMBIZ MORADIFAR appeared for the 3rd Respondent Father B
MR. MICHAEL KEEHAN QC and MR. STEPHEN ROBERTS appeared for the 4th to 6th Respondents by their Children's Guardian
MR. SIMON MILLER, Counsel appeared for the 7th Respondent Father B's mother
FATHER A'S PARENTS, the 8th and 9th Respondents, appeared in person
FATHER B'S SISTER, the 10th Respondent, appeared in person
MISS PENELOPE WOOD, Counsel appeared on behalf of the First Intervener Ms Lynda Barnes
MS FAITH RYAN, Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Second Intervener Social Worker C
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

See also: [2009] EWHC B11 (Fam)

Judge Barclay:

I want to begin this judgment by paying tribute to all those involved, not only to leading and junior counsel and the solicitor advocate acting on behalf of the represented parties, but also to the unrepresented parties. The advocates have been of enormous assistance in this difficult case, and I pay tribute to their skill and expertise on all sides. I also thank the unrepresented parties for their patience in seeing this litigation to its conclusion after what is, I believe, some thirty days of evidence. I recognise that for all parties, both represented and unrepresented, it has been an enormous burden to complete this unusual case and enable me to reach a final conclusion.

The case concerns three young children. There were originally eight parties, many with competing ambitions. The case has been made more complicated than necessary by revelations in the course of the lengthy hearing about the alleged conduct and background of Mrs. Lynda Barnes, the local authority Team Manager in charge of the care plans and progress of the litigation. I shall deal with that aspect in due course. It was necessary for the proper conduct of the litigation not only for Mrs. Barnes but also her junior, Social Worker C, to be made intervening parties in the case in order to resolve what has become known as "the discrete issue" between them. In passing, I make it clear that Mrs Lynda Barnes is not to be confused with another employee of the same local authority with a similar name – Linda Barnes – who has played no part in this case.

The fact that this issue arose between local authority witnesses has caused much delay and vast amounts of paper work being generated, as the local authority sought to lay forth all documents in its possession including ones normally covered by its own legal privilege. It has also led the local authority to make a series of admissions which include its failure ever to complete a core assessment of the children the subject of this litigation, despite its considerable length. That admission document in its amended form is at A177 of the papers. Further, it caused the local authority at a late stage in the proceedings during the course of the evidence formally to abandon "any reliance in any way on the evidence of Mrs. Lynda Barnes either as to her opinion, judgment, conclusions or the factual evidence given in statements or orally to the court by her".

The case essentially began on 31st July 2006. This final hearing began on 12th June 2008. There have clearly therefore been long delays before this judgment is able to be given. As long ago as 11th June 2007 the independent reviewing officer at K218, spoke of "an air of helplessness" so far as the case was concerned. That, of course, was some eighteen months or so ago.

The children are as follow: Child 1 is four years of age; his sister, Child 2, is three; and their half-sister, Child 3, is now two years old. She has spent her entire life in foster care.

The mother is mother of all three children. The Father A is father of the eldest two. The father of Child 3 is Father B. Mother and Father A had a relationship said to be characterised by drug and alcohol misuse and some alleged domestic violence. That latter aspect is denied by Father A, although reference can be seen to it, for example at Q144 of the papers, on 5th November 2005. The local authority for the family's area, the previous County Council, clearly had their concerns. Their transfer summary is seen at F405 and their papers are now before the court between Q1 to Q236.

It is common ground that Father A's parents played a large part in the care of the children, including having them to stay for periods of time with their mother's agreement. It is clear that Father A's mother contacted the local authority because of her concerns, as can be seen at Q143 and Q144, on 5th August 2005 and 5th November 2005. It is fair to say that the previous County Council were also critical of Father A's mother's attitude towards her daughter-in-law, Mother. At a very early stage, namely 5th August 2005, as can be seen at Q159, Father A's parents offered to have the children to stay with them if there were problems. Father A's mother says that she did her best to help Mother, the children's mother, but that was seen as interference by Mother. Father A's father accepted that at times Father A's mother may have undermined Mother but did not believe that was done deliberately. Father A's mother initially said that she did not feel that she was being controlling of Mother, but she now recognised that she had indeed been controlling of her.

Mother began a relationship with Father B in about November 2005 and in due course they married. The family lived with the children at the home of Father B's mother, between March and June 2006. This can be seen at C39(2) in the documents. The previous County Council's closing summary dated 27th July 2006 says as follows at Q18:

"Concerns were raised about mother's ability to care for the children independently. Father A's father and mother, the paternal grandparents, have been providing a significant amount of support and care to the children over the last two years and feel Mother does not have the knowledge and skills needed to parent her children independently. The relationship between Mother and the children's paternal grandparents (Father A's parents) has broken down, although contact is continuing. Mother and Father B are being offered support from his mother and Mother's parents. There are no concerns about Mother and Father B's ability to provide care for Child 1 and Child 2. The family have moved to … and relinquished the flat in ….."
The fact that Mother had taken up with Father B caused a deepening family rift .It is clear to me that Mother's preference for Father B over Father A caused some difficulty and in particular between Father A's mother and Father B's mother. Father B's mother lived very close to her son Father B and Mother. Her other child, Father B's sister, lived not very far away and they both saw a lot of the children before the proceedings began. The rift in the family has been exacerbated at times by the progress of the litigation with each side of the family at times blaming the other for what they perceive as preferential treatment by the local authority who bring this application.

The local authority is Bath and North East Somerset Council. Their application for care orders for all three children is dated 5th December 2006. Their care plan was originally framed as follows:

1. For Child 1 and Child 2 (dated 21st May 2008, D36-51) for those children to live with Father A's parents under a special guardianship order. They would, it was proposed have contact with their mother limited to 3 to 4 times a year while they settled down. They would not see her husband Father B or Father B's mother at all, despite the care which each gave them in a way I shall set out in due course. That care plan has now been amended and indeed re-amended to provide for contact no more than six times a year for the children to Mother and Father B and his mother. It is dated 26th November 2008.

