England and Wales County Court (Family)

I am being asked by X Local Authority to consider the making of final care orders in respect of two children today, JP (D.O.B. given), and T-MP (D.O.B. given). The children’s parents are KJ and CP. KJ is represented by Mrs Blakemore today. CP is represented by Miss Dillon, who takes her instructions from the Official Solicitor, who has filed a statement on behalf of Mr P.

The Local Authority issued their application for a care order in respect of J on 6th May, on the basis that there were concerns about the parents’ ability to meet his needs. The mother herself was very young at that time. Both parents had some difficulty in relation to criminal matters. Mr P was at that time homeless and there was some volatility in their relationship.

There was a fairly positive parenting assessment carried out in July 2009, early in these proceedings. There was a proposal to move to a community based assessment, but the Guardian, Eileen Horton, felt that some form of residential assessment was more appropriate and the mother moved with J to a foster placement, but sadly the mother was unable to settle in that placement and it came to an end.

T-M was accommodated at birth and care proceedings in respect of her were issued in April 2010. There have been some delays in the case. It has been listed previously for a final hearing, but today comes in for a final hearing in relation to the care order application and also in relation to applications by the Local Authority for placement orders, the care plan being one of adoption.

The matter was listed for a contested hearing today, but the mother – and she is to be given the utmost credit for this, through her solicitor, Mrs Blakemore, came to Court today and instructed Mrs Blakemore that she did not feel she was in a position to resume the care of her children and, in those circumstances, although she was not going to agree to the making of the orders which are sought by the Local Authority, she was not actively opposing them. Those of us who do this sort of work on a very regular basis encounter parents who find in themselves the strength to recognise their own deficits, they find in themselves the strength to come to Court and effectively say that, because of their own difficulties they recognise that they cannot at this point in time parent their children. I cannot imagine, and I am sure none of us in this room can imagine, how difficult it has been for KJ to come to that decision, but what she has done is put her children fairly and squarely first. She has put her children in front of her own desire to look after them. She is to be given the utmost credit for that and her children in due course, I am quite sure, will understand what her position was. She recognises that she has to make some changes to her life, and she is to be commended for that. I am told she now has accommodation. She wants to resume her education and get a job. I hope that, with some assistance in due course, she will achieve those aims and be able, in some years’ time, to be a parent to further children.

The father’s position through the Official Solicitor is somewhat different, although it is quite difficult to reconcile that given the mother’s position and given that the parties are in a relationship and continue to be and wish to remain so. What the father’s case is, through the Official Solicitor on his behalf, is that he should be allowed to endeavour to carry out all the work which the psychologist who has assessed him, Alison Bayliss, identifies for him, and there is quite a catalogue of work. In a nutshell, Miss Bayliss is of the opinion that Mr P would need a minimum of 12 months’ therapeutic intervention before he could be reassessed to see whether there was a prospect of him parenting the children. The Official Solicitor asks that he be allowed to have that opportunity to undergo that intervention and suggests to this Court that the children should wait to see, firstly, whether he can obtain the intervention; secondly, whether he can complete it; and thirdly, and most importantly, whether having been reassessed the intervention has been successful.

Knowing what I do about the availability of that sort of work, the timescales for it and the necessity for further assessment at the end of it, it is very clear to me that we would be talking about probably well in excess of 12 months, more likely to be 18 months. To suggest that children of this age should wait, presumably on interim care orders in foster care, before a decision about their future placement is made, with the greatest of respect to the Official Solicitor, cannot be in these children’s best interests. In those circumstances, I cannot accede to the father’s case for a succession of interim care orders while he obtains the therapeutic and other work which Miss Bayliss identifies for him. It simply would not be in the children’s best interests.

I have read the Guardian’s report. The Guardian supports the Local Authority’s plans and supports the making of the orders which are sought.

In all the circumstances of this case, and given the fact that the threshold for making orders is conceded, I make care orders placing the two children in the care of X Local Authority. I endorse the Local Authority’s care plan, which is for adoption, and, in order for the Local Authority to effect that care plan, I make placement orders and I dispense with both parents’ consent to those orders on the grounds that the children’s welfare demands that I do so.

In respect of the care proceedings and the placement proceedings, I make no order for costs, save public funding assessment. I make an order that the costs of Miss Bayliss’ attendance at Court today are met equally by the parties within the case, the Local Authority and the public funding certificates of the other parties.