England and Wales County Court (Family)

X Local Authority

Applicant

and

M

1^st Respondent

And

F

2^nd Respondent

And

AB

3^rd Respondent

This case involves applications by X Local Authority for a care order and a placement order in respect of ‘AB’ born in October 2008, so she is now just a month short of her second birthday. 

This is a very sad case, because, once again, it demonstrates how the misuse of drugs can ruin lives.  The parents in this case are ‘M’, who is now 25, and ‘F’, who is 26.  It is made doubly sad because they already have a child together, ‘CD’, born in August 2004, who is now six.  She lives with her parental grandmother and has done since a care order was made in June 2007.  She was removed because, to quote F himself, the reason was due to “drug taking” and the “chaotic lifestyle” of the parents.  Sadly, in between 2007 and 2008, when AB was born, circumstances did not appear to change for the better. 

At the heart of this case is the parents’ involvement in drugs and in criminal activity, some of which no doubt is a consequence of their involvement in drugs.  Both of them have, as it now appears, used drugs since their teenage years and even earlier.  Both have significant criminal records and have been in and out of prison.  Indeed, AB was born when the mother was actually serving time in prison.  Their ability to parent AB safely is clearly dependent on their ability to free themselves of their drug habits.  That is something which they now both fully recognise.  That is, of course, the conclusion of the Local Authority, it is the conclusion of the Guardian and it is confirmed by the conclusions of two respected psychologists, Dr Shaun Parsons and Mr Geraint Williams.  I need to quote in a little detail from the reports of both of them to illustrate the difficulties that have arisen.

In respect of the mother, Dr Parsons, at paragraph 45 of his report, says this:

‘M’s profile would suggest that she has a substance dependence disorder, with her profile showing attributes of both physical dependence upon drugs and also psychological dependence on drugs.  This is entirely consistent with her self-report, in that she has currently described that she is on a methadone replacement programme.  However, she had lapsed and used heroin three weeks prior to the clinical assessment.  The psychological dependence is also consistent with M’s own description of her substance use, when she described her use of heroin as her “main coping mechanism”.  In my opinion, M is highly likely to return to problematic use of substances even after a period of significant abstinence.’

That is of some relevance here because the most recent drug tests show that M in fact has only tested positive for cannabis, but the underlying problem is illustrated by Dr Parsons in the passage I have just read.

Then again at paragraph 84, in respect of F, Dr Parsons says this:

“F’s profile does however suggest that he has a substance dependence disorder in relation to heroin use.  F would appear to have both a physical and psychological dependence on substances, which is entirely consistent with his current and recent use of heroin.”

Then in relation to both of them, Dr Parsons deals with their cognitive ability, their emotional intelligence and how it impacts on their life choices and parenting ability and says:

“My main concern in relation to M is her substance dependence disorder, where she presently continues to have some degree of physical dependence upon substances, this being methadone, and she admitted she had also used heroin three weeks prior to the clinical assessment.  In my view, M also has a psychological dependence on substances, meaning that she will use substances as a coping mechanism, a fact that she does recognise herself.  This means that, in my view, in the medium to long term, there is a very high risk that even after periods of significant abstinence she will return to problematic use of substances.”

Then a short passage later, Dr Parsons refers to F and says:

“He has a number of very significant antisocial personality traits.  In my opinion, he is an extremely ego-centred and impulsive individual who has a very high risk of engaging in further offending behaviour, which may include crimes of violence and a very high risk of returning to the use of substances.  In addition, F takes very little responsibility for his actions and finds it extremely difficult to understand the actions of others and therefore to put the needs of others before his own.  He is likely to continue to lead a very chaotic lifestyle and there is an extremely high risk that even after periods of abstinence he will return to problematic use of substances in the future.”

Then he goes on:

“It is also my view that children under F’s care will be at a high risk of experiencing emotional harm and also potentially physical neglect due to the likely continuance of F’s chaotic lifestyle.”

And, in relation to those antisocial personality traits, he says:

“They are particular resistant to treatment intervention and it is extremely unlikely that any treatment intervention would reduce the risks that I have described above.”

He goes on to say:

“Were the couple to be jointly parenting the children, this would very significantly increase the risk that M would return to problematic use of substances in the future given that she also has a substance dependence disorder.”

There are other, sadly very negative, reflections in the continuation of that report.