2. The care plan for Child 3 is and was for her to be placed for adoption outside the family (dated 21st May 2008 and now amended at 26 November 2008). The original begins at D52 and the latest is at D82(a). The plan is for Child 3 to have some limited face to face contact with Child 1 and Child 2, if possible, even though those children would on the local authority's proposal be living in the family and having some contact with their Mother and Father B and his mother. I should say that the Adoption Panel did not initially approve this plan but deferred a decision. It was on the very day that these proceedings began before me on 12th June 2008 that approval was formally given, and that approval has now been ratified by the local authority's decision making officer.

The claims of the other parties are as follows. The Mother, and her husband, Father B, father of Child 3, have throughout this case (until a very late stage so far as Father B is concerned) wished for all three children to be rehabilitated to their care as soon as possible. Mother in the course of her evidence made other alternative suggestions, namely that if she could not have all three children she would look after just Child 3. Her next preferred option for all three children would be with her mother-in-law, Father B's mother. It is only if that was not possible so far as Child 1 and Child 2 were concerned that Mother would support the children living with Father A's parents, their grandparents, and in those circumstances she would prefer a residence order rather than a special guardianship order. She also at a very late stage in the proceedings in the course of her evidence suggested that her own mother, or her father might be able to assist. At the very last stage of the proceedings, namely when his learned leading counsel was making submissions to me, Father B, Child 3's father, was able to instruct Mr. Sharp QC that he would not actively oppose an adoption order for Child 3 unless the court felt able to place her with his mother.

Father A's parents, were made parties to this case by order of 18th September 2007 and given leave to apply for residence of their grandchildren. They applied to the court at B61 on 24th October 2007 for Child 1 and Child 2 to live with them. Their son, the children's father, Father A, supports them in this application. They ask the court to make a special guardianship order.

Father B's mother, was made a party on 26th March 2007 and given leave to apply for a residence order in respect of all three children. She made clear at paragraph 18 of her latest statement dated 28th May 2008 if she cannot have all three children to live with her then she confined her application to Child 3 to live with her under a residence order. She confirmed in the course of her evidence that she now confined her application to Child 3 and accepted that if Child 1 and Child 2 could not live with their mother and stepfather they should indeed be placed with Father A's parents, their grandparents.

The other application was made by Father B's sister, who was made a party on 30th May 2008 at the pre-hearing review. She originally applied by her statement to have Child 3 to live with her and she was assessed by the local authority accordingly. But on 21st September 2008 she filed a document with the court withdrawing her application and I gave her leave so to withdraw. She supports her brother, Father B, and her sister-in-law, Mother, in their application for the children to live with them, and she also supports by way of alternative her mother, in her application. On the day allotted to Father B's sister to give evidence in this case, namely 8th December 2008, she provided a doctor's certificate that she was unfit to give evidence. She also provided a very poignant letter dated 4th December 2008 setting out the strain which these proceedings have brought upon her and why she felt unable to continue to seek to care for Child 3.

The children's guardian, who is very experienced, has supported the local authority throughout this case. She supports the amended care plan for Child 1 and Child 2 to live with Father A's parents and for Child 3 to be adopted.

There have been a number of reports commissioned in this case. The jointly instructed psychologist supports the local authority and the guardian. She has reported no fewer than ten times, but she is by no means the only expert. The jointly instructed viability expert has reported on the possibility of rehabilitation of the children to their mother and Father B. He was supportive in his first two reports but allied himself to the jointly instructed psychologist by the time of his last report. The Local authority instructed an independent social worker (ISW 1), who has reported in support of the application of Father A's parents. An independent social worker and guardian (ISW 2), has reported in support of Father B's mother in her application. Finally, a social worker, Social Worker F assessing Father B's sister, has reported supposedly independently of the local authority in respect of Father B's sister's application. She did not support that application. The guardian has produced two reports in this case and her final report of 4th June 2008 begins at E770 of the papers.

The difficulties which existed in this family during 2006 are made clear in the papers from the previous County Council. At Q127 on 7th February 2006 Father A's mother is recorded as saying that she is "devastated" that Father B is with Mother. She told us, as the document indeed records, that this was because she feared that her son Father A may give up his drugs rehabilitation course as a reaction. Father A's mother is further recorded as saying that she is "disgusted" at their wedding, at Q25 […..]

It is clear from those brief references to the history and from consideration of those documents that by the middle of 2006 these were unfortunately very fractured families. The jointly instructed psychologist was able to listen to the evidence of Father A's mother and Father B's mother and she told us that what emerged was "the extent of a deeply pathological relationship between the families ….".

This case eventually came to court as a result of the fact that on 31st July 2006 Child 2 was taken to hospital by her mother, Mother, and her stepfather, Father B, with a swollen right lower leg. This was at the insistence of Father B's mother. A fracture was in due course diagnosed and other fractures were later found on 4th August 2006. It was unknown at that time if the injuries were accidental or inflicted and if the latter who may have caused them. Much later in the chronology the court endorsed the agreed threshold dated 6th June 2007 as set out at A32 in the bundle. This document came into being during a fact finding exercise conducted largely by negotiation over three days and concluding on 22nd May 2007. It was drafted by mother's own junior counsel, Miss O'Neill. The document says this:

"The evidence discloses that:
(1) between 30th June and 31st July 2006 Child 2 suffered the following injuries.
(i) metaphyseal fracture of distal right tibia
(ii) spiral fracture of the right tibia
(iii) buckle fracture of the proximal right tibia
(iv) fracture of right radius
(2) (a) Fractures in (i), (ii) and (iv) are likely to have been caused non-accidentally in the sense of being caused by inappropriate handling of Child 2/ handling which fell short of reasonable care/lack of proper supervision and involved excessive force. There is no evidence that the injuries were inflicted deliberately but the person who caused the injuries would have known that the force used was excessive.
(b) The buckle fracture was caused on a separate and more recent occasion than the other injuries and the medical evidence was that it was possibly suspicious of non-accidental injury.
(3) All the injuries happened at a time when the child was in the care of Mother and Father B.
(4) There is no real possibility that any other person caused the injuries.
(5) Mother and Father B failed to protect Child 2 from being injured and failed to seek appropriate medical attention."
Much later in the proceedings the local authority sought to widen the facts which the court would be asked to find on the medical evidence as drafted by their then counsel, Mr. Kerry Barker. This is set out at pages A54-57 in the papers dated 30th May 2008 in time for the pre-hearing review as "medical findings sought". By their letter of 10th June 2008 to the court the local authority said as follows:

"The local authority has decided not to pursue the findings as set out by Mr. Barker on 30th May 2008 and seeks to rely on the admissions as set out on page A32 of the bundle."
It is in part the perceived reluctance of others such as Father B's mother and her daughter Father B's sister to accept that Child 2 was injured whilst in her parents' care that has caused the local authority, the guardian and the jointly instructed psychologist to doubt that either could safely care for Child 3. Neither Father B's mother nor Father B's sister noticed anything untoward in Child 2 until the day she was taken to hospital.

