England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT COURT                                                Case No.  LS14Z00206

SITTING AT LEEDS

Civil Hearing Centre

Coverdale House

13-15 East Parade

Leeds

LS1 2BH

Monday, 18^th August 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE HILLIER

In the matter of the Adoption and Children Act 2002:

Re:  R (Revocation of Placement order: Unacceptable delay)

______________________

Counsel for the Local Authority:                                                                       MR McGRATH

No appearance by the Parents

Counsel for the Child:                                                                                          MS RUSSELL

______________________

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

DX: 26258 Rawtenstall – Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

Number of Folios:  28

Number of Words:  2,018

JUDGMENT

1.                  THE JUDGE:  I am concerned with a young boy who I shall call Kevin (not his real name) who was born in 2008.  The applicant is Calderdale MBC, represented by Mr McGrath.  Kevin’s parents are not present and are not represented. The children’s guardian is Kevin Feeney and he is represented today by Miss Russell.  The application before me is an application made by the local authority to revoke a placement order that was made in Leeds County Court on 24 April 2009.  The application was made on 24 June 2014, over five years after the placement order was made. 

2.                  The chronology of these proceedings is that they were allocated to me for case management and hearing. At the very first hearing I raised concerns about the extraordinary delays which have occurred in Kevin’s life.  Kevin is in a long term foster placement where he has been placed since he was 11 weeks old.  His mother sees him about three times a year and she has been notified of these proceedings but has chosen not to take part.  She gets on well with Kevin’s foster carers.  I am told that she does not oppose this application.    Kevin’s father has been written to at his last known address.  He has not had any involvement with Kevin for five years now and has not attended these hearings. 

3.                  The local authority proposes that the placement order is revoked now because no adoptive placement has been found for Kevin. Revocation is supported by Mr Feeney, Kevin’s Children’s guardian. 

4.                  It is quite an unremarkable case in some ways.  It is a case where the plan was for adoption, an adoptive placement could not be found and the plan was changed. There has however been very significant delay. The saving grace is that Kevin has remained throughout with his foster carers and they are very, very special people.  He has very severe disability.  He has a profound learning disability, he is non-verbal and he relies on his carers totally for his nutrition, for his bathing, for his toileting and to respond to multiple medical conditions.  Kevin has a neurological condition which may well be life limiting.  He has chronic lung disease, central hypotonia, an atrial septal defect, a left atrial shunt and he has global developmental delay. 

5.                  The care of this young man has been undertaken by his foster carers who have an excellent relationship with him and some may be surprised that it was ever considered sensible to move him from them.  On 9^th February 2009 the adoption panel agreed that Kevin should be placed for adoption. A full care order and a placement order were made later in 2009.

6.                  On 6^th January 2010 the independent reviewing officer agreed that in fact it was very unlikely that an adoptive placement would be found for Kevin and he should be matched for long term fostering with the carers who have taken care of him since birth. On 22^nd June 2010 details were requested of the long term plan for Kevin and on 30^th June 2010 the panel was notified that fostering was the long term plan.  So as early as June 2010 it was known that no adoption placement would be found for Kevin.  The independent reviewing officer again recorded that the plan for Kevin was to remain in long term foster care and on 10^th January 2011 the adoption panel agreed that long term fostering was in his best interests.  That led on 15^th February, some five days later, to the fostering panel matching his carers with Kevin.

7.                  On 22^nd February 2011 it was clearly flagged up that an application should be made for the placement order to be revoked.  The social worker was however informed that the legal team would not apply for revocation of the placement order unless the parents requested it.  That advice was astonishing, bearing in mind the fact that these parents were in no position to make an application to revoke the placement order nor were they likely to ask the local authority to do so.  Any local authority lawyer would know the parents would not qualify for public funding to do so and, given the fact that father was not having any contact, mother was only having contact three times a year and had further family who were subject to proceedings, they should have known that such an application, or even a request to make an application, was simply not going to happen.

8.                  As a result of seeing the delay that had occurred between April 2011 and April 2014 I asked that the matter be investigated.  I am very grateful to Sean Walsh, who is the service manager at Calderdale, for his statement dated 21^st July which deals with the delays to the case. 

9.                  At paragraph 7 of his statement he acknowledges that the delays have been unacceptable and states that the department sincerely apologises.  In summary he acknowledged that there has been a completely unacceptable level of delay from the child looked after review meeting recommending a change in Kevin’s plan in January 2010 and the local authority application to revoke the placement order in June 2014.  The delay appears to be as a result of a combination of factors which are now impossible to clarify.  He assures me that the current management team and legal team will undertake a joint internal analysis with the departments involved as to how and why this case did not adhere to the procedures and policies in place.

10.              Mr Walsh concludes as follows: 

“However, I am confident that this is a unique chain of events that will never be repeated.  There are now robust procedures and tracking systems in place that would ensure that this could not happen again.  I again sincerely apologise to the court and the parties involved.”

11.              As the designated family judge for West Yorkshire I have dealt with an unacceptable number of applications to revoke freeing orders which were very historic. I have ensured that they have now all been dealt with.

12.              I have now started to hear a raft of applications to revoke placement orders where there has been an unacceptable delay. All five local authorities need to ensure that there are robust procedures in place to prevent this, and that they are adhered to. When it becomes clear that adoption is not going to be possible action must be taken.  I have warned all the local authorities in West Yorkshire that applications for revocation of placement orders where there has been a long delay will be referred to me.

13.              In this case I am really pleased to record that Kevin has remained with these excellent foster carers since he was a very little boy. There has not been any significant detriment to Kevin or to his parents that this placement order has remained in place but one can imagine cases where there could have been and I am concerned for other children who are languishing in a similar situation that their needs might be compromised by a failure to act.  It must not be left up to parents to act.  

14.              I am satisfied on the basis of the social work assessment and on the basis of the excellent report provided by the children’s guardian that revocation of the placement order made on 24^th April 2009 should be made with a view to permanency for Kevin being achieved by means of him remaining in his current placement as a long term foster child.  I understand fully why the foster carers have decided not to proceed with an application for a special guardianship order given his complex needs, the uncertainty of his future and the fact that they may have to share in decisions about end of life actions with his parents given his very severe medical complications.  I am satisfied that it is in his best interests for the order to be revoked and I do so.

15.              I also order a transcript of this to be prepared at the local authority’s expense so that it can be shared with the legal team and they can in due course report back to me about the reasons why this went so badly wrong.

[Judgment ends]