Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCC 5 (Fam)

In the County Court

Before:
 The District Judge 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	A Mother	Applicant	
	And		
	A Father	Respondent	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 14/12/09

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WRITTEN REASONS

The written reasons are being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report, no person may be identified by name or location (Other than a person identified by name in the reasons themselves) and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved

Applications

1.	The first application before this court today has been made by paternal grandparents for a Special Guardianship Order in respect of their six-year-old grand-daughter. She was made the subject matter of a Care Order on 27 November 2006. The grandparents contend that the child has thrived in their care since June 2006 and they wish to formalise her placement with them in order to give their grandchild long-term stability and security. One consequence of the grandparents' application being granted is that the care order would be discharged.

2.	The application was served on the local authority and on both parents. The father supports the application and the report made by the local authority also supports the application. The mother opposes it, however, on the basis that she believes that if an SGO is granted the paternal grandparents will ensure that she is alienated from her daughter's affection. 

3.	The mother has made application dated 26 June 2009 to discharge the care order, and she seeks a residence order in her favour (with, in the alternative, an application for defined contact).. That application is also before me today.

Chronology

4.	The mother last had direct contact with her daughter in January 2007; her daughter last lived with her in June 2006, some three and a half years ago. The social worker has filed a statement which details the attempts made by the local authority to reinstate contact between the mother and child. As recently as 27 July 2009 there was an arrangement to reinstate indirect weekly contact; four letters were sent during August but nothing further thereafter has been received. 

5.	The case was listed before me on 14th December for a whole day, commencing at 10am. The mother did not attend, and attempts to contact her were unavailing. I delayed the start until 10.30am to afford her an opportunity to attend but she did not attend. This absence was consistent with the guardian’s recent experience of her; “I have attempted on numerous occasions to meet with (mother). I have written to her home address on three occasions. I have spoken with her solicitor who provided (her) e-mail address. I have e-mailed her on numerous occasions attempting to meet with her …” The Guardian explained that mother did respond just before the guardian was due to file her report, suggesting a meeting on 4th December; but the mother did not suggest either time or venue, and the guardian’s e-mailed request for that detail was ignored; so no meeting could take place.

6.	It was also consistent with the Guardian's past experience of the mother. This Guardian has been involved with the child since the first interim care order in early 2006. She records "I am aware that (mother's) current presentation of non-compliance was also a feature in the previous proceedings.”

7.	The child’s school has no concerns in respect of the child's presentation or general care and reports that she is making good progress. Neither the local authority nor the Guardian has any concerns in respect of the care given to her by her paternal grandparents. It is abundantly clear from all of the reports that the child has forged a loving and affectionate bond with her paternal grandparents who provide a loving and secure home. 

8.	Indeed the Guardian has the virtue of consistent involvement with the family since 2006. She records "how well Emily has progressed in the loving care of (her grandparents). Despite very difficult beginnings … she has put down roots in this caring and supportive family where she has been nurtured and encouraged to reach her undoubted potential in a warm and child-centred environment… the grandparents are her psychological parents and they provide her with a high standard of care.”

9.	The mother's own mental health difficulties prevent her from placing the child's needs above her own needs. A feature of the mother’s health difficulties has been her inability to cooperate with social work and medical professionals in order to maintain contact with her daughter. That leads to a probability that she would be unable to sustain cooperation in the future. There has been a disturbing lack of consistency over contact and the child must be protected from that inconsistency. 

Conclusions

10.	It is now 3 1/2 years since the mother was last able to care for her daughter, and that has two consequences; firstly, the child’s life cannot be put on hold until her mother is well enough to be able to care for her and be able to provide her with a home; and secondly, as the child was two when she last lived with her mother she is unlikely to recall being cared for by her mother; the guardian confirms that the child is aware of her mother's existence but reports that she has no real recollections of her. That in turn means that if the child were now to be removed from the care of her paternal grandparents (as the mother's application invited) she would be being removed from the emotional stability achieved by living with her grandparents for the majority of her life; that would have a severely detrimental impact on her emotional well-being; and that is not in her best interests. 

11.	Accordingly, I dismiss the mother’s application for residence.

12.	Where all the indications are that she is well cared for, settled, happy and thriving in the care of her grandparents, there is no virtue in the child remaining subject to a full care order simply to address the mother’s desire for contact. Applying the criteria set out in the Children Act 1989, I am satisfied that it is in this child’s best interests that I make an order appointing her paternal grandparents as her special guardians, (and I thereby discharge the care order).

13.	The mother has recourse to the court under section 8 of the Children Act, but litigation may not be necessary. When the mother's mental health improves to the point that she is able to demonstrate her commitment to the child, (by maintaining indirect contact for a sustained period appreciably longer than just one month), provided that the mother does not seek to undermine the placement, the grandparents confirm that they would be willing to facilitate direct contact. They have repeated that commitment today, and I accept what they say. Until then, my order expressly provides for indirect contact between mother and daughter on the child’s birthday and at Christmas by way of suitable card/ letter and gift.

District Judge,
14/12/09