England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> The Local Authority v TQ & J B-W [2014] EWFC B178 (18 December 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B178.html
Cite as: [2014] EWFC B178

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


		Case No: CV14C00823

IN THE COVENTRY COUNTY COURT

Courtroom No. 1
140 Much Park Street
Coventry
West Midlands
CV1 2SN

18th December 2014

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE WATSON
____________________

	THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
	and
	TQ and J B-W

____________________

Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

____________________

MISS S TRUNDLEY appeared on behalf of the Local Authority
MISS C STEPHENS appeared on behalf of TQ
MISS R WILCOCK appeared on behalf of J B-W
MISS Y PEMBLETON appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 B-W
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

HHJ WATSON:

The court is concerned with two boys, R1 B-W, born on 6 April 2008, so he is six, and his brother, who is a year older, R2 B-W, born 4 April 2007, now seven. I note that this is the second set of care proceedings. The first concluded with a residence order in favour of the children's father, Mr J B-W in August of 2013.

Sadly, the father's care of the boys deteriorated and the trigger for the Local Authority's application was when R1 reported to school when he had a nosebleed that his father had kicked him in the face. That matter was investigated by the police but was not pursued. Care proceedings were issued and an interim care order was made. That was in July of this year. The father disengaged from the Children's Services. He acknowledged to the social worker that he could not and had not been coping with the boys.

I am told that the mother has not attended any contact since proceedings were issued in July of this year and, furthermore, had not attended contact with the boys, notwithstanding they were living with their father, from April of this year. Given the ages of the children, that absence of their mother from their lives is a very significant factor. It is an indication that the mother was prioritising other issues and concerns in her life over the relationship with her two sons. That the father has also disengaged and not taken up contact is a further rejection that the boys have had to experience and one which must have impacted on their wellbeing.

The position of the mother today has been set out by Miss Stephens on her behalf. She does not seek the return of the children to her care but she does not agree that adoption is in the best interests of the children because she wishes to retain the chance, the possibility, of engaging in the future in contact with her sons. The Local Authority, quite properly, investigated alternative family members to see whether they could offer a home for the boys, and I have seen an assessment of the maternal aunt, SQ and her partner, IT, and there was a recognition that both are concerned about the children and would very much have liked to have offered a home to the boys, but this was not possible because they now require better than adequate parenting.

These boys are in need of very specialist and nurturing parents, and it was felt that, despite SQ and IT's desire to care for the children, that they were not in a position because of their own circumstances and because of their role within the family to protect the children from further disruption from birth mother and father. Mr T and Miss Q had indicated that they would challenge within the court proceedings the negative assessment, but I am told that on the 10^th of this month, so just a few days ago, they attended court, the issues resolution hearing listed for a final hearing, and acknowledged that they were not recommended to have the care of the boys and decided to step back and to allow the proceedings to continue, knowing that the outcome of the proceedings would be for the boys to find an adoptive home. Mr T and Miss Q indicated that what the children needed now was a settled family home, and they accepted that they were not in a position to do provide this.

J B-W, learning of that change of position, recognised that he was not in a position to care for R1 and R2 himself, recognised that the family members were equally not able to care for the two boys and made a difficult decision, but nevertheless one which indicated that he has developed some maturity and insight into the needs of R1 and R2, and decided that he would not oppose the making of the care orders and placement orders, understanding that the boys would be placed for adoption.

I have also seen the assessment of Dr Wass the child psychologist tasked with assessing the sibling relationship between R1 and R2. Dr Wass described the relationship as being the most important of all their family relationships. The alternatives, therefore, are narrowed down to two. Either the Local Authority's plan, which is supported by the guardian, for adoption or long-term fostering.

The advantages and disadvantages are well known of the two types of placement, but in this particular case it is right that I highlight that because there has been a lack of commitment to contact on behalf of both Mr B-W and Miss Q, the significance of the continuation of contact becomes much less than in some cases. Where there has been uptake of contact and there is an intense involvement with the birth family the significance of severing that relationship is greater. In this case, that relationship has already been severed. It was severed unilaterally by the mother in April of this year when she ceased attending contact and by the father when he disengaged from the proceedings.

In those circumstances the boys, in the words of Dr Wass, concentrate on the most significant and important relationship to them, which is their sibling relationship. Because the Local Authority's plan is for an adoptive placement together, that significant relationship will continue. I have to weigh against the benefits of an adoptive placement, which offers a secure, nurturing family home in a family which is sometimes described as a forever family, a family who are committed lifelong to the children, against that I have to put into the balance the benefits of long-term fostering were to remain in their current placement where they are settled and happy. Nevertheless, long-term fostering is an institutional placement and with it comes statutory visits and the involvement of the Children's Services for the duration of their childhood.

R1 and R2 are young enough that they can benefit from the normalisation of family life within an adoptive family. They will have the advantages of growing up as part of an extended family and in my finding that is what these boys need most at this time. They need a secure, settled placement that can meet both their physical and emotional needs. That could be provided by a long-term fostering placement, but it is best provided, in my finding and within an adoptive placement.

The care plan for adoption needs to be progressed quickly because the children are it has been described as at the upper age of placement for adoption. They are six and seven. The social worker and the guardian have both in their analyses, in their final evidence and briefly in their evidence in court set out the current position of the children, and I am quite satisfied that there has been a very careful analysis of the advantages to them of an adoptive placement and I wholly endorse the analysis of the guardian and the social worker in deciding that the children's best interests is now determined by the making of a permanent placement outside the family and that because of the particular needs of these children that that is best found in an adoptive placement rather than in a long-term fostering placement.

The current arrangement is that they are in an agency placement. I have been told by the guardian that if the boys cannot be placed for adoption and no matching is found that potentially they could remain in their current placement, but it is only a potential consideration because the Local Authorities notoriously do not like the ongoing financial commitment of agency placements. There is no guarantee that the boys would remain in the current placement. I am satisfied that they have a chance, and a good chance in my judgment, of being found an adoptive home and that that should now be actively and quickly explored to enable a placement as soon as possible.

I have now decided that the care orders are in the best interests of the children. The threshold criteria are met and I have approved the care plan. That care plan is one of adoption. There is no doubt in my mind that that is in the best interests of the children and that their welfare now requires that I dispense with parental consent to enable both adoption placements to go ahead. If I had any doubt that the mother, if she had attended either at court today or on the last occasion, would have had anything to add to what has been said on behalf then I would have most certainly considered an adjournment, but I am quite satisfied that what these children now need more than anything else is a decision and a decision which enables them to move to the next stage of their life, which is a permanent home and I hope an adoptive home, so I will make the care orders, I make the placement orders and I dispense with the parental consent.

As is the way of things, if there is a contested final hearing now the transcript will be provided, so I will direct that a transcript of my judgment be produced and that can then be kept by the boys and, indeed, both Miss Q and Mr B-W will have the benefit of seeing the judgment.