England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT

		24.3.14

Introduction

1. In these proceedings I am concerned for X, a child who is eight months old. He is the child of M and F and they both have parental responsibility for him. X's paternal grandmother was a party to these proceedings as she had hoped to be able to offer X a long term home but she withdrew on 4 February, accepting she needed to focus on another grandchild in her care. M has had two children prior to X. The first was removed and placed with his maternal grandmother due to neglect and the grandmother obtained a special guardianship order in November 2011. Her second child was subject to care proceedings just prior to X's birth, and on 22 March 2013 final care and placement orders were made in respect of her.
2. The local authority's concerns regarding the parents' ability to care for X stemmed from the issues which led to his half sister being removed from his mother's care after a failed residential assessment of her and X's father. X was accommodated at birth by the local authority, a police protection order having been made on the day of his birth as his parents would not agree to him being accommodated. An emergency protection order was then made on 23 July, followed by an interim care order on 26 July. Interim care orders have been renewed regularly since that time and he has remained living in foster care. The parents have had regular separate contact sessions three times a week since X went into care and have been very committed to attending those, ensuring they are always early to arrive. They have also both attended his health appointments along with his foster carer.
3. X's case began life in the family proceedings court but was transferred in November 2013 to be heard by me due to the fact that I was hearing the proceedings regarding the paternal grandmother's other grandchild. She was at that point seeking to care for both grandchildren and an overview needed to be taken of her ability to do that. That meant some delay but it was important for X for the court to be sure whether there was any possible placement for him in his birth family, given the negative assessments of his parents over these proceedings and the proceedings regarding his half-sister. In the event, an independent social work assessment of her concluded she could care for one but not both and as she was caring for the other grandchild already she reluctantly accepted she would not be able to care for X and she withdrew from these proceedings.
4. Prior to my involvement the father had sought assessment of himself as a sole carer but that application had been refused by the magistrates on 19 August. It was felt much was known about the father from the assessments in respect of the proceedings regarding the mother's second child and the court felt it had sufficient information to decide X's long term future. Upon the grandmother withdrawing from these proceedings the father made a further application for an independent social work assessment of himself as a sole carer, saying if necessary he would separate from the mother although he had resumed his relationship with her. I refused that application on 27 February, on the basis it was not necessary; I was satisfied I had sufficient information available to me to decide the case and his issues with the case put by the local authority and guardian could be tested out in cross-examination at this hearing.

Background

5. The summary of the background to this case I take from the local authority's written opening, it entirely reflecting my reading of the papers prior to hearing the case. The mother was first known to Children's Services in 2003 due to issues of conflict with her mother. The mother moved out of the grandmother's home at the age of sixteen, at which time there were reported concerns about her use of drugs and alcohol. During her first pregnancy the community midwife made a referral to the local authority, expressing concerns about her ability to meet the needs of a child due to her own vulnerability. A core assessment carried out at that time concluded the mother needed a great deal of support to parent her son. After his birth she lived with her mother for two months before moving into her own property. Just a week later a professionals meeting was held where concerns were raised that the child's needs were being seriously neglected. That child was placed with the maternal grandmother whilst a further core assessment was completed. The grandmother subsequently applied for and was granted a special guardianship order in respect of that child in November 2011.
6. After the birth of her second child, she and her partner, the father in this case (who was not that child's father) undertook a residential assessment as part of these proceedings. There were many concerns about the care given to that child at the residential unit and about the volatile and unstable nature of the couple's relationship. The father left the unit prior to the end of the assessment and due to concerns expressed by staff for the welfare of the child the local authority sought and obtained permission from the court to end the assessment early. A care order and a placement order were later made.
7. During those proceedings, concerns arose that the mother was pregnant with her third child. She denied this was the case but later admitted she had lied about this. A pre-birth assessment was undertaken in respect of the expected child and concluded that the baby would be at risk of significant harm in the care of either parent and recommended that care proceedings should be commenced at birth with the baby being placed in foster care. That then led to these proceedings beginning.
8. The findings made in the proceedings regarding the middle child (anonymised by me) were as follows :

a. The mother is the mother of one previous child who was the subject of child protection concerns immediately following his birth. He was accommodated by the local authority with the consent of his mother at the age of five months and now resides in the care of his maternal grandmother under a special guardianship order.

