SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT EDINBURGH POIS/IL 7 JUDGMENT by SHERIFF WILLIAM HOLLIGAN in Petition of ‘THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh, BHI 1¥J Petitioners: in relation to R For the petitioners: Sharpe, Advocates City of Edinburgh Couneit For the respondent (natural mother): Aitken; Thorfey Stephenson 22"! MAY 2012 FINDINGS IN FACT 1. ‘The respondent was born on 28th June 1989. She resides in Edinburgh atthe address in the Petition. ‘The respondent is the mother R whose date of birth is 24th May 2008. R’s birth certificate is lodged as Appendix 1 to the Petition, R is a female child. R's father is TT. He is approximately two years older than the respondent. He is not and never has been married to the respondent. His name is not entered on R's birth certificate. He does not have parental rights and responsibilities in relation to R. “The respondent was born in the Gambia. Her parents are from the Gambia. Her religion is Catholic. On or about the age of 12 the respondent's mother brought the respondent and her brother to live in Edinburgh. She and her brother were left with her aunt Auk10. i. 13. 14, (the sister of the respondent's mother) in Edinburgh. ‘The respondent's mother retumed to live in the Gambia. ‘The respondent has lived in Edinburgh since she was brought to the United Kingdom at the age of 12. ‘The respondent does not and has not had regular contact with her mother or her family in the Gambia. ‘The respondent attended school in Edinburgh. She has full command of English. When the respondent was approximately 16 or 17 years old she stopped living with her aunt. Her brother stopped living with her aunt before she did. "The respondent entered into a relationship with TT. She fell pregnant. The pregnancy was not planned. The respondent was 18 when R was born. Before R was born the parties lived together for a short time at the home of TT’s mother. ‘When in hospital with R the respondent complained to staff that she had been the victim of abuse at the hands of TT. She did not return to live with TT. “The respondent was referred to Shakti Women’s Aid (“Shakti”) and the Children and Families Unit of the petitioners. Shakti is an organisation which provides support to wornen from ethnic backgrounds. It is partly funded by the petitioners. With the assistance of Shakti and the petitioners, on her discharge from hospital, the respondent and R were accommodated in a hostel. ‘The hostel was adequate but not suitable for the respondent and a baby. There was little storage and the accommodation was cramped. Some of the other residents had drug and alcohol problems. Ant18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. When R was born the respondent's immigration status was irregular. Asa result she had no recourse to public funds. The respondent was unemployed. She was dependant upon the petitioners for financial support which the petitioners gave her. ‘The respondent and R remained in the hostel until about November 2008. During her time in the hostel the respondent and R were visited by a health visitor and a Shakti worker on a regular basis. In of about September 2008 concems were expressed as to the respondent and R and in particular the parenting capacity of the respondent; her living conditions; her apparent isolation; R’s health and well-being. R suffered from repeated skin problems. Her skin was often red, dry and itchy. She was not being appropriately stimulated. On occasions she was found to be propped up ona bed with a bottle of milk. ‘The health visitor recommended that the respondent should attend a mother and toddler group. She did not do so. Rhad eczema. The treatment of eczema requires the regular application of various creams and moisturisers to the afffected areas. Otherwise the skin becomes red, dry and iteby. Despite the advice given to her by the health visitor, R’s eczema was often not under control. On oF about November 2008 the petitioners provided flatted accommodation to the respondent and R. The respondent was referred to a solicitor in relation to her immigration status. Her immigration status was regularly reviewed by the petitioners’ asylum and immigration panel. The respondent had contact with the petitioners when collecting money paid to her by the petitioners. Alt