England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE BARNET COUNTY COURT

No.  BT13C00046

 

 

 

Barnet Civil and Family Courts

St. Marys Court, Regents Park Road,

Finchley Central, London, N3 1BQ

Monday, 17^th March, 2014

In the matter of the Children Act 1989

In the Matter of  A (a child)

 

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE VENABLES

                                              Re ; A ( a child )

 

_________

 

This judgment was delivered in private. The Judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment ) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons including representatives of the media must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Transcribed by BEVERLEY F. NUNNERY & CO.

Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers

One Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR

Tel:  020 7831 5627     Fax:  020 7831 7737

info@beverleynunnery.com

 

_________

 

MR. X  (instructed by the Local Authority) appeared on behalf of the Applicant .

 

MISS Y  (instructed by Chesham & Co. Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent .

 

_________

 

 

J U D G M E N T

(For revision)

 JUDGE VENABLES:

 

1                   I am today concerned with applications for a care order and a placement order in respect of a little boy named A , who was born on 12 June 2013.  His mother is Z and his father is unknown.  A’s mother is just 16.  She is soon to be 17 and is herself a looked after child.  Z has declined to provide any details about A’s father, save to say that she does not want the baby to hear negative things about his father.

 

2                    A was very much a wanted baby.  Z made clear that she wanted to have and care for her own child to experience and share the unconditional love which she feels she never experienced with  her own mother and father.

 

3                   The local authority’s applications are supported by A’s guardian, Miss Rosetti.  Z opposes the local authority’s applications.  Z gave evidence before me today and told me in heart felt terms why she had wanted the chance to care for her baby.  She was not cross-examined by any of the parties and I was not invited to hear any live evidence from the other witnesses.

 

4                   Z has had a very difficult childhood.  Her mother is an alcoholic.  There was an acrimonious split between her parents.  She lived with her father most of the time until she was about 12 and from there seems to have bounced between the care of her parents until she was accommodated at the request of her mother at 13 on the basis that she was outside of parental control.  She fell pregnant and had a termination when she was 13 after her mother agreed that she could return home.  The termination was a huge issue for her.  It is clear from the social work statements and from the independent social worker’s assessment that the Z positively decided to have A to replace the baby she lost.

 

5                   Z has had three very challenging three years since going into local authority accommodation.  She declined the offer of a referral to CAMHS services by the local authority. Today she tells me will take up those services if it will help her keep the baby. She is semi-engaged in education.  The local authority is concerned that that she has been sexually exploited by older men .

 

6                   Having heard Mother give evidence it is apparent she is bright and with academic potential.  She has been scapegoated within the family.  Her mother, her father and to an extent her sister all see her as being responsible for her own problems and for some of the problems within the wider family.

 

7                   However from the time Z became pregnant with A  she endeavoured to work with her family ( particularly her mother and her sister with whom she was then living) the local authority and the medical agencies.  She ate well.  She remained in her placement.  She listened to and she took advice.  She continued to work well with the agencies after A was born.  The professionals noted how attentive and loving she was with A, even if she appeared inexperienced and uncertain in his practical care.

 

8                   On 1 August, the placement with the family broke down.  Z reported that the family was dysfunctional. She was concerned about her mother drinking. The maternal grandmother reported Z was leaving A a lot and that she was being left with  primary responsibility for A’s care.

 

9                    Later that day Mother and A were moved to a mother and baby foster placement in Kent.  Mother says this was a real problem because it was so far away from everyone and everything. Nonetheless, the placement endured until 22 September, when Mother took A over to her father’s home and went off to see her boyfriend.  She did not return as arranged and didn’t make telephone contact.  Mother says that she intended to go back but she fell asleep at her friend’s house.

 

10              In the days following Mother’s failure to collect A the local authority tried to establish whether she wished to resume his care. She was understandably upset and asked for some time to think about things.  In the event she said that she was concerned that she could not offer what A needed.

 

11              Thereafter she declined an offer of a further mother and baby foster placement and she disengaged from education.  After proceedings were issued she  made an application for an assessment at a mother and baby unit which was unsuccessful. 