Essentially therefore the case began on 31st July 2006, some two and a half years ago. It is therefore incumbent upon me to set out a good deal of the history after that time in order to explain the ensuing delay. Quite independently of the proceedings I am concerned with, on 1st August 2006 at X County Court a court order for contact was made, as seen at J13-J14, by a District Judge on the application dated 30th May 2006 by Father A's parents. Neither Father A's parents nor the District Judge were told of the seriousness of Child 2's injuries. Father A's parents later applied (at J15) for a residence order in respect of their grandchildren on 21st November 2006. The local authority, Bath & North East Somerset, were informed of Child 2's injuries on 1st August 2006. They knew of the court hearing at X and decided not to notify the court of their involvement. This can be seen at K187-188 of the bundle. The local authority held a strategy meeting on 2nd August 2006 (E5-E8). The legal file reference for this meeting is also to be seen at K189. The decision was taken to discharge the children, Child 1 and Child 2, into the care of Father B's mother. She was, it will be remembered, the step-grandmother of those children.

The A side of the family were not informed even of Child 2's injuries. Father A, the children's father, was not informed despite not only being their father but having parental responsibility for them. The first time he became aware of Child 2's injuries was on 27th August 2006 when Father B's sister and his mother were visiting him in hospital following a stroke which he had suffered. He was at that stage continuing his drug rehabilitation programme.

Those omissions I regard as serious failings on the part of the local authority. The local authority were apparently prepared to accept Mother's word that informing Father A of the situation would cause her trouble. The local authority case through Mrs. Barnes is that this was simply a private family arrangement between family members only and not a placement by the local authority for the children to reside with Father B's mother. The local authority case was at this stage being managed by the Referral and Assessment Team. I heard from Social Worker A who was in day to day charge of the case and the allocated social worker from 8th August to 9th September 2006. Her manager was Team Manager 1. Social Worker A wrote a social work report at F13 for an initial case conference which took place on 22nd August 2006. She told us she visited the home on two occasions, namely 8th August and 18th August 2006 for at least an hour on each occasion.

Following the children coming to live with Father B's mother the health visitor was assigned to the family from 3rd August 2006. She visited many times. She was immensely experienced. She attended a case conference on 22nd August and gave evidence before me. A child and family support worker with 40 years' experience ("CFSW") became responsible for this family from 27th September to 7th November 2006. She made 8 visits of one and a half hours duration plus further home visits on 7th December and 12th December 2006 (F132-F133). She wrote a parenting assessment dated 9th October 2006 which appears at C27-30 of the bundle.

The initial decision by the local authority as to where the children should reside seems to me to have been quite extraordinary, if only because at that stage there was still uncertainty about the origin and timing of Child 2's injuries. The Mother, her husband Father B and his mother were all in the "pool of possible perpetrators". Yet the local authority had placed the children in Father B's mother's care and permitted Mother and Father B to visit their children under her supervision for up to 12 hours each day. It must have been a very difficult task for her indeed. Yet all the reports of professionals that I have referred to speak very positively of her. For example, the minutes of the initial case conference held on 22nd August 2006 are at F1-F12. At F8 it is recorded:

"The plan that Father B's mother cares for the children has reduced the risk at that time."
At F11 of those minutes it can be seen that Social Worker B is to take over responsibility as case co-ordinator. So it can be seen that that was the view of Social Services at that stage.

Mrs. Lynda Barnes, who became the team manager for the case officially on 31st August 2006, attended that meeting. Thus it is little wonder that in the legal memorandum dated 10th January 2008 produced from the local authority's privileged file the senior legal adviser writes as follows at K80:

"As we know, we are in a difficult situation with Father B's mother as we did, as a local authority, see fit for the children to be placed with her for up to five months."
It is also in that memorandum that the legal adviser realised that when Father B's mother was caring for the children she had not been properly assessed as a foster carer and that in particular no core assessment was ever completed, and that, despite the express terms of the order of District Judge Daniel on 23rd June 2007 at B50. On 8th February 2008 at B87 Father B's mother's solicitor wrote complaining of a total absence of an assessment of their client. The absence of a completed assessment is contained as part of the local authority's admitted facts at paragraph 3 of A177.

Returning to the narrative, it will be remembered that at the stage of the initial case conference on 22nd August 2006 the A side of the family were still not aware of the situation that pertained for the two children. That is a further manifest failing on the part of the local authority, in my view. A core group meeting took place on 31st August 2006. As Social Worker B said in her statement at C764(7) and during the course of her evidence, she is not sure why she did not attend that meeting. She gave her apologies, as can be seen from the minutes at F29-30. A draft agreement for the children's care was drawn up on 31st August 2006 and can be seen at F293-294. It was on 7th September 2006 that Social Worker B told us she took over as the responsible social worker in the Children and Families Team, accepting this case from the Referral and Assessment Team. The transfer summary is dated 7th September 2006 at F72. On 27th September 2006, as F113 reveals, the CFSW, accompanied Social Worker B in visiting the family. It is recorded that:

"Both children looked well and both parents interacted with the children appropriately. Mother and Father B demonstrated emotional warmth to the children. The health visitor, was present and we exchanged phone numbers, details, etc. she reported that both children were performing well and Child 2's speech is very advanced."
Unfortunately, Social Worker B was off sick for a good deal of the time and therefore unable to make any full assessment for the full child protection conference which took place on 17th November 2006, the minutes of which begin at F31. Her line manager, Mrs. Barnes, can be seen apologising to the meeting for that at F34. Social Worker B visited the family on the further occasions that she sets out in her statement, namely on 6th October, 1st November and 2nd November 2006. She amplified in evidence some of the concerns she was feeling at that time as set out in her statement regarding the difficulty she believed Father B's mother was experiencing in looking after the children in that situation. We discovered during the course of this hearing that Social Worker B was a quite newly qualified social worker who later reported to her employer by way of complaint against the local authority that she had felt completely out of her depth. She alleged that she had been given far too much work to do and far too much responsibility for her experience. When she had left the employer, Bath & North East Somerset, on 3rd November 2006 she brought a claim against them for unfair dismissal, largely based on the way she had felt unsupported by the management and in particular by her line manager Mrs. Barnes. She settled her claim on the basis of a written reference being provided. At the beginning of the hearing before me attempts were made to locate Social Worker B and her address was eventually learnt from the Department of Work and Pensions in time for the resumed hearing on 10th September 2006. Social Worker B filed a statement in the proceedings which although undated begins at C761. It was clearly not possible or appropriate in any way to retry Social Worker B's claim for unfair dismissal, but in my judgment she gave valuable evidence in this case. By that stage Mrs. Barnes had become an intervener and her counsel was able to cross-examine Social Worker B.

Social Worker B's statement, filed very late in the proceedings, was in response to a letter from the very experienced solicitor acting on behalf of the mother. A number of agreed questions were to be put to Social Worker B in order to assist her in the compilation of that statement. She told us she worked for the local authority from 8th February 2005 to 3rd November 2006 when she resigned. She said in her statement at C769(25):

"People are frightened of Lyn Barnes and they do not want to go against her. She is a force to be reckoned with."
Social Worker B maintained that position in her evidence. She told us that in Mrs. Barnes' eyes people were either good or bad. She told us that there was a feeling in the team that Mrs. Barnes had her favourites, the ones who agreed with her whole-heartedly. If they did not do so "life would be made very difficult". Social Worker B maintained that she found it very difficult to talk to Mrs. Barnes about her cases because she was very stretched. "I felt she made decisions without taking my input into account", she said. Social Worker B also gave in her statement a number of instances where she maintained that her team manager, Mrs. Barnes, had lied to others. They can be seen in that statement between paragraphs 24-27. Social Worker B told us that she was "happy to address this issue" but not because she was out to get revenge on Mrs. Barnes for, as she saw it, cutting short her social work career. She told us, "I'm a truthful and honest person. I would not lie to the court. I'm sitting here to tell the truth."

Mrs. Barnes totally refutes these allegations. I subsequently heard from her in evidence denying all these matters and her learned counsel, Miss Wood, has submitted a very detailed critique of Social Worker B, which I very much have in mind at this stage. But I am bound to say that my overall impression of Social Worker B was that I found her to be an entirely honest and sincere witness. She did not recognise a number of the complaints put to her as described by her successor as allocated social worker, Social Worker C, who made allegations against Mrs. Barnes on the discrete issue, and Social Worker B answered in a very measured way throughout. She even made excuses for Mrs. Barnes' attitude to her team based on Mrs. Barnes being either over-stretched or so busy in her work schedule. I have no doubt that she accurately described how life was in the Children and Families Team for such an inexperienced social worker as herself. I do not believe that any contact she had with anyone else in the Social Services Team just before she gave her statement or the way in which it was compiled by the mother's solicitor affected her account in the slightest degree.

These matters require mention because there is a very striking resonance with what the social worker who later found herself in charge of the case of the children I am concerned with, Social Worker C, has told me in evidence of the way she was treated by the local authority and in particular by Mrs. Barnes.

Returning to the historical narrative, before the Child Protection Conference took place on 17th November 2006 the CFSW, presented her parenting assessment on 9th October 2006, which she told us she felt was part of a core assessment. The parenting assessment is to be seen at C27-C30. I have already said that no completed core assessment of the children ever took place and that the local authority admit this fundamental failing as part of their admissions. In closing it was described by the local authority's leading counsel as "inexcusable". That is really the only word for it. It is deliberately intended to be a vital document in care proceedings. Under the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families published by the Department of Health in 2000 it says this at paragraph 3.11:

"A core assessment is defined as an in depth assessment which addresses the central or most important aspects of the needs of a child and the capacity of his or her parents or care givers to respond appropriately to these needs within the wider family and community context."
Mrs. Barnes later chaired a strategy meeting on 20th October 2006, the minutes of which are at G11-G12.

Throughout this time it will be remembered that the children continued to live with Father B's mother and to see their mother and stepfather on a daily basis for up to 12 hours a day. Mrs. Barnes, who never visited the children, took the view in her evidence that Father B's mother was not really a primary carer of the children. Social Worker C who became involved from 9th November 2006, having made three visits, said she thought the parents did most of the caring. The jointly instructed viability expert, who wrote an assessment, has a record to the same effect at E157(32) and E162(47-50). He states in paragraph 48:

"Father B's mother should have been doing most of the caring of the children and not just supervising. Father B's mother told me that this was never made clear to her by the local authority."
The jointly instructed viability expert questioned what he calls the ambiguous nature of the written agreement between the parties in paragraph 49 and wonders why the issue was not raised with Father B's mother during the lengthy period that she was in charge of the children if the local authority believed she was not doing as they wished. Social Worker B told us that: "Father B and Mother did most of the caring for the children and Father B's mother was supervising them." Father B's mother accepted that analysis when she gave her evidence. I heard from the health visitor, and the CFSW, that from their many observations and with their enormous combined experience Father B's mother was assiduous in keeping to her remit of being in charge of the children.

Given the doubts I have been asked to have about the truthfulness and accuracy of Mrs. Barnes' evidence (for reasons which will become clear) and my doubts as to the experience and competence of Social Worker C, on her own admission, it seems to me quite simply my duty to accept the evidence of the health visitor and the CFSW, both called by the local authority. At the time of their combined observations it seems to me that I should accept that Father B's mother was indeed in overall charge of the children and supervising the parents. Her son, Father B, told us in evidence that his mother "did not have sole care of the children on a consistent basis", and that does not seem to me to be at odds with that finding.