Mr Geraint Williams was instructed to report on really the same issues in order to give the parents an opportunity to challenge the findings of Dr Parsons, which otherwise would have made their defence of this application virtually impossible.  Mr Williams’ report was produced some months after Dr Parsons.  Dr Parsons’ report was in September 2009 and Mr Williams in the May of this year, but Mr Williams has really come to the same conclusions as Dr Parsons.  Indeed, a joint memorandum prepared as a result of a telephone conference between them has resulted in a schedule, which one finds in the bundle at G151, setting out, as I say, the high measure of agreement between them.  Therefore, I will not quote Mr Williams at any length, but at his paragraph 89 he says this:

“M has relapsed into using heroin again more than once in the past.  As such, it is felt that this places a significant question mark over her ability to provide adequate parenting to AB since it suggests that she may always be at an increased risk of relapsing into using heroin again.”

He goes on to point out some of the practical difficulties that arise out of this.  For example, at paragraph 92, he points out that the mother is likely to use money to buy heroin rather than to buy food or toys for a child.  He says:

“Similarly, relapses into using heroin again will leave M at an increased risk of being arrested and returned to prison as has happened in the past, which can be frightening and confusing for a child.  Relapses into using heroin again will leave her at an increased risk of overdosing.  The death of a parent is extremely traumatic to a small child.  Relapses into using heroin again may leave her physical safety [that is to say AB’s physical safety] at risk since the possibility will inevitably exist that she might find some of her mother’s heroin and ingest it.  AB’s physical safety might also be put at risk if her mother were to become overly drowsy and fall asleep while holding a cigarette causing a fire.”

He then says indeed that:

“AB might observe her mother’s drug taking behaviour and thereby become less resistant to such behaviour when older.”

So he summarises this as showing that the mother’s ability to provide appropriate and safe parenting in the future will be particularly put at risk by any such lapses.

The threshold in this case has been based largely on the problems which I have already identified.  The parents in June of this year agreed that the threshold had been passed in accordance with a document which one finds at pages A107 to A112 of the bundle.  Therefore, the only issue in this case is the outcome.

Both parents have today faced up to the realities of this situation, having until now failed to co-operate with their solicitors, failed to provide statements as the Court had directed and, therefore, have failed really to come to terms with the situation in which they find themselves.  They have, however, both come to Court today.  They have accepted the advice that they have inevitably been given by Counsel and by their solicitors.  They have, I accepted, taken what must be extremely difficult decisions, which Counsel described as decisions which will “affect them and will indeed affect AB for the rest of their lives”.  They are still together in a relationship which, as I said a moment ago, is described by the psychologist as being effectively a destructive relationship.  The position they have now reached today is that they do not accept the evidence but, equally, they do not actively oppose it.  Therefore, Counsel have realistically taken the view that the appropriate course is not to ask for that evidence to be called and given orally but for the Court, having read it, to make a decision based upon the paper evidence.

The outcome in this case is one which has to be reached putting the child’s interests first and considering what is the long term welfare interests of AB.  The care plan with which the Court is faced is one for adoption because there are no other family members who can be put forward as potential carers for AB, despite attempts having been made to identify any such persons and, as I have already indicated, unfortunately CD’s paternal grandmother does not feel that she could cope with both CD and AB. 

On the evidence that I have read, I am abundantly satisfied that AB’s future must now be put into the Local Authority’s hands and that a care order be made on the basis of that care plan.  The position though in relation to the plan for adoption is that neither parent consents to AB’s adoption and, therefore, if I am satisfied on what I have already described as abundant, indeed overwhelming, evidence that AB’s welfare requires that outcome, then I have to dispense with their consent on the basis that AB’s welfare does require it.  That is the conclusion that I have reached. 

Consequently, I shall now make a care order in respect of AB to the X Local Authority and also make an order placing AB for adoption in due course, the evidence about that being that, for a girl of her age, still under two, who has been for most of her life or certainly since April 2009 in foster care and who has no particular physical or mental difficulties, I can reasonably expect that she will be matched fairly soon.  The provision for interim contact and indeed for any post adoption contact to AB is now dealt with in the amended care plan, that having been amended this morning at Court.  So I make the orders I have indicated on the basis of the amended final care plan and, having read the papers filed also in relation to the placement order application.

There will be the usual order for costs, namely that there will no order for costs as between the parties but that there should be a public funding assessment direction for those who are publicly funded.