 

12              In recent times, Z has been living in semi-independent accommodation but she has absconded for significant periods.  She finds the unit difficult and feels very unsupported by her family and by her own social work team.

 

13              Z likes A’s current foster carer and had asked the foster carer if she might be able to care for A if she could not. Z only wants what she feels is best for him.  Contact has been a real struggle for her. She told me only this morning how very difficult it is to go along to contact knowing or believing that contact will be terminated.  She has taken up a very limited amount of contact and explained her desire to protect A from the fact that she found contact so distressing by reducing the number of her visits. 

 

14              Today she brought along some photographs of her and A.  He is a very beautiful baby and it is clear from the photos that she loves him very much.  He was born with a cleft palate and has since had an operation on the palate and his lip. I understand he has made a good recovery.

 

15              The local authority relies on the evidence of the social work team and the independent social worker, Carol Edwards.  Carol Edwards saw Mother and A for two periods of three hours.  There were no further meetings after Mother disengaged. Miss Edwards  completed her assessment on the basis of that disengagement.

 

16              In Miss Edwards’s view Z’s actions should be viewed as basically protective as they demonstrate an early self awareness in Mother that she could not meet A’s needs. It takes real courage and maturity to even begin to articulate such awareness.

 

17               Overall however Miss Edwards considers Mother  has only a limited understanding of A’s need for stability and security. This is not  surprising when considering the lack of stability and security in her own life. Mothers current chaotic life style   provides no basis on which to conclude  she could prioritise A’s needs over her own unmet needs. 

 

18              Hearing from Z today has confirmed my view that A is a very loved and a very much wanted baby.  However Mother is still only 16 and  cannot meet the needs of A on her own . She has no effective role models, no family or social structure to support her or supplement her care of A .

 

19              The local authority has conducted viability assessments of the maternal grandmother, the maternal grandfather and completed a full special guardianship assessment of the maternal aunt, all of which are negative.

 

20              The basis on which a court can consider making public law orders is set out in  Section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 which says this:

 

“A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied that (a) the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.”

 

21              In this case, the threshold has been agreed between the parties. The  agreed statement of threshold is contained at pages 47 to 48 of my bundle.  The recent Court of Appeal authorities of Re. B, Re. G, Re. BS and Re. W remind the court that adoption is the order of last resort.  The court cannot apply the yardstick of proportionality without looking at the totality of the evidence and considering the internal positives and negatives of the realistic options for the child and where necessary ensuring the local authority inputs essential resources to enable a family placement to be effected.

 

22              In order to complete that evaluation in the context of applications for both care orders and placement orders, the court must consider both the provisions of the Children Act and the Adoption and Children Act.  Under section 1 of the Children Act, the welfare of each child is paramount in the considerations of the upbringing of that child.  In this case, the provisions of section 1(3) of the checklist which I consider to have particular significance are as follows:

 

(a)   the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned.

A is very young and so cannot articulate his wishes, but it is clear he responds very well to his mother and has enjoyed positive and meaningful contact. 

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs. 

He is young, vulnerable, with changing and developing needs.  He has some medical needs that remained to be assessed following his recent operation.  His mother has, in my view, struggled with the need to allow his needs to be prioritised over her own, which is demonstrated by the difficulties that she had in going along to contact and to commit to a regular programme of contact for A.

 

 (c)  the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances.

 I calculate that he is already in his third placement.  He was with his Mother  and then he had a short period with a  foster carer after the mother and baby placement broke down.  He is now with his second   foster carer.  His current foster carer has confirmed that she is unable to offer a permanent home for him, although Z had hoped that he might be able to remain with her if she could not  resume  care. Family finding advise that, in light of A’s age and his general health, they are optimistic about the prospect of finding an appropriate placement for him.  It will however become more challenging for him to move as he gets older. It is essential that if he is to move he does so at a time when his attachments are not fixed but developing.

 

  (d), his age, sex, background and any other characteristics of his which the court considers relevant. 