For the avoidance of doubt I deal with the suggestion that Father B's mother was willing to permit her son Father B and his wife Mother unsupervised access to the children. This was one of the local authority's original complaints about Father B's mother, which was part of the jointly instructed psychologist's instruction. Mrs. Barnes indeed gave evidence to the Family Proceedings Court about it. It was formally abandoned in Social Worker C's statement of 20th May 2008 (C402, 6.2) at a very late stage in the proceedings, but it is still referred to by her regarding a letter of 9th May 2007 at C56 as having been "a concern". Mrs. Barnes even suggested in her evidence that there was no finding sought on the matter "so as not to cause unpleasantness" with Father B's mother. She said this:

"We do have concerns. We know of a breach of trust on at least one occasion. We do not ask for findings of fact so as to smooth the proceedings and to avoid unnecessary disagreements."
Having heard from the social worker A, the health visitor, and the CFSW, I have not the slightest doubt that Father B's mother fulfilled her remit as being in overall charge of the children and not permitting unsupervised contact between the children and their mother, and her husband, Father B. It was in my judgment disingenuous in the extreme for the local authority through Mrs. Barnes to seek to make an issue of the matter in evidence. It was at my direction that the local authority wrote to the jointly instructed psychologist the letter of 11th June 2008 that sought to draw attention to the new position reflected in Social Worker C's statement. But the jointly instructed psychologist was to tell us in the course of her evidence that it was partly those concerns by the local authority which she believed to subsist which at a meeting at the residential assessment centre on 19th December 2007 misled her as to the true facts and caused her to recommend that the children be returned to foster care at the conclusion of her residential assessment, thereby depriving Father B's mother of an opportunity of further caring for the children. Given what I have described as the extraordinary decision of the local authority to place the children with Father B's mother and to permit up to 12 hour daily contact to Mother and Father B following the final report of the health visitor dated 15th November 2006 at F48-51 and the CFSW, of 9th October 2006 at C27-30, it is not entirely surprising that even without any more formal assessment the case conference of the local authority on 17th November 2006 at F31 recommended that Child 1 and Child 2 should remain with Father B's mother and that the baby when born should also be placed with her. The legal meeting of 28th November 2006 at K194 made the same recommendation.

In her much later statement of 3rd October 2007 Mrs. Lynda Barnes at C178(3.4) did say this:

"During the time when the children were placed with Father B's mother there were times when she found it tiring and overwhelming and became distressed. This was at the time when Father B and the Mother were present."
She maintained this position in her evidence.

There was a resonance between that evidence and what Social Worker B, who filed her statement much later during the course of the proceedings, was to say at C764(9). She maintained in her oral evidence regarding that first meeting on 27th September 2006 that this was the first time that she had met the family and she did remember that what really stood out was "the fact that Father B's mother was struggling. She seemed quite short and sharp in her tone in the way she was interacting." Social Worker B maintained her opinion that she had concerns regarding Father B's mother's mental health and the fact that she was stressed. Social Worker B said that she had observed on her third visit on 1st November 2006 what she had written at C765(12), that she also noted "Father B's mother seemed to be struggling. Father B's mother said that she was very tired." Yet Social Worker B did agree with counsel for Father B's mother, Mr. Miller, that she was describing her being a tired granny, but the situation was within the realms of good enough parenting. "You would expect it", said Social Worker B. "She is placed with two small children in very difficult circumstances." She it was who said that Father B and Mother were doing the caring and Father B's mother was supervising them at that time. Father B's mother accepted when she gave evidence that at that time some days might have been better than others so far as she was concerned.

Mrs. Barnes was asked about the reference in her statement, C161(3.5), regarding an incident between Father A's father and Father B's mother when Father B's mother allegedly "broke down and told him of the pressure she feels under … of the arguments going on between Father B and Mother". This is in relation to what she described as a situation "whilst the children were placed with Father B's mother there were tensions and disagreements over parenting styles. Due to the children's age they would have been at home when these tensions and arguments took place." Mrs. Barnes maintained that that was her understanding of the position and Father A's father much later in the evidence told us about an occasion which he described on 13th November 2006, which appears at F126. Father A's father said that Father B's mother was crying. He put his arms around her and she said she could not cope. She said that Father B was no longer her son because he was being manipulated by Mother and Mother had said she (Father B's mother) would not see her grandchild when the child was born. So, said Father A's father, "I say she was totally overwhelmed." Father A's father said that his response was to say: "Those two bastards have no right to treat you like that." Father B's mother disputes that she spoke in this way. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Father A's father on this matter.

Returning to the narrative history of the case, on 9th November 2006 Social Worker C had her first involvement in this case. This was just three days after she had joined the local authority on what was intended to be a three month temporary contract following her 12 month degree course, which had included a 3 month placement with Bath & North East Somerset. Social Worker C told us she expected to do some assessments and to supervise some contact but nothing more. However, such was the level of staff shortage at the local authority, she told us, that she was asked to "baby sit" Social Worker B's cases including that of Child 1 and Child 2 and the soon to be born Child 3, and she visited on 9th November and 16th November and again on 12th December 2006 prior to proceedings being issued. Social Worker C was, on her own evidence, "completely out of her depth" and "did not really know what was going on". Mr. Bellamy QC on behalf of the local authority reminds me that inexperience is not necessarily incompetence, but in my judgment, having heard Social Worker C's own account of her abilities, I take the view she should never have been put in this vulnerable position. Her first absence with stress she thought was as early as May 2007. The records at A128 show that it was between 9th July and 6th August 2007. There have been other absences with stress, namely 17th September to 1st November 2007 and Social Worker C collapsed under cross-examination on the third day of her evidence when dealing with what she alleged to be the inept state of the local authority's approach to this case and Mrs. Barnes' alleged dishonesty. Social Worker C was signed off with "severe stress" and a medical report dated 16th September 2008 was filed on her behalf in answer to a witness summons when it was hoped to resume the case at the earliest possible opportunity.

It was Social Worker C's case that she became the allocated social worker by February 2007 when she was taken on full time by the local authority. But she says she does not understand how this allocation actually happened. At paragraph 10 of the local authority admission document they say that she was allocated to Child 1 and Child 2 on 7th November 2006 and to Child 3 on 14th December 2006, and that is how Mrs. Barnes contends the matter in her statement filed for the purposes of the discrete issue on 12th September 2008 at C707(42). There are further issues regarding Social Worker C's lack of supervision as contended by her. The records are at K251-262 and form part of the amended admissions at A177. It was Mrs. Barnes' evidence that Social Worker C was adequately supervised. It is not necessary to go into that matter for the purposes of this judgment.

