England and Wales County Court (Family)

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCC 9 (Fam)

 

 

In the County Court

 

 

Before:

HHJ X

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

 

Between:

 

	X Local Authority	Applicant
	And
	A Mother	1st Respondent
	And
	A Father	2nd Respondent

 

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

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

 

Hearing dates: 3 March 2010

 

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

 

 

Judgement

 

These Facts and Reasons have been agreed by all parties save for the parents, who do not oppose nor consent to them, such Facts and Reasons being adopted by the Court and the Court is satisfied the proposed Order is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

 

 

1.     THE JUDGE:  This is an application for a care order in respect of three children:  S, who was born on (date given) and who is now (age given);  H, who was born on (date given) and who is now (age given);  and D who was born on (date given) and is therefore (age given),

2.     The local authority care plan is for adoption.   The local authority’s aspiration is to place all three children together.   However, if they are unable to achieve that within some six months they would look to place S and H together, and D separately.   That is a care plan which is approved by the guardian.   There is, under a recent amendment to the care plan, a proposal in respect of contact up until the making of any adoption order.

3.     In the event that the court were to approve that care plan the local authority seeks a placement order.   The guardian supports the application for a placement order.

4.     The parents’ position is that they cannot consent to the care plan, nor can they consent to the placement order, and that is wholly understandable.   Clearly these proceedings are deeply distressing to them, and one can well understand that they are unable to give their formal consent to a course of conduct which they simply do not want. The parents’ position today is that although they do not consent, they do not actively oppose the making of the orders that are sought by the local authority and to which the guardian consents.   I congratulate the parents on taking this view.   It is not easy.   This is a case that was listed for three days.   There was to be evidence from an independent social worker, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, the guardian and the parents should they choose to give evidence.   The parents have taken the view that the court should make a decision on the basis of the reports and on the basis of the statements that are before me.   They do not seek to cross-examine any of the witnesses who might have  been called by the local authority or guardian.   They do not now require the attendance of any of the independent experts and are content for the court to proceed on the basis of those reports.

5.     One starts with the threshold criteria.   This is, of course, the first stage in respect of the application for a care order.   That was the matter of some controversy but The local authority have prepared what might perhaps be described as an amended threshold criteria.   It is dated 3^rd December, and the parents do not seek to challenge the contents of that threshold criteria.   That provides that the relevant matters which constitute that threshold are as follows.   The parents had a volatile relationship which, by their own admission, has included incidents of violence, in addition to verbal arguments. to which the children have been exposed.   Secondly, the parents have been neglectful in their parenting of the children through missing some health appointments.   S contracted impetigo due to continued flea-bite infestation.   S had a severe nappy rash;  her skin was red raw and broken in parts, and patches of dry sores on her body.   The parents failed to follow all the advice of professionals.  

6.      The threshold further provides that the home conditions were substandard, that a number of appointments with professionals were missed, that  the children suffered a number of accidental injuries in their parents’ care; S had a bite mark inflicted by father through play fighting, on his own admission, and the children had a number of bruises.   S weighed 26.9 kilos and was on the 99^th centile.   The mother failed to bond with S at the outset, and a number of contact sessions with the children have been missed.

7.     The history of the matter can perhaps be taken from an early report of the guardian. The guardian produced a report on 26^th February 2009 and it sets out how the local authority’s concerns dated back to the birth of S, and their anxiety as to the parenting capacity of mother and father, the domestic disputes between the parents, and their home conditions.   The parents had for some time resided in C and at other times in the XYZ area.   Those concerns have been shared by each of those two authorities, with the result that the children’s names have been placed on the child protection register under the category of neglect, including D who was registered at birth.   There was a history of domestic disputes between the parents, and a reported history of the parents being unable to provide home conditions that were suitable for the children.

8.     S’s poor physical condition was a matter of considerable concern.   There was concern at certain comments that she made, but those do not feature in the threshold that is now advanced and I do not make specific reference to them, but there was concern to the fact that she had been bitten by father and the fact that she was obese. 

9.     There was a visit to the home on (date given).   That visit led to the admission of the children into hospital, and on their discharge, it being the view that the children were at risk if returned to their parents, they were placed in foster placements in the XYZ area where they presently remain.   They remain there under a voluntary arrangement with the parents and no interim care order was sought, the parents being content that they should remain there.