b. The mother is a young and vulnerable person who has led a chaotic lifestyle involving the use of recreational drugs and excessive alcohol.

c. The mother has a very limited experience of supporting herself independently in her own accommodation. She has struggled in the past to cope with the day to day care of herself and running a home without significant professional support, raising concerns as to how she will manage to cope in the community with the care of a young and vulnerable child.

d. The mother suffers from a degree of learning difficulty and presents as emotionally considerably younger than her years. She is easily manipulated as a result of her increased vulnerability, raising concerns as to her ability to identify risk.

e. The mother has in the past failed to protect herself from the risk posed to her by her own father against whom she has made allegations of sexual abuse and has not always been able to accept the local authority's concerns about her historical relationship with him. This raises further concern about her ability to recognise the potential risks to her daughter.

f. The mother failed to prioritise the health of her daughter pre-birth through her failure to consistently attend all ante-appointments and by failing to register with a general practitioner.

9. In terms of threshold in these proceedings, the mother accepts that those findings were made against her in the earlier proceedings which concluded in care and placement orders. The mother accepts because of those findings and the lack of change in her situation she cannot seek to care for X. The parents accepted that the relationship between them has been an unstable one, characterised by heated arguments over trivial matters and marred by separations and reconciliations. The parents conceded as a result of the previous findings and the situation regarding their own relationship X would be at risk of suffering significant harm in their care. That means that they accept that the first hurdle I have to overcome in considering whether to make a care order is met and I approve the amended threshold document as agreed between the parties.

The issues and the evidence

10. In preparing for this hearing I have read the full bundle of papers provided to me in this matter. The case was due to be heard fully today and tomorrow as the father was not accepting the plan for X. However this morning the father, having considered carefully all the evidence in the case, was able to make the very brave decision that he would not oppose the making of the orders. He and the mother very much wanted X to be brought up by the father but they realised the weight of the evidence against that. Ms Brocklebank on behalf of the father said although he did feel he had matured he wanted to put his son's interests first and that meant him making the very difficult decision that X would be better off being adopted. I have to say that is a very impressive decision, one parents are understandably very rarely able to make. I can only guess at how hard this is for these parents who have showed such commitment to their child over eight months and who hoped he would grow up in his father's care. To be able to face up to the case against them and then to accept the situation takes great courage. Putting one's child first is a sign of a caring parent and clearly this father and mother have done just that. I have to give a proper judgment in this case, to explain the decision I have taken, but it is important to record early the approach the parents have taken.
11. The local authority's application today, supported by the guardian, is for care and placement orders in respect of X, enabling him to be placed for adoption. The social worker's position since last summer has been that neither parent is in a position to care for X and, now that it is known there is no family option, the best outcome for X would be for him to be adopted. The local authority's concerns about the mother's ability to parent are not in dispute. In respect of the father, the local authority relies on the information gathered in the proceedings regarding X's older half sister and the pre-birth assessment and updated assessment in these proceedings, together with the fact that the parents remain in a relationship, despite a separation for some of these proceedings. I am not going to set out those assessments in detail but in essence what I gain from them is that the difficulties in the parents' relationship when in the residential unit, together with the other concerns about the mother's difficulties with her older children, prevented them giving good care to the mother's middle child and those issues still remain. The parents have been unable to remain separated and therefore the local authority says in reality the mother would still be part of X's life were he to be in his father's care, with all the risks that would bring.
12. The local authority has looked at the options for X, including placement with his father, a family placement, long-term foster care and placement for adoption and concludes the latter would best meet X's needs. The guardian supports that assessment and agrees with the plan for X. He too is of the view that neither parent can offer safe and sustainable parenting for X. He comments upon the resumed relationship between the parents, commenting that this has historically been unstable and of a "stop start" nature, observing that it is probable in such circumstances the mother would share care of X if he was placed with his father. The guardian felt that the father would be isolated and lacking a network of appropriate support were he to be caring given that the assessments of family members and friends were negative.

