Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 25 (Fam)
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Date: Thursday, 25th February 2010

Before
A CIRCUIT JUDGE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	X LOCAL AUTHORITY	Applicant	
	- and -		
	K	Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Miss R for the Local Authority.
Mr B for the Father.
Mrs W for the Mother.
Miss C-W for the Children’s Guardian.

Hearing date:
Thursday, 25th February 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Her Honour Judge:	
1.	
	The application before me is by X Local Authority for care orders in respect of two little girls, C, born on [a date in] 2004 and S, born on [a date in] 2005.  The orders are not opposed by the parents, Miss L and Mr K, who share the parental responsibility for the children. 	
2.		The proceedings started some considerable time ago in October 2008.  The children were actually removed from the parents’ care and accommodated by the Local Authority shortly thereafter in January 2009.  The parents acknowledged that the threshold for making care orders was met.  There is a document in that regard in the trial bundle which makes it clear that there have been considerable historical concerns about the parents’ ability to look after the children arising from various matters, including the parents’ abuse of alcohol.	
3.		It is right to say that the Court endeavours to conclude these sorts of proceedings as soon as possible to avoid delay for the children, and that this has been one of those cases which has gone on for rather longer than most cases involving care proceedings do.  But the delay has been for a purposeful reason, namely to enable the parents to show that they can make the necessary changes in their lives to enable the children to be safely returned to their care.  Counsel used the phrase “turned their lives around”.  It would be right to say that, at the commencement of these proceedings, perhaps all involved would have had some doubts about whether these parents would be able to seek the rehabilitation of their children to their care.  However, they have made enormous and significant changes to address the difficulties which led to the children being taken from their care and, happily, the children are now back in their care.  I am told they are thriving, they are happy, they have got active lives with their parents and so far that rehabilitation process has been successful.	
4.		The only note of caution, and perhaps the note of caution which requires the making of care orders in this case, is that some of the difficulties the parents had were deep rooted and longstanding.  We all know that it takes time to make sure that the changes which the parents have made, and are to be commended for having made, to become entrenched and permanent.  So it is right, I concede and so do the parents and the Guardian, that the Local Authority should continue to share parental responsibility with the parents by way of care orders to have a statutory oversight of the children’s position whilst in the care of their parents.  It is not meant as a criticism of the parents, and I think they understand that. 	
5.		Furthermore, I would say to the parents that, if they encounter any difficulties in the future, it is for them to turn to the Local Authority and seek help with those problems.  It is not an admission of failure.  Parenting two small girls is not easy; some of us know that from personal experience.  If they want some assistance, the parents must ask the Local Authority for it because it is not immediately going to have the Local Authority marching in and removing the children.  It is going to enable the Local Authority, if the parents need it, to put in support to maintain the children are home.  I wish the parents and the girls well.  It is a happy outcome for everybody and I make the care orders which place the two girls in the care of the Local Authority and I make no order for costs save for public funding assessment.