In keeping with the view that the local authority had by that stage formed, a legal meeting took place on 28th November 2006 chaired by the local authority's service manager. It is referred to at F131. Present were Mrs. Barnes, the legal adviser, and the service manager. The decision was made at the meeting to apply to the court for interim care orders on the basis of the children all remaining with Father B's mother and being visited by Father Band Mother. In this way there was to be a "form of legal protection" according to the meeting. The service manager was required to file a statement very late in these proceedings and she gave evidence, saying that she and Mrs. Barnes did discuss the possibility of removing the children to a foster placement. Clearly by their decision at the meeting that suggestion was put to one side. The local authority began their care proceedings on 5th December 2006. The care plans following the legal meeting on the basis of retaining Child 1 and Child 2 and Child 3 when born with Father B's mother purport to come from Social Worker C, but she told us she did not have a hand in their creation and they were the work of Mrs. Barnes. Mrs. Barnes denies this in her statement of 10th July2 008 at C764(11).

Social Worker C did accept in her evidence that Father A's parents are not included as "persons whose view should be considered", as required in the care plan at D4, despite their having a contact order, having applied for a residence order and having looked after the children historically for some time. There was simply no care plan at all presented to the court regarding Child 3 in respect of whom the FPC made an interim care order on 14th December 2006. In later care plans neither Father A's parents as grandparents of Child 1 and Child 2 nor Father B's mother as grandmother of Child 3 and who had cared for Child 1 and Child 2 since 31st July 2006 are referred to at D15. Social Worker C had no idea why this was the case.

The local authority first put their application before the FPC in Y on 13th December 2006 following Child 3's birth in the early hours of that day. The guardian was appointed on 7th December 2006 and she, being very experienced, expressed her astonishment at the local authority's decisions taken since July. She had visited Father B and mother's home on 12th December but says that she only conveyed her views to the local authority and those parties assembled at court on 13th December 2006. It is clear to me, as she indeed herself accepts, that the children's guardian played a significant role in causing the local authority to amend its existing two care plans and to seek immediate removal of all three children from any family members. The local authority's service manager, told us that she approved this course, having spoken to Mrs. Barnes. She relied on what she was told by Mrs. Barnes who also conveyed to her the views of the guardian, which the service manager understandably thought were important. There is a record of that meeting on 13th December 2006 at F134 but no minutes exist of the meeting. The service manager did not recall being informed about what fostering arrangements the local authority had available and relied on the fact that as she understood it the local authority had suitable arrangements in place.

The parties returned to court on 14th December 2006 and interim care orders were granted and the removal of the children sanctioned by the court. The facts and reasons of the FPC can be seen beginning at B31 of the bundle. The situation so far as the family is concerned is that first of all Mother was in hospital following the birth of Child 3. Father B, Child 3's father, was at court and he and the Mother, were at least represented by counsel. Father A, the father of Child 1 and Child 2, had written to the court through his solicitors on 13th December 2006 and that letter has now been recovered and placed in the bundle at F414. It can be seen that he did not oppose a care order, but that was based on what he understood the care plans to be, namely placing his children with Father B's mother. The social worker, Social Worker C, told us that she had not ever seen that letter before giving her evidence.

Father A's parents, had not been notified of the hearing at all and this despite the fact that on 31st August 2006 the local authority had received a letter from them (F70) asking to be considered as carers and also the fact that on 5th September 2006 Social Worker A told Father A's father that if the children's residence changed they would be considered as carers (F71). Father B's mother, who had been in charge of the children for nearly five months, had not been served with notice of the application, despite being named as a person to whom notice should be given at B2, and said that she was unaware of the hearing. She was caring for the two children at the time. Social Worker C had visited her on 12th December 2006 but given no hint of any change of care plan (which to be fair may not by then have come into being). The guardian had also visited Father B's mother on 12th December 2006, as I have said. The guardian told us that she believed Father B's mother would have been aware of the hearing, but she had not spoken to her directly about it. Despite clear evidence that Father B's mother incorrectly failed to recall a later visit from the guardian (E791(b)), I see no reason not to accept Father B's mother's recollection about such an important event as this initial court hearing. Mrs. Barnes told us that Father B's mother would have been made aware of the hearing but chose not to attend. Father B's mother says that the first she knew of the hearing was when Social Worker C telephoned on 14th December 2006 to say that the children would be removed but not that night. The local authority took the view that it was too late in the day and they had no placement available for the children.

Having heard Father B's mother and Mrs. Barnes on that point, I prefer the evidence of Father B's mother. Father B's mother makes the point that her care of the children cannot have been so deficient if the children were not instantly removed that night. It is clear that she was upset by the decision, but to her credit it was she who prepared the children for their removal to foster care the next day. Social Worker C said the local authority stand by their letter at F79, that Father B's mother was told that the removal of the children was not because of her care. The service manager told us that as she saw it Social Worker C was simply presenting the matter in as kind a fashion as possible to the family. I do not attach much weight to that observation having heard Social Worker C, whose evidence I accept.

For the sake of completeness I say that the jointly instructed viability expert, who was later jointly instructed to prepare an assessment, told us that he was not convinced that the removal of the children from Father B's mother's care was justified. He said that he assumed that there must have been a sufficient reason to warrant that removal but he could not find any evidence that Father B's mother was not able to care for the children. However, the plain fact is that the court sanctioned the removal on 14th December 2006 and this County Court became seised of the matter very soon afterwards and court orders were thereafter made and were not at any stage appealed. It is right also to record that the jointly instructed viability expert believed that the children's guardian was correct to say that the children should never have been placed with Father B's mother in the first place because of the uncertain origin of the injuries. But he added that given the fact that they had been there for five months he would not have acted so precipitately and he would have allowed time for a careful review of the situation. The jointly instructed viability expert also felt that every effort should have been made to keep the children together. For his part he did not see that their need was so pressing as to merit placement in three separate foster placements. He also believed that the way in which the children had been removed and the eldest Child 1 and Child 2 separated from each other would have been "emotionally traumatic" and "devastating" because of the distinct lack of preparation. It was the jointly instructed viability expert's belief that the evidence of the health visitor, the CFSW, and Social Worker A appeared to have been "down played" at the FPC. It is fair to say that the parenting assessment of the CFSW and the work of the health visitor, were not put before the FPC at all. Those two witnesses also told us that they had never met the guardian throughout the long history of this case. The children's guardian accepted that but told us that she had acquainted herself with their written material subsequently. I accept that.