Decision

13. I now turn to consider what orders if any are in the best interests of X. I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. In Re B [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court emphasised this, reminding us such orders are "very extreme", and should only be made when "necessary" for the protection of the child's interests, "when nothing else will do". The court "must never lose sight of the fact that (the child's) interests include being brought up by her natural family, ideally her parents, or at least one of them" and adoption "should only be contemplated as a last resort". I have looked again at the words of the President in Re B-S (Children) [2013] ECA Civ 1146 as well as the judgments in Re B (supra) and reminded myself of the importance of addressing my mind to all the options for this child, taking into account the assistance and support which the authorities or others would offer.
14. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that X's welfare is my paramount consideration and also the need for me to make the least interventionist order possible. I am also conscious of the general principle that any delay in determining his future is likely to prejudice his welfare. I have to consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and of X as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. Having given very careful consideration to the orders I am going on to make, I am satisfied that those orders are in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children's rights and is proportionate.
15. I have considered all the points in the welfare checklists contained in both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and propose to consider the plans in the light of the most relevant of those factors.
16. In terms of X's physical, emotional and educational needs, his particular needs as the Adoption and Children Act 2002 says, the guardian summarises these by saying he needs a stable, safe and loving home environment in order for him to develop and reach his full potential. I would agree with that, as in essence his needs are those of any other small child. He needs a true sense of who he is and where he comes from and, if he is not to be in the care of his birth family, that can best be given by way of life story work.
17. In considering whether he can be placed with his father, there are two particularly relevant factors I need to consider, namely any harm he would be at risk of suffering and how capable his father would be of meeting his needs. I have considered carefully the assessments of the father, and indeed the mother. I am not going to set out the contents of those assessments here given the approach taken by the parents to this hearing but having considered them I agree that X would be at risk of harm if in the father's care. Given the history of their separations and reconciliations over the time they have been together, I cannot believe it would be any different in the future. I think the pull of X in his father's care would make it very hard for the mother to keep away. The risks she posed to her older two children would remain and X would be at risk as a result, as well as the risk of emotional harm and neglect of his needs due to the nature of the relationship between the parents.
18. I do accept that there are risks to a child through adoption. There is an inevitable loss of any meaningful relationship with his birth family. Each time a child moves there is the risk of harm, and X will have a further move once adoptive carers are identified. I believe that this risk can be ameliorated by the local authority in their choice of the right family for X and careful steps being taken to move him on from the care of his current foster carers. That task should be aided by the fact that the parents have been able to accept this decision and are keen to engage in life story work to give X the best possible understanding of the family he comes from and his early life experiences.
19. I also accept that long term foster care would not be right for a child of X's age. Black LJ in Re V [2013] EWCA Civ 913 summarised the advantages to children of adoption over long-term foster care in terms of what both types of placement would offer by way of security. With children as young as X I accept the perceived wisdom that he should not be placed in long-term foster care and that his need for a permanent secure home would best be met by an adoptive placement.
20. In this case, having carried out the balancing exercise that I must, I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of X being returned safely to the care of either of his parents, and that his needs for stability and permanence can only be met in an adoptive placement. I am satisfied that the local authority's final care plan for X is proportionate and (in the context of both s1(1) Children Act 1989 and s1(2) Adoption and Children Act 2002) in his best welfare interests. I therefore make a care order in respect of X. Turning to the question of the parents' consent, I am satisfied that X's welfare requires me to dispense with this, the word "require" here again having the Strasbourg meaning of necessary, "the connotation of the imperative". I therefore also make a placement order authorising the local authority to place X for adoption.
21. There is one further direction I wish to make. I think it is hugely important for children who are adopted that they have information available to them, through their adoptive parents, so they can make sense of their early life. This judgment, in setting out what I have read, gives at least a summary of that start. Whilst it will be placed in an anonymised form in the public domain, it is important that it is easily available to those who will be bringing X up. I propose therefore to make a direction that this judgment should be released by the local authority to his adopters so that it is available to him in future life.