The emails, sent to a social worker at Hampshire children’s services during care proceedings, were “bordering on the offensive, certainly aggressive, and make it very clear to my mind that he would not be able to work with the local authority” to the child’s benefit, Judge Levey said.
The judge said the father clearly had a “deep and abiding love” for his son, referred to as T, and his motive for opposing the local authority was positive in that he felt he could best meet the child’s welfare needs in the future.
However the emails, along with the father’s decision not to attend the final care proceedings hearing and a failure to cooperate with a court-ordered psychological assessment, left the judge with “no evidence” on which to conclude the man had any understanding of the boy’s emotional needs or the ability to meet them currently.
The judge said: “In those circumstances, bearing in mind that making a care order is an order of last resort, I accept the evidence which [the social worker] gave which is that there really is no alternative but for a care order to be made given that the only option before the court, other than that, would be father’s application for T to live with him.
“There is no evidence upon which I can be satisfied that father is able to meet T’s needs.”
The father, who claimed he had not attended the final hearing because he’d been threatened by the boy’s mother, said he was “extremely unhappy” with the local authority and called for an investigation.
During the care proceedings the judge was asked to consider whether the boy should live with his mother, his father or under the care of the local authority.
The mother said she would not challenge a care order as she felt unable to care for T at that time. However, the father requested a child arrangements and supervision order be made in his favour.
The parents’ relationship was “extremely difficult” and they had made “allegation and counter-allegation against each other”, Levey said. The social worker submitted in evidence that it had been difficult to work out where the truth lay.
“On reading the evidence it seems quite clear that in relation to their dealings with each other they have lost sight of the fact that T is their son, is their joint responsibility, and needs to have parents who are able to meet his needs. They have become consumed with the conflict between each other,” Levey said.
The child’s guardian argued that a decision to return T to his father’s care, against his wishes, “would be a disaster”.
The judge agreed and accepted social work evidence that, without any evidence to suggest care with his father would work for T, she should make a care order.
Levey said the local authority had not written off the father as a future carer, and would consider that an option if he was able to demonstrate “a very significant change of attitude”.
Source: Community Care