Thus the children on 15th December 2006 were removed from Father B's mother's care so far as Child 1 and Child 2 are concerned and from hospital as far as Child 3 was concerned and placed in three separate foster placements. The local authority made a decision in due course to allow that to continue, even though their case outline for the hearing on 18th January 2007 makes it clear that it was their intention to reunite the children if possible. The service manager, said that she was advised by her social work team that the removal to foster care "had gone reasonably well". The guardian told us in evidence that it soon became clear that the children, especially Child 1, had such needs that they could only be met by being placed individually. So she supported what had clearly been an emergency arrangement continuing, and she accepted that she had led on that decision.

Child 1's foster carer told us in evidence that she would have taken Child 2 also had she been asked. A statement was filed by a member of the Placement team at the Local Authority dated 27th June 2008 at C147 refuting that proposition. Whatever the reality of the situation, since 9th January 2008 Child 2 has in fact been living with Child 1 at Child 1's foster carer's home following the end of the jointly instructed psychologist's residential assessment. Child 3 has remained living separate from her half-siblings. Considerable emphasis is placed in this case in the expert evidence on the way in which the children presented when first in foster care. Of course due allowance must be given for the way in which they were removed from what was familiar to them and the way in which they were separated. Child 1's behaviour in the car on the way to foster care is recorded by Social Worker C at F78 on 15th December 2006, which she maintains is an accurate record. Her record of observed contact at F82 for 19th December 2006 and at F83 for 28th December 2006 and of her statutory visit at F85 on 10th January 2007 are, she maintains, correct. She said she relied upon what the foster carers told her rather than what they might have written in their foster care diary notes.

Social Worker C told us that the foster father of Child 1 was more forthright in his concerns about Child 1 than his wife who wrote the diary sheet, which she suggested "tended to be toned down". She also told us that the entry at C22(c) 3.1, namely "Child 1 scared of male carer", although the only evidence in the diary is on one occasion regarding a flannel on the child's head, was included because she was told by the foster father that this had gone on for some time. A further issue of Child 1 holding out his hand to be smacked was a major factor in this case and incidentally led to the alleged exposure of Mrs. Barnes' alleged dishonest practices when in the middle of her evidence it is said that she contacted Social Worker C by telephone to ask her to check up on that behaviour. Mrs. Barnes' statement of 3rd October 2007 says at C156: "It is clearly documented that for some considerable time after being accommodated Child 1 put his hand out to be smacked." Mrs. Barnes had told us in evidence: "It still happens." She was challenged on that topic. The foster mother of Child 1 said in her statement of 17th June 2008 filed in direct response to that answer at C564 that the practice went on for 6 to 8 weeks. In her oral evidence she said it had gone on for 4 weeks, but when it came to looking at the diary sheet she accepted that it had lasted for no more than 2 weeks. Social Worker C accepted that Mrs. Barnes' statement gives a wrong and/or false impression and she explained that she had allowed this to be put in evidence because "we were under a lot of pressure in the office".

The jointly instructed psychologist gave evidence on this topic and said that she had realised that the practice had not gone on for very long. Thus she for her part was not distracted by the mistaken references. But the jointly instructed psychologist added this: "when I was informed about it (she thought by the children's guardian) I was concerned that it had happened even once." She had set out Child 1's behaviour in her report of 5th February 2008 at E506 8.3.3. On the topic of the children's behaviour in foster care Social Worker C was taken to her statement regarding contact visits which had gone on around the time they were taken into care. That statement had come to light very late in the day even though it is dated 17th January 2007. The statement begins at C22(a). Social Worker C's statement was compared with the records of contact that were disclosed in questions asked by Mr. Sharp on behalf of Father B. Social Worker C was asked as to where the positives shown in the diary entries were reflected in her statement. She accepted that they did not appear to be present and that her statement did not suggest contact was a positive experience. Her statement at C22(b) was compared with entries at M9, 3rd January 2007, M10, 1 January 2007, and M12, 8 January 2007. The same point was made on behalf of Father B's mother by Mr. Miller of counsel. It is clear that contact was stopped for his client after contact in February 2007 because, as Social Worker C had said at C72, "introduction of contact clearly had an unsettling effect on Child 1." Her entries at F243 and F244 and the foster care record at M30 and M31 suggested it was more of a positive experience. Social Worker C was unsure if she had relied upon comments of the foster carer for her description. It was suggested by the lay parties that Social Worker C had allowed herself to be drawn in by Mrs. Barnes to present a negative picture of the family. If she had done this I am perfectly satisfied, having heard Social Worker C for several days in the witness box, that there was no deliberate action on her part.

On the question of contact generally Mrs. Barnes told the FPC that she would "keep issues of contact under review" (see B31, Facts and Reasons). The children's guardian had said that she would make it her business to "sort out the complicated jigsaw of contact". There was clearly a large task to arrange contact between these three children and their families and it did not progress rapidly. I made an order on 21st December 2006 (B34-35). It is manifest that inaccurate information was provided to the court in the case log dated 20th December 2006 at A4 as to records of domestic acrimony between Father B and Mother together with possible drug and alcohol abuse by them. Experts who later reported fortunately were aware of this error. The jointly instructed viability expert said at E159 "No such records exist." The jointly instructed psychologist confirmed at E302, "There was no evidence of domestic abuse within their relationship."

I also adjourned the matter to 17th January 2007 to deal with issues of contact, placement and time tabling. The fact finding on the question of the injuries was listed for four days on 22nd May 2007. On 17th January 2007 Her Honour Judge Darwall-Smith at paragraph 9 on B36-37 ordered contact to take place "in accordance with the attached schedule". By that stage therefore the issue of contact was clearly before the court. Orders were being made and they governed the situation. Those orders were not appealed by any party.

As required by law, Looked After Children (LAC) reviews were by that stage being held. The first one was 4th January 2007. The references are F164 for Child 3, F167 for Child 2 and F170 for Child 1. It is to my mind somewhat surprising that the children's guardian did not attend either that review or any subsequent review until the very last one, even though she was invited. She plainly felt able sufficiently to inform herself about the case in other detailed enquiries.

