Case No: DO 13C006 & DO13C00168

IN THE BOURNEMOUTH AND POOLE COUNTY COURT

IN THE MATTER OF [THE CHILDREN ACT 1989]

AND IN THE MATTER OF A,B AND C (CHILDREN)

Date: 7th February 2014.

Before :

His Honour Judge Bond

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

	DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL	Applicant	
	- and -		
	    M(1)

    F(2)

    A,B AND C(3)
By their Children’s Guardian
Nicola Mannaton.

Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Hearing dates:     7th February 2014 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
1.	This case concerns three children.  They are A who was born in 2010, B who was born in 2011 and C who was born in 2013.  The parents are the first and second respondents (M and F).
2.	This hearing is the Issue Resolutions Hearing (IRH).  There was due to be a final hearing starting on 10th February 2014.  The time estimate was 7 days.  That hearing had been arranged to determine the LA’s original application which had been for the permanent removal of the children from the parents’ care.
3.	By the time of today’s hearing the position had changed.  The LA’s care plans were for the children to remain in the care of the parents subject to a supervision order and a contract of expectations.  All parties except for the guardian agreed.  The guardian in a careful and detailed report set out her reservations about the plan.  It is a powerful report.  It recommended that unless the parents showed a greater commitment to co-operating with the LA and the contract of expectations was more robust, the elder children should live with the paternal grandparents while the youngest remained with the parents subject to a supervision order.  
4.	The grandparents had been approved as potential Special Guardians for the elder children.  The paternal uncle and his wife had been approved as potential Special Guardians for the youngest child.
5.	Following discussions at court today and the inclusion of certain amendments to the contract of expectations, it was agreed that the children should all remain with the parents subject to supervision orders.   
6.	The agreed threshold criteria contain a number of worrying matters.  The children at the relevant dates (28th February 2013 and 27th August 2013) were living in a cramped, dirty and untidy home.  The mother suffered from mental health difficulties.  Both parents misused drugs.  The elder children were not being properly fed and suffered from iron deficiency.  They had delayed speech and general development.   The children all missed health and other important appointments.  The parents were resistant to advice and help from the LA and other agencies.
7.	Since December 2013, however, the situation has improved.  There has continued to be a commendably high level of input from the LA which has liaised with the other agencies.  The parents have shown that they have an improved understanding and acceptance of what went wrong with the earlier care of their children.  They have today signed a significantly tightened contract of expectations.  It is to their credit that the parents have brought themselves to their present position.  That could not have been achieved without the commitment of the LA’s workers and the guardian’s input. 
8.	The guardian continues to have concerns on behalf of the children about the position in the family home.  She has, however, come to the view that given the proper implementation of the contract the parenting of the children will be “good enough”.
9.	Today’s arrangements include provision for the paternal grandparents to have contact with the children and to undertake a significant supporting role. 
10.	I am very pleased that it has been possible for the court to approve the agreed arrangements and to make supervision orders. 
    
HHJ Bond                                         7th February 2014.