Court to take baby from mum who hid her abusive boyfriend in shed
RISK OF HARM AS MOTHER BREAKS FOUR AGREEMENTS
A COUNCIL will take a baby from their mother following a persistent “pattern of dishonesty” including hiding her boyfriend – who has a history of sexual abuse – in a shed.
During a hearing at Derby County Court on Tuesday, Judge Adreeja Chatterjee ruled that a baby should be taken from its mother and placed into foster care due to the persistent risk of harm it was being exposed to.
This, the court heard, included repeated exposure to the mother’s boyfriend – the father of the child – who has a proven history of sexual abuse.
Four binding agreements a council had made with the mother to allow her to keep children (two at the time) on conditions banning contact with the boyfriend had all been breached, the court was told.
The mother does not accept that she breached the four orders, but the court heard evidence to the contrary, including the mother and her (at the time) two children being found at her boyfriend’s house; the boyfriend being found at her house, along with her children, hiding in a garden shed; emails between the two; text messages; and messages being passed via relatives.
This “pattern of dishonesty and collusion” is what had “persuaded” Judge Chatterjee to support a move to take the baby (the third child) from the mother and to be placed into foster care. Meanwhile, the two other children would be allowed to stay with relatives under a joint interim care order with the council sharing responsibility.
The court hearing detailed that the case involved alleged neglect, physical harm, sexual harm, emotional harm and domestic abuse.
The sharing of details including the names, ages, location and name of the local authority involved is prohibited by the court in this instance to safeguard the children involved in the case, with the press allowed access to specific family court cases admitted into an ongoing transparency pilot.
A legal representative for the council said the local authority had become involved in the situation as far back as 2020 when it had been told the mother was entering a new relationship.
It had been involved with the family already due to the mother having two children with a man who had a history of sexual abuse.
The new relationship was also with a man who had a history of sexual abuse and the council had sought to prohibit contact between the boyfriend and the children.
A legal repre- sentative for the council said the authority was “concerned about the sexual harm risk”. They said the mother had been “dishonest” and had been found at the boyfriend’s house and the boyfriend at her house.
The mother had denied the existence of the relationship throughout this time, including up to the time she was found to be pregnant with his child, the court was told.
After giving birth the mother was moved directly from the hospital to a different address after she made allegations of domestic abuse involving the father of the baby.
This was called into question by the council due to the mother not previously having raised any issues with the relationship.
However, the two remained in contact, in a “concealed manner”, passing messages and photos via a relative despite being repeatedly made aware of the “sexual harm risk”.
“The mother has repeatedly been dishonest, not been open, signed up to working agreements but seemingly prioritised that relationship over the safety of her baby,” the council’s legal representative said.
A legal representative for the mother said she had sought help due to an alleged coercive and controlling relationship with her boyfriend.
“She only recently made such concerns but it is the very nature of a coercive control relationship that a person subject to that behaviour is not aware that that is what they are being subjected to,” the legal representative said. They said the mother approved of her two older children remaining at a relative’s house but wanted to retain her baby and was willing to sign a new agreement on further restrictions to allow this.
A representative for the father of the two older children said he supported the children remaining with a relative because they were “safe, settled and happy”, and would allow the council to share responsibility if this was necessary.
The father of the baby, representing himself, said he opposed an interim care order – which could also include separation of the baby from the mother – and wanted contact arrangements.
Meanwhile, a CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) representative, on behalf of the two children, said a shared interim care order would be best because the relatives they were staying with had not yet been assessed.
They said there appeared to be no way to add further restrictions to allow the baby to remain with the mother after she had breached previous orders.
“It would still allow (the baby) to be exposed to dangerous situations,” they said.
Judge Chatterjee said local authority officials became aware of the baby in December last year and had been aware of the new relationship since February 2023.
She said the mother’s agreements with the council barring contact had been “breached on easy and every occasion”.
Judge Chatterjee said the boyfriend had been found in the mother’s bedroom on March 21 and on March 28 he was found hiding in a garden shed at her property.
She said the mother had denied the boyfriend was at the property and also denied she had a key for the shed.
On April 3, the two children and mother were found at the boyfriend’s home and there were “other occasions where the mother was dishonest”, the judge said.
“There have been numerous occasions of deceit from the mother, Judge Chatterjee said. “She has been dishonest with the local authority on numerous occasions, putting all three children at risk of serious harm.
“It may be a relationship characterised by coercive control but she has been unable to protect them from harm due to continued communication with (the boyfriend).
“The risks are so high and cannot be quantified. The pattern of behaviour and collusions, regrettably leads to an interim care order with a care plan of separation. There aren’t any measures that can mitigate the risk and the pattern of dishonesty is what has persuaded me.”
There aren’t any measures that can mitigate the risk and the pattern of dishonesty. Judge