England and Wales County Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCC 4 (Fam)

 

 

In the County Court

 

 

 

Before:

 The District Judge

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

 

Between:

 

X Local Authority

Applicant

And

A Mother

Respondent

 

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

RE: A

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

 

 

 

Hearing dates: 16/12/09

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judge’s Reasons

 

See also: A (A Child), Re [2009] EWCC 3 (Fam) (2009)

 

Application

 

1. This case concerns an eight-month-old male child who was made the subject of a final care order at an Issues Resolution Hearing on 10 November 2009. That decision was made in a written judgment dated 16 November 2009. As anticipated at paragraphs 7 and 34 of that judgment this placement application hearing was listed before me for determination on 16 December 2009.

 

2. Placement for adoption was approved by the adoption panel on 30 September 09 and ratified by the local authority decision-maker on 4 November 2009. The local authority continues to work towards an outcome whereby the adoptive parents of the son’s half sibling will be able to adopt the son also.

 

3. The Guardian's report is dated 25 November 2009. In addition to the criteria addressed in her previous report, she addressed the additional material required by section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I adopt each of her conclusions as my own, and --- in particular -- I am satisfied that on the evidence adduced by the local authority and observed by the Guardian, that there is an absence of evidence of bonding with the natural parents which makes it highly probable that the son will not suffer distress at cessation of contact. He is achieving his developmental milestones, is happy and settled with his foster carers, and if he were to settle in an adoptive placement alongside his half-sister, that would appear to be the best outcome for the son, (and indeed for both of the children).

 

4. Both parents attended the hearing, and neither felt able to consent to the making of a placement order for their son.

 

5. The Official Solicitor acts on behalf of the mother. In a careful analysis of the medical evidence (contained in a written statement dated 14/12/09) he accepts on mother's behalf that she is not capable of giving consent to the request for a placement order but that it is appropriate, in the circumstances, for there to be no opposition on behalf of the mother to the application.

 

6. The father accepts the Guardian's report and the conclusions within it. He recognises that the mother could not care for the son without 24 hour supervision; and that he cannot be available to help with that level of care without giving up his employment which the couple cannot afford for him to do. He has not asked to be assessed as a parent to care for the son, and – whilst co-operating with the authorities throughout - he has not participated in any court proceedings until today. He adopted the same stance as the mother, preferring to abstain from giving his positive consent, and leaving that decision to the court. He, certainly, - (and the mother to a lesser extent), - appears to recognise the inevitability of this court coming to the conclusion that the son's best interests are served by a placement order being made in order to achieve the best prospect of permanence and stability for their son.

 

7. There are no other close relatives with whom the son has had contact; neither parent has been able to suggest any other relative who might be able to look after the son; (there had been mention of the maternal grandparents but, for whatever reason, they did not respond to the local authority’s invitation to discuss what part they might feel able to play in their grandson’s life).

 

8. I bear in mind the criteria under the Children Act 1989 which I addressed in my earlier judgment (when making a care order in respect of this child), and the additional criteria as required by the 2002 Act.

 

9. For the avoidance of doubt I find that section 21(2)(a) of the 2002 Act is met, and I am satisfied that the child’s welfare requires that I dispense with parental consent to placement in respect of both parents, (with the additional finding pursuant to section 52 (1)(a) of the 2002 Act that the mother lacks the capacity to give her consent to the placement under the issue-specific test applied by the Mental Capacity Act 2005).

 

10. I therefore make a placement order in respect of the child. There is to be letterbox contact afforded to the parents on the usual annual basis. There shall be no order as to costs between the parties, and a Legal Services Commission Funding Assessment Direction for any Assisted party.

 

11. In my previous judgment concerning this child I mentioned the great delight shown by mother that there was a real prospect of the son being brought up with his half-sister in the same adoptive placement. Having met father today, I am pleased to record that he, too, shares the mother’s relief and pleasure in that outcome. He is described within the reports on the file as being kind to and supportive of the mother, and that is heartening to read.

 

12. Finally, I was advised today that the DVD of contact (about which I was told last month and which is mentioned in paragraph 36 of my earlier judgment) was not a record of moving images, but is more in the nature of a CD storing a collection of photographs; I am advised that that collection is to be supplemented by photographs to be taken at Christmas 2009 when the two children have their next contact together. The Local authority has agreed to give that record to the parents in the early New Year.

 

 

District Judge

16/12/09.