10. The issue from the beginning was whether or not these children could be provided with good enough care by their parents.   For the assessment of that an independent social worker, SR, was instructed, and SR prepared a report on the parenting capacity of each of the parents.   In that report she sets out a history of their relationship which gives an added insight to the difficulties that the parents faced, and the difficulty that they experienced in meeting those difficulties.   Mother became pregnant within six weeks of the couple meeting.   She was under sixteen then.   S was born when she was a little over sixteen.    Mother apparently was unaware of the fact that she was in labour but did go to hospital;  she went on a bus.   S was underweight, jaundiced,  placed in an appropriate unit in hospital, and then discharged to the paternal grandparents’ home.   Mother has had a difficulty in bonding with S, as she told the independent social worker.   She feels rejected by the paternal grandmother who did not provide her with the assistance that she had expected.  

11. The parents’ relationship was marked by difficulties which led, on occasion, to physical assault.   That was a problem that extended to father’s family, and there is described an assault that took place between father and his mother, the paternal grandmother, over S’s care.   Father was concerned that his mother was taking over too much.   Father accepted that he had attacked mother, and that S had been caught up in that incident of violence, which he minimised, stating that the injury that she received had not hurt her, leaving only a red mark on her face.   Her mother’s view was that she was very upset.

12. The couple were provided with accommodation in (date given) and they lived in that accommodation which was supported, with S, from when she was ten months.   They stayed there until (date given) when they moved to live in XYZ.   While living there H was born.   The difficulties in their relationship continued.   Mother described how in the past she had taken overdoses in response to the arguments.   She described how she had smashed father’s computer game in half and slashed him across the face with part of it, from his eye to his chin.   Following that incident of violence father moved back to his parents’ home with S while mother returned to the supportive flat.   Mother was pregnant with H eight months after S’s birth.   She was then a little over (age given) when she had her second child.   She was pregnant with her third child three months after H’s birth.   During that pregnancy incidents of violence between the parents continued and mother confided that a family member had expressed the view that she wished that father slit his throat.   There was an incident when the father punched a glass cabinet and so damaged his arm that he had to be admitted to hospital.   He lost control of himself when given the wrong spoon by mother’s sister.

13. There are reports from father of loss of control over the state of the house.   There was concern about the house.   Father had undergone, he said, some counselling for stress and anxiety with a view to addressing his temper, but the information from mother was that little things set him off and it turns into a major argument.  

14. During the course of describing these incidents the parents referred to an occasion when C had turned purple and had undergone a convulsion.   The parental view was that this young child had done this deliberately and out of spite.   They could not appreciate that she was obese.   They could not appreciate that a diet of processed burgers, sausages, pizzas, fish fingers, crisps, chips ,and the like was contributing to her obesity.   When it was thought that H had injured her head as a result of being dropped, the parents’ response was that H had thrown her own head against the door frame.   In respect of the bite, it seems to have been conceded that the father had bitten S, but he described this arising from the circumstances when he was pretending to be a monster and he had bit her, it is said by the parents, too hard.

15. Father took the view that he had never bonded with S.   Mother said that she had never bonded with S.   Father thought that he had a better bond with H.   Neither parent felt that they had bonded with D, because D was taken into foster care when he was (age given).  

16. The view of the independent social worker is that the children were born in quick succession within the context of difficult early parental histories comprising disrupted and poor family relationships which provided neither parent with good models of acceptable parenting, and that was compounded for mother by abusive experiences that she had experienced without support.   Her assessment was that the parental relationship was difficult, often aggressive or violent, and her view was that they presented as both vulnerable and immature and that the combination of these factors presented a very difficult and potentially high risk situation for the children.   Her view was that the ongoing history served to confirm the high likelihood of inadequate parenting capacity and the resultant risk of potential or actual harm to the children.   Her view was that the parental limitations had impacted upon their capacity to provide safe care, that the prognosis for change was not good, given the duration of the difficulties and their potential vulnerabilities.  