A is of dual white Caucasian and Pakistani origin.  He is very young and he needs to be in a permanent placement at a time when he can form secure and enduring attachments.   He has had some limited medical needs which may affect placement, but the evidence of Family Finding suggests are optimistic about finding an appropriate family for him.

 

e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering. 

The risk is to A’s emotional health as Z does not, currently, have the skills or experience, or support  available  to enable her to prioritise A’s needs over her own.

 

(f) how capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting his needs. 

I have absolutely no doubt that Z loves A very much, but in consequence of her  own poor childhood  and  poor support within the community she is unable to understand and  prioritise his need for security, stability and commitment over her own unmet needs. 

 

23              Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 the paramount consideration of the court must be the child’s welfare throughout their life: - significantly it is not just until the end of the child’s minority.  The additional sections of the checklist which I feel are most pertinent to A are ;

 

 (c), the likely effect on the child throughout his life of having ceased to be a member of the original family and becoming an adopted person.  A will lose his connection with his birth family. It maybe, that his cultural heritage will not be easily replicated in the context of a future placement.  Z has made very clear her views about his heritage and placement which have been noted by the local authority.  Placement decisions will have an impact on A’s emotional, social and educational development unless properly supported.

 

 (d), the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant.

A is a small, essentially healthy, and baby of dual heritage. His heritage   is likely to have an impact on the pool of available and appropriate carers. 

 (e) any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

 

 Z is unable to offer the level of commitment, security and stability he needs and that there is a high risk of placement breakdown.  She has no close family or friends and she has not been able to effect a long-standing and enduring relationship with the agencies.  It is probable that such a placement would therefore not be sustainable.

 

(f) the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including;-

(i) the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so

 

  A lived for a short time with his maternal grandmother and maternal aunt, although Z was the primary carer.  That arrangement continued until 1 August of last year.  The assessments of the maternal grandfather, maternal grandmother and maternal aunt were negative in part because of the lack of grand parental insight into their own role in mother’s life.  The maternal aunt similarly had limited insight into the role of the family and its impact upon Z.  This was demonstrated  in the maternal aunts  response to the outcome of the assessment. The maternal grandmother and grandfather and maternal aunt have not articulated any ongoing wish to care for A.

(5) In placing the child for adoption, the adoption agency must give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background

 

He is a young baby of dual heritage. His lanaguage has not developed.

His mother does not actively practice a religion.

 

 

24              Looking at the placement options for A they are effectively; a) placement with Z supported by the local authority and b) adoption.  Z adores her son.  It is clear that he was a wanted child.  At 16 Z  wanted to enjoy the unconditional love of her child in a way that she had never felt loved by her family. I agree with the independent social worker that she was intellectually aware of the challenges of caring for A and knew with her head, if not her heart, that she was not ready when she declared  that A deserved better than she could offer.  The way she subsequently disengaged from the services and her very understandable withdrawal from contact leads me to conclude that she has not developed the maturity, insight and ability to identify and meet A’s needs over her own at this stage or within A’s timeframe.  He is young and vulnerable and needs a permanent, secure family with limited disruption.

 

 

25              As to adoption, A needs stability and security and commitment.  He is clearly a well loved baby and adored by his current carer as well as his mother.  Sadly, that carer is not able to offer him a permanent home. Adoption will mean he loses his connection with his birth family.  His dual heritage may not be replicated but his welfare throughout his minority will be best met by a family that commits to him for ever, where he will have the permanence, security and stability in placement that his young mum is simply unable to offer at this time.

 

26              On balance, I am clear that I must go on to make a care order and a placement order since such orders are the only orders  that will meet A’s welfare needs throughout his life.

 

27              In considering the provisions of section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act, I am clear that Z’s consent must be dispensed with to enable the plan to be implemented. A’s welfare demands it.  The local authority will have to ensure that the issue of contact is looked at in the context of any placement.  I do not consider it would be appropriate to fetter or anticipate the views of any adopters and approve the local authority care plan for the reduction  of  parental contact .

__________