I deal with a specific complaint made on behalf of Father B's mother that although reference was made in the LAC reviews to "both sets of grandparents" and "contact with wider family members to be considered" it did not progress until Father B's mother saw the children for one hour on 23rd February 2007. Father A's parents saw the children for one hour on 27th February 2007. It is right to say that the independent reviewing officer agreed with Mr. Miller on behalf of Father B's mother that there should have been more contact with Father B's mother, but it is clear to me that there were a large number of other persons to be considered and the court was clearly overseeing the situation at that stage. It is also clear that Social Worker C said on 11th January 2007 (F87) to Father B and Mother that she was not proposing to allow contact to the grandparents for at least a month. It is right that on 27th January 2007 (F90) Father B's mother may have had to telephone Social Worker C to ask about contact, but the court order had plainly been made and had not been appealed or sought to be varied. The guardian has apologised to the court for not making sure that the local authority had informed Father B's mother about this matter even though, as she said, it was not her job to do so.

Father A, father of Child 1 and Child 2, first saw his children on 2nd February 2007, nearly two months after they had gone into care. They were "overjoyed" to see him. Thereafter even his proposed contact was to be every three weeks. At that stage Father B and Mother were seeing the children three times a week. So plainly the A side of the family were not then being preferred to the B side. Father A's parents next saw the children on 3rd May 2007.

I have already said that Social Worker C found herself in charge of this case, whatever the correct date, with virtually no experience, very little training and on her own account inadequate and often rushed supervision. She also had a number of personal problems associated with homelessness with her large family, sick leave and requests for counselling. Her service manager told us that she was aware of these factors. The Service manager accepted that there was "significantly less than the optimal service from the department for these families and their children".

Social Worker C, in the course of her evidence, made a large number of allegations of a very serious nature in respect of Mrs. Barnes' working practices and management style. She told us that Mrs. Barnes was controlling, although not bullying, of her. She said that Mrs. Barnes tended to take decisions without proper consultation or taking account of the views of others and she misrepresented facts or exaggerated isolated events into established patterns of behaviour. The most striking example of this last suggestion appeared to me to be at F41 when during a case conference Mrs. Barnes had notified the meeting that all the professionals had observed Child 1 being indiscriminate in going to strangers. That was behaviour that neither Social Worker A, the Health Visitor or CFSW had seen, as they told us in evidence. They confirm they had in fact seen the opposite in Child 1. There is a striking resonance to what Social Worker B told us, as already described. The children's guardian also told us at a rather late stage in the proceedings in a document at E1554 how she had experienced Mrs. Barnes' attitude to others. The service manager told us that she was never made aware of Social Worker C's concerns. She had only learned of Social Worker B' complaints following her resignation and she believed Social Worker B had simply not attended her supervision sessions with Mrs. Barnes. Social Worker B denied that this was the case, and I see no reason to disbelieve her as to that.

But the most remarkable development in this case, which tended at times inevitably to distract the court from the children to the adults involved, came from the information which Social Worker C was to give the solicitor and counsel for the local authority on the morning of the third day of this case. Social Worker C alleged:

(1) that Mrs. Barnes, being part-heard in her evidence and in direct contravention of my instructions at the end of the first day of her evidence not to talk to anybody, had that evening (Thursday, 12th June 2008) telephoned Social Worker C to inform her of the questions that she was being asked and to ask her to check up with Child 1's foster mother, on the extent of the child's hand smacking behaviour. At the very least, if true, that would have amounted to contempt of court. Social Worker C said she had complied with that request.

(2) Social Worker C said that she had become concerned when the next day Mrs. Barnes had instructed her to deny, if asked, that the conversation between them had ever taken place, and made it clear that for her, Mrs. Barnes, lying in evidence if necessary was permissible. Mrs. Barnes completed her evidence that d

Sincere apologies but I cannot put the whole first judgment on the board,it is way too long for the character capacity, as such I have the links here.

Judgment 1
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... 8/B10.html

Judgment 2

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2009/B11.html

Usuful points if you dont want to read all the judgments.

end of judgment 1

I will consider any application for permission to appeal this judgment from any party following its being formally handed down on Monday, 22nd December 2008. I have in mind to fix a hearing in February 2009 (when I am next available) to consider any consequential directions and orders that may be required in this case including that of costs. Written submissions can be provided for that hearing, but I have in mind forthwith, subject to further discussion with learned counsel, to permit selected parts or even the full version of this judgment to be shown:

(a) to any party involved in any case which is ongoing where Mrs. Barnes has to date played any significant role;

(b) to any necessary Local Authority managers outside the Children and Young Persons Department and to any duly authorised body enquiring into their recent conduct as a result of this case, which I understand may be awaiting this decision; and

(c) to the General Social Care Council so they may review their procedures, as may be necessary, for checking the circumstances of a serious criminal offence on the record of an applicant for registration as a social worker. There are grounds for thinking that the circumstances of Mrs Barnes' conviction were not subjected to sufficiently rigorous scrutiny.
I would welcome brief submission on these last points.


At a subsequent hearing the judge ordered the local authority to pay (1) 50% of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th to 6th and 7th Respondents' costs of the proceedings as assessed by the Legal Services Commission and (2) the costs of preparing all transcripts ordered to be produced within the proceedings.

And also in Judgment two this point is of significance

So it seems to me that I have to pay pretty close attention to the fact that there may be persons in this locality and indeed elsewhere, (as Mrs. Barnes has been employed in the past by other local authorities) nursing a sense of grievance or even a sense of injustice in past cases, and who would be unable to do anything about it unless they became aware of my findings in this case other than by chance, and that seems to me a pretty strong argument for publicity of this judgment. As Munby J. quoting the journalist Miss Camilla Cavendish in the case of BBC v. CAFCASS [2007] EWHC 616 (Fam) [2007] 2 FLR 765 was to say, there is a fear that there may have been what she described as "patterns of injustice". It seems to me it is not out of the question in this case, given the extreme nature of my findings regarding Mrs. Barnes, that something similar, or not wholly dissimilar, has happened in another case, which would not be able to be known unless there was some form of publicity for my findings in this case