17. Asked the question whether the parents had the capacity to parent the children to a good enough standard, the conclusion was negative.   The conclusion was that their relationship continued to give rise to concern, that they had limited capacity to provide good enough care, that there was a history of neglect and physical harm, and there were concerns about the psychological and mental health issues that arose.   In the event that the children were to return to them, Mrs. SR’s view was that they would require considerable levels of support and assistance.   They have not indicated a willingness to accept such support and assistance.   Mother’s position is that she cannot cope with feeling criticised, and she would not want the social worker in the house if she were to criticise her care of the children.   Mrs. R’s view is that the enduring nature of their respective difficulties suggests that they would not be amenable to intervention and it would be difficult to access any programmes of support.  

18. Her view is that the parents have consistently been unable to demonstrate a capacity to put the needs of the children over their own;  that they presented as immature and lacking in basic awareness of the needs of the children for constant, consistent and nurturing care.   They lacked any understanding as to the full impact of the effects of domestic violence upon the children.   Mother was unable to agree that much was wrong with their care.   So it was that the independent social worker was driven to the view that the children could not be provided with good enough care by the parents.

19. Consideration was given to the paternal grandparents and a viability assessment was prepared by LV in respect of Mr. D and Miss J.   Her conclusion was that although the grandparents had good intentions and loved their grandchildren, that love and good intentions were not always good enough to protect and support children, and that was the case in this particular matter.   In a detailed report, which I do not refer to beyond alluding to it, she concluded that she was unable to support any action on behalf of the grandparents of the children for the care of their grandchildren within their home.   Accordingly, it has not been possible to find a placement within the family that would meet the needs of the children, and accordingly the children must either be returned to the parents or the local authority’s care plan must be implemented.

20. There is a forensic psychology report which was prepared to assist in that decision by Dr. P.   In that report he sets out the details of the difficulties that mother experienced as a child.   They are there to be read in the report and I am not going to recite them in court;  but driven to a conclusion Dr. P came to the opinion that the couple have a problematic relationship which is characterised paradoxically by high degrees of dependency on the part of both of the couple, with mother requiring a very significant degree of emotional support.   However, both of the couple have a significant need for autonomy and distance within close interpersonal relationships, meaning that the relationship is characterised by tension and chronic stress.   In his opinion the couple’s respective personality structures, and therefore his formulation of the dynamics of the couple’s relationship, is entirely consistent with the domestic violence which has occurred in the relationship, both in terms of verbal and physical aggression.   Neither of the couple made any attempt to minimise the concerns in the papers in relation to domestic violence.

21. In his view their relationship was always likely to be characterised by a high degree of at least verbal aggression, mostly consisting of bickering and arguments.   In addition, mother is experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which will cause her significant difficulty, heightening the tension in their relationship.   The significant level of stress that they experience in their relationship is due to both of their respective psychological difficulties.   The consequence of that is that they have a reduced amount of emotion available for the children, and that any child in their joint care is at medium risk of experiencing emotional neglect and a medium risk of experiencing physical neglect.   His view is that they would not intend to create that risk but it is there.   His assessment of father is that his personality profile is pervasive and enduring.   In the case of mother he feels that she would benefit from psychological therapy, but those difficulties are significant and they are unlikely to modify or improve without therapeutic intervention.   Mother had been offered such intervention.   She failed to fully engage.   She clearly found it difficult.

22. The only conclusion that one could draw from that assessment is that the parents do not have the psychological capacity to provide a safe and good enough home for these children.

23. There is a psychiatric opinion.   That deals with other difficulties.   Mother is prone to recurrent depressive symptoms.   She exhibits symptoms of clinical depression.   She suffers from low mood, tearfulness, loss of weight, loss of appetite, feelings of self blame and guilt.   In addition, she has longstanding emotional and psychological difficulties.  

24. It is a sad fact that these parents cannot provide good enough care for these children, and accordingly I have to turn to the alternative which is proposed by the local authority and is supported by the guardian, and in coming to a decision the children’s welfare is the paramount consideration.   I have to consider their ascertainable wishes and feelings.   It is clear from the guardian’s report that their primary bond is with their foster carers.   If the care plan is implemented then they will have to break that bond, but that is something that is going to happen in any event and there is the prospect of transferring the attachment to others if it is handled skilfully and with care.   There is something of a bond with the parents, but it is a bond that arises primarily through contact and is not of the intensity of that which is held by them with their foster carers.  

25. I have to look at the children’s physical, emotional and educational needs.   These children need to be in a home where their physical needs can be met, where there is not the risk that they will be neglected, that they will suffer physical neglect, where there is a recognition of the importance of suitable diet, where their emotional needs are not put in jeopardy by aggression and violence, and where their educational needs will be met.   Sadly, the parents cannot provide that.   An appropriate adoptive placement should be able to do so.  

26. I have to consider the likely effect of any change of circumstances.   There will be a change of circumstances and it will not be entirely easy because these children are embedded with their foster carers.   That is where home is for them.   But transfer to an appropriate adoptive placement can be achieved in a way that should minimise the effect upon them.

27. I have to have regard to their age, sex and background.   D, of course, has no real relationship with his parents because he was removed from them very shortly after birth.   He has a relationship that arises through contact but it is not a close one.   Likewise, H was with them for a very short period of time before she was removed.   So their ages are relevant in that context.   S is older and with many children her age would be an inhibiting factor when considering an adoptive placement, but sadly neither parent felt able to bond with S and so the loss of that relationship is less significant to her, albeit that she is somewhat older.

28. I have to consider the harm that the children have suffered or are at risk of suffering.   While in their parents’ care they were exposed to a volatile and aggressive relationship.   They were neglected.   They did suffer injuries which were avoidable.   I have to consider the parents’ capacity to meet those needs.   Sadly they do not have that capacity.   I have to consider whether there is any other person who could.   Sadly, the paternal grandparents cannot.

29. So having considered those matters, I am driven to the view that the welfare of each of these children does require them to be placed for adoption.   That is in the context of consideration of the care plan.   When I come to consider the placement application I shall obviously look at other criteria because there are additional features that relate to that;  but insofar as the local authority advance a care plan which is based on proposed adoption I approve it.   The welfare of the children does require it.   Their welfare does require that they be adopted as a trio, all three together.   Clearly the local authority should be pursuing that objective.   It is only if that proves impossible that it should contemplate separating D from his sisters, and if they are separated then the local authority should be looking for a placement which would enable contact to be maintained between them.   Ultimately the level of contact will depend upon the proposed adopters, but it is clearly in these children’s interests that contact be maintained if they are with separate adoptive families, and the local authority should seek prospective adopters who have the capability of maintaining that contact with their siblings.

30. Having approved the care plan, and having made a care order, as I have, I turn to the local authority’s application for a placement order.   The factual issues that arise on that are those that I have described in the course of my consideration of the application for a care order, and it is unnecessary to repeat them, but the statutory criteria are different.   As I have already indicated, although they do not actively oppose it, the parents cannot consent to a placement order, and the court cannot make a placement order unless the parents consent or the court makes an order that their consent be dispensed with.   By section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 the court cannot dispense with the consent of any parent unless it is satisfied that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.   When considering that, the court turns to those matters that are set out in section 1 of the 2002 Act.

31. The paramount consideration of the court must be the child’s welfare throughout his or her life, and when considering that there are certain factors that the court has to have regard to.   The court has to consider the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, and I have referred to that in the context of the application for a care order.   But the court does have to consider the likely effect on the child throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become and adopted person.   Looking at these individual children, in respect of S there is a limited emotional bond.   As I have already said, neither parent felt able to bond with S.   S knows of her parents and has met them in contact, but at the present time her primary attachment is to her foster carer and not to her parents.   H is younger, she is only (age given), and for much of her life she has been in foster care.   D has never been in the care of his parents.

32. It is clearly an important step to remove a child from his birth family and the court looks with care at the effect of such an order.   But having regard to the limited emotional attachment to the parents and the potential benefits of being an adopted person, those benefits outweigh the effect of ceasing to be a member of the original birth family. 

33. I have considered already the question of age, sex and background, and the question of harm.   I have to consider the relationship that the child has with relatives, and there is a relationship with the paternal grandparents.   It is a relationship which would be lost.   It cannot realistically continue.   Those grandparents undoubtedly love their grandchildren but they are not in a position to care for them.   I have to consider the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, and I take into account the fact that the parents and the grandparents do not want this adoption.   They would much rather, and their wish is for the children to be with them, but sadly that is not possible. 

34. When I take all these factors into account and I look at the need to provide for each of these children’s welfare, taking into account the guardian’s report and all the information before the court, I am driven to the view that that welfare demands that they have the opportunity of a permanent adoptive family that can provide them with the security and care that sadly their parental family cannot.

35. Accordingly I make placement orders in respect of